Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer". The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The …
You see, the polar ice WOULD be retreating, except the measures taken to reduce CO2 emissions are already having an effect.
This shows that WE WERE RIGHT.
Of course, there's a long way to go yet, after all, we want to keep our new industry alive, our living depends on it.
Meantime we'll take action to prevent the reckless release of factual data to the great unwashed so they can't find out what's really happening in future.
Probably by having the data restricted in case it's used by terrorists.
Remember: We are RIGHT. We know best
Paris? Because SHE knows when she's being fucked over.
>Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.
Oi, that's Math Abuse. You can't take ratios of ratios like that; fourth form error, sir.
I see the author has "no current university affiliation".
There's a surprise, then.
A lot like this article. There's a bit of media bashing in the article - when that kind of thing comes from a member of the media, those claims loose a lot of their value. Maybe Mr. Goddard should be affiliated with a university of some sort. There's a lot to be learned about how to craft a solid response to a debatable point.
Why is there so much confusion?
Why are so many scientists saying that the ice caps are melting, and yet you seem to present some proof to the contrary? How hard is it to measure this stuff? I would just like to know if the caps are melting or not.
One small point to make. The pictures don't show the depth of the ice (and thereby the total volume) at the various times, only the surface area. Is there any reliable info on this?
Now that Paris has solved the energy crisis, maybe she can apply her ample brains to the "Great Global Warming Debate".
If you check http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html it seems that the ice extent is not too large. All depends on the source... and the information you believe is correct. The thing is that all those graphs are valid and constructed in slightly different ways... Differences also arise basing on different software used to decide 'which colour' the pixel should be and the automatic interpretation of 'ice free' is sometimes a bit difficult too. All in all leads to making comments like you did, substantiated by some evidence, fairly easy. But IMHO one needs to be very careful with generalisations... and claims that this source of information is right and the other is wrong.
Finally, the area of ice - independent on the source of information you are using - is much smaller than it used to be, on average, in 80's and 90's. But true, it is unlikely that whole ice will melt this year and I am happy about that. Those claims were made earlier this year when the ice area seemed to be below those in 2007...
Well there is a surprise, bloody weather forecasters have enough trouble trying to tell if it is going to rain tomorrow let alone predicting when we are all going to get burnt to a cinder.
Now what's the next armageddon story, mine's a pint of carling please !
Why it - 'cause the media is full of *&IT
Now, instead of just *asking* these questions, which are strongly suggestive of bias, would it be possible to actually get them to account for their methodology? Their chart states that their criteria is 15% sea ice by area, which suggests that they don't count pixels (although doing this could be a useful sense check). Does anyone have any idea why this is?
While you're at it, get James Hansen on to explain why his temperature data seems to be skewed up the way (if he'll speak to you). I'd love for you guys to at least try and get some response from them, even if it is 'fuck off'.
I've found these articles and the related discussions pretty interesting and it would be good to hear from the horse's mouths how these things are arrived at.
im sure you took into consideration that warmer temperatures will result in thinner ice, so that while the coverage could be the same (or even greater) it will be a lot thinner meaning LESS ice?
knowing that you are a respectalbe journo in a top notch publication and would never slap a half finished story on the desk to get out early on a high note of hysteria i will assume that it was an accidental omission and in no way brought about by a desire to sex it up.
with messing about with the data and statistics to reinforce a story you know is crap but can't tell anyone, you soon forget what you did to the real data.
mmmmm ...... When it's proven that Global Warming is nothing more than a phase in the Earths' natural heating/cooling cycle, what are these doomsaying jokers going to do? They'll be the laughing stock of the entire planet, not just the scientific community. Poor sods will be on trial for crimes against humanity.
Remember kids, if you don't lie, you won't have remember anything.
It obviously doesn't fit in with the MMGW scare stuff and the heretic who wrote it should be nailed to a wall somewhere.
Facts..we don't need no stinkin facts to hail the great religion of MMGW.
Phew -close one that but I think nobody will notice.
Nothing to see here...these are not the graphs your looking for...move along...
Great stuff guys. the sooner these MMGW fruit loops are discredited the better.
Anonymous -cos I don't want the eco inquisition grabbing me with their comfy chair etc...
Let's not get into a frenzy of "So, there's more ice than there was, rather than less, which isn't what YOU predicted, you doom-mongering, tree-hugging AGW enviro-nazis"
Let's make that attack in a calm, yet derisive manner.
Much more dignified.
Bugger that!
More ICE!
get it RIGHT up ye!
Throw another shovel-full of coal on that fire!
Simpel really. The northern hemisphere is highly industrialised so, on top of the usual reasons for ice melt (currents, vulcanism, wind direction and so on) there's also the addition of large amounts of soot, mostly from China and eastern europe. The soot carries up to the arctic, settles on the ice, lowers its albedo and... melting! Oddly enough this was one of the "fixes" posited for the media-driven global cooling scare in the 70s. It doesn't have the hugest effect but it is a contributing factor, unlike the whole CO2 thing.
The antarctic, of course, doesn't get that soot because the southern hemisphere is relatively free of the stuff, so it'll just keep right on growing.
or even if they meantion it in any real depth - which I doubt.
Because people then may start to realise that climate change has been blown all out of proportion like the war on terror which is constantly push down our necks and has really achieved nothing than make our lifes more expensive and more miserable, not unlike peak oil thoery.
*\. Putting mine on as its a bit cold round here with this global warming.
*Meeting of head muppets at the Al Gore Centre For Dodgy Climate Change Crap Science Institute Of Failure*
/Scientesticle1
Soooo, Antartic and Artic are not melting, polar bears are not swimming for miles and we are not all drowning in meltwater...
/Scientesticle2
Well, we could bamboozle them with some stupid idea that the global warming has some kind of malicious intelligence and it got bored with the Artic and is now global warming the Sahara instead
/Scientesticle1
Yeah yeah, and we could say that all the shit weather people in northern europe are getting is caused by Global Warming's little red headed step brother, Regional Raining.
/Scientesticle2
OK, you get on the phone to Al, I'll start on the story for the new movie...
/Scientesticle1
And remember, do NOT call it "a convenient lie"
"The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on "global warming""
You've got it all wrong... global warming was the phraseology used last time the gubermint used the environment as a scare tactic to increase taxes... this time they realised that if they used the same wording, people would twig that it didn't make a jot of difference last time. This time they call it "climate change". (you could also argue that people realised that things were getting colder - not condusive to global *warming*)
The earth is always going through climate change - thus we know of things such as ice ages, and the fact that the romans grew grapes for wine in scotland. I suspect it cycles roughly every 11 years (in line with sunspots), and sometimes it goes further than others.
In the words of a great author: "DON'T PANIC" (in large friendly letters)
Thank you El Reg for the well reported difference in the polar ice coverage. When you are talking about such a large system such as the Earth's climate with a billion variables, I can't see why people allow themselves to knee-jerk unnecessarily.
1000 years ago it was warm enough in York to have flourishing vineyards (more here: http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/spotlight-english-wine.asp ). I think evidence like this with something so colossal as the climate you have to try and look back more than 30-40 years to get any idea of what may come and the natural cycles of the earth's temperature.
You seem to be comparing apples and bananas.
The positive numbers are talking of the area covered with ice, not the mass of it like the Norwegian numbers.
A 1000 sqkm plate of ice 10 meter thick equals 330 sqkm ice 30 meters thick in mass, while only being 1/3 in apparent size.
Ole
So we had reports that the north pole was going to be "ice free for the first time" did we? Funny that, because it's been ice free several times. But I suppose a headline like "the north pole will be ice free for the umpteenth time" doesn't grab the attention.
The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that scientists, or at least their press offices, are starting to follow the lead of politicians in not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
When a politician tells you that facts are stupid things then you shrug. When a scientist does the same it's probably time to panic.
"Is any of the global warming crap based on science? Solid or otherwise?"
Yes.
CO2 is transparent to visible and opaque to IR. The sun is 6000K so peak output is in the visible range. The earth is merely warm at about 280K so peak output is in the IR range.
Therefore energy coming in is finding it easy. Energy getting out is finding it hard.
Or do you have trouble working out how your thermos knows whether its contents are hot or cold and so know how to keep them that way?
The camp citing imminent meltdown is similar to the camp saying it's business as usual...there's not yet signs of meltdown...we haven't got enough data yet, it will take years, maybe decades. But there are some trends:
"Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3.6 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small."
I'm afraid I can't quite understand why it seems so difficult to decide whether an image pixel shows ice or not.
If its ice, its, well, white.
Water isn't usually white...or even close to it.
So why is it so hard to measure ice cover?
Come to that, they could send a plane over to LOOK at the coverage..or wouldn't this method give the results they want to find?
I like the Cryosphere Today site, because they are strong global warming advocates and yet they don't mind showing data that goes against their beliefs. So, if they don't hide data that disagree with their beliefs, they can be trusted.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Their data still shows arctic sea ice above last year. And the antarctic sea ice is above last year's record high too.
But there is still no mention of the volcanic activity under the arctic and antarctic. What is amazing is the antarctic is reaching record highs with a volcano under a part of it. Part of the antarctic ice broke off, and the media said it was global warming all the while ignore that the antarctic is above normal for sea ice coverage.
You want a good conspiracy?
Try this one on for size...
Al "I invented the internet" Gore gets a bunch of his rich buddies together and then they decide to invest heavily in to alternative energy projects. They figure that if they can get enough panic or fear started, then others will look to alternatives on CO2 production. Also he's working with his banker/trader buddies to cook up a carbon trading schemes so that companies that can not afford to make the radical shift in cleaning up their act can then ease the pain by trading carbon credits. (Also allowing companies that don't produce carbon byproducts can then make some extra cash.) (And the traders make money in an artificial economy)
So what you have is a group of rich people making more money from a public which gets their facts from Wikipedia.
Now is it a good idea to clean up our act? Sure. Will we act unless driven in to a hysterical panic? Probably not. So while these unnamed "gore-ites" get rich, they can ease their conscious that they are doing good by being environmental con-men.
T-Boon Pickens an oil man just looking to cash in on his huge investments in wind power productions.
Oops! I've said too much!
From the New Scientist article I was reading last week, the THICKNESS of the arctic ice at the north pole this year was something like 25% of what it was a few years ago. The problem here is that you are discussing the AREA of arctic ice, whereas the important thing is VOLUME. Also, I would imagine it is quite conceivable that if ice sheets are breaking up, it would look, from space, like the total ice area were increasing, since there would be a certain amount of 'spreading out' of the ice sheet going on. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe in the large amount of research being done, where accurate mneasurements are being taken, actually on the ice, by qualified scientists, than some observations taken from space, on a scale which is most likely around the kilometre mark.
So, to summarise, 'YOU AM FAIL'.
The massive flaw in the argument presented here - that the thickness of the ice hasn't been considered - was notified here more than 4 hours ago. I realise it's Friday afternoon and all that, but shouldn't you either fix the article or add a disclaimer or something? Or is this just meant to be a load of old Jeremy Clarkson style bollocks to give people something to get worked up over for the weekend?
Surely the way science works is that:
1 - people gather data
2 - they write a paper describing their conclusions
3 - they publish the paper AND THE DATA, for other people to examine
4 - if no one can find a hole in anything, the conclusions are accepted
So, if we have an issue with ice coverage, where is the raw data, and any information on corrections applied, so that we can all examine it and determine if anyone is wrong?
Just one of the huge number of problems associated with climate science as practiced in the 21st century is that the base data is often not made public, but instead 'peer reviewed' by a few of your friends. Then a completely spurious claim is held to be 'proven'. Something like this: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
And don't call me Shirley...
...and it's not just the thickness of the ice (which is incidently hard enough to measure) but it's also the density that matters. There are different types of ice depending on how long it's been there for, along with a number of other parameters.
It's such a shame that the Cryosat satellite exploded and got a little bit too close to the action by landing in the sea:
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAOMH1VMOC_LPcryosat_0.html
I think it's a really interesting mission and would help answer some of the questions surrounding the properties of the polar regions.
"Just one of the huge number of problems associated with climate science as practiced in the 21st century is that the base data is often not made public, but instead 'peer reviewed' by a few of your friends. Then a completely spurious claim is held to be 'proven'."
Speaking as a scientist who publishes papers, I can say that this statement is complete BS. If I ever tried to publish a paper without including the data, it'd be deep-sixed by the journal editors before even making it to the peer review stage.
I'm not sure if the commenter understands how science publications work...
After writing my last article, I made the mistake of discussing it on "realclimate." It was a mistake because Gavin censored and selectively edited a number of my responses - eventually blocking them completely. They were all polite, on topic and directly answering the questions asked of me.
"realclimate" does not offer a level playing field, and I won't make the same mistake again.
My methodology is quite simple and standard, and uses published maps from NSIDC. Either the maps or wrong, or the graphs are wrong. Which one is it? The maps appear to accurately represent satellite photos from NASA, so my conclusion is that the fault lies with the graphs.
Uhm. No. "All the graphs are valid" is complete bull shit. Some of them MAY be doing it correct and actually getting a number that is CLOSE to the truth (in case you have been sucked up in the AGW debate for too long, the "truth" is actually a way of saying what is actually going on versus what people think (or more often) HOPE is going on).
Those are the valid graphs.
All the other that are far off into "left field" (baseball term), are NOT valid! The results they are publishing are NOT close to the "truth", therefore they CAN'T be valid. Remember the old programing axiom: Garbage in, garbage out.
...when you ask her a maths question
I used to be a true believer. That was strengthened by the flaky and shady nature of the opposition - paid shills from the various industries that would see a loss of revenue were it all true.
After a while I came to the conclusion that I didn't care any more, it's not like the yanks, Chinese and Indians are going to be changing their ways, right?
And now there seems to be a variety of evidence saying either it's not happening, or cutting back is working (not that we ever cut back, just scaled back the increases), or that something else we're doing might be mitigating the effects.
You know what? Fuck it. I'll drive a big car and pay the inevitable taxes and try my best to ignore it all.
"Therefore energy coming in is finding it easy. Energy getting out is finding it hard."
Why isn't the temperature of the Earth rising significantly then?
"Or do you have trouble working out how your thermos knows whether its contents are hot or cold and so know how to keep them that way?"
I always presumed it was the thermos fairy....
There is no mention of what data the NSIDC used. But I would presume they did a more in depth analysis than to count the number of pixels.
First of all pixels are two dimensional.
If the ice in areas that has been white all along actually shrunk obviously the total amount of ice could be lower even though the ice field is wider.
You can't simply count pixels and take that as a proof that global climate change is a scam to raise taxes. What an absurd idea.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is stable and does not break down. We add more and more of it to the atmosphere every year. Without greenhouse gasses the average temperature on Earth would be a chilly 14 C (57 F) lower than it is. No one disputes this.
Can someone please tell me how the gasses can raise the temperature by 14 C so we get a nice and comfy climate but do nothing if we keep adding more of the same gasses. It just doesn't make any sense.
I'm taking all this both with an open mind and a grain of salt, suppose I had a block of ice 100m thick, and it melted at 1m per year, at end of year one we all agree it will have decreased by 1%, now 98 years later we have only 2m left, from one perspective it has been melting at nice none alarming constant 1m per year, from another perspective last year it melted by 33%, this year it is going to melt by 50%, and next year 100%, obviously, the melting is accelerating at an alarming geometric rate!! Isn't Math fun!
Now, I read in comments that according to "New Scientist" the thickness is something like 25% what it was a few years ago, but actually to quote New Scientist it said "Earlier studies had already shown that the extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level in 2007, 23 per cent below the previous minimum set in 2005." There is a huge difference in 25% and 77%(23%less). it seems to me that if 1/4 the area had melted completely (100%), and the other 3/4 didn't melt at all, by using a little math magic you could justify saying the average was 25%. now obviously this isn't what has happened, just illustrating a point, like with the "Block of ice" , so, can we say the new ice 2008 indicates a thickening of 100%??
Here is what I think: new ice is thicker than no ice, that thickening over established ice will be slow because it will rely less on freezing and more on precipitation. with the decrease in average global temperature 2007-2008 the ice will continue to spread short term limited mainly by variations in the North Atlantic currents. that long term the northwest passage will sometimes be open and sometimes it will be frozen, it's happened before, will happen again.
It's called climate change, it's been with us 4.5 billion years, and will be until our sun expires.
I vividly remember Mr. Goddard's piece on the icecaps that linked to an article in the Independent. If you actually went over and read it, which Mr. Goddard most likely didn't take into account you might do, you would have found that the article simply states that there was a greater than 50% chance of an open ocean this year at the pole, and it possibly being reachable by surface craft.
Nobody quoted in the Independent article said the pole would be ice free, as Mr. Goddard claimed. Now he goes and debunks the prediction he himself falsely constructed, linking to the very article he made it up in.
That is Mr. Goddard's understanding of science to you.
Interesting article in New Scientist - apparently (so it is claimed) medium term patterns in global climate change depend on (currently poorly understood) cycles in ocean temperatures rather than CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This effect has led to periods in the last couple of centuries where global atmospheric temperatures have temporarily stabilised, or even decreased. However, as soon as the cooling part of the oceanic cycle ended, global temperatures increased one again, broadly following the long term trend predicted by global warming theories.
This ocean cooling theory goes a long way to explaining how it was that despite a two century long period of CO2 addition to the atmosphere we briefly feared (up to the 70s) the onset of a mini-ice age. This was, it seems, an illusion created by a medium term fluctuation stamped onto a longer trend of warming. It looks like we can expect another period of oceanic cooling in the very near future, followed by another extended period of warming picking up roughly where we left off.
It would be rather naive to expect global temperature changes to always follow nice, smooth, predictable graph slopes. Rather than see this as the evidence the conspiracy theorists have been looking for, we should treat it as an opportunity to accelerate the development of renewables in the hope of stiffling the next global warming phase before it hits us.
Rather than just counting the number of pixels, you should also take note of the colour of the pixel. They are colour coded to indicate the percentage cover of ice - red = 60%, purple = 80%. A lot of the new ice this year seems to be at a lower coverage than last years ice cap. If you took that difference into account you would probably find that your estimation is much closer to the NSIDC calculation.
Everyone has them.
Please predict the weather tomorrow. What is the ratio of correctness? If the "models" don't get this right, what business do they have predicting "climate change", or whatever they call it today?
Maybe they were all using floating point from original Pentiums, who knows?
From Greg: "I'm taking all this both with an open mind and a grain of salt, suppose I had a block of ice 100m thick, and it melted at 1m per year, at end of year one we all agree it will have decreased by 1%"
Anyone with a normal understanding of reality might agree, but if one were to follow the oh-so-well-informed climate change denial analysis in the article, it won't have melted at all, even if it is down to 0.1m thick.
Some people suspect there is a self-serving narrow-minded agenda to push a particular selective interpretation of the data for financial reward; they are right, the journalism of The Register is a first-class example.
As has been said before, if The Register cannot get the science right, perhaps it could at least attempt to get the journalism right, and ask others to explain their interpretation of the data.
I expect the reason that it does not is that The Register would find this too embarrassing. Its climate-change-denial agenda would collapse like the house of cards that it is. It would also undermine its attempts to push up its visitor numbers with these troll pseudo-science articles that do little more than preach to a depressingly large gallery of fellow deniers who don't apperar to understand uncontested basic science about the behaviour of C02 and the notions of steady state conditions, or the nature of peer-reviewed science.
These articles are undermining the credibility of this outfit. All we need now is a steady drip of articles preaching intelligent design and arguing that evolution is a conspiracy made up by a bunch of cynical self-serving scientists. No doubt just as many readers would agree and cheer you on.
I dare you. Go on, you know you want to.
"It has."
No, it HASN'T.
You keep saying this, and it simply isn't true.
The Earth is almost a full degree cooler than it was twenty years ago and a half degree cooler than it was in the late 90's. In fact it appears to be cooling at an exponential rate.
If the trend continues then in about 2100 things will be decidedly chilly indeed.
"Why isn't NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?"- Goddard.
Perhaps it's because there has been no increase in the polar ice cover over the last 30 years. Even Goddard's own graphic shows that to be the case. This years ice cover is well below the seasonal average, although higher than last year..
It's laughable that Goddard doesn't know how to interetpret a simple graphic that he uses as his own reference.
Dumber than Dumb.
You go buy this weeks New Scientist if you want a real consumable but scientific article. Global warming is neither IT or Technology really.. funny to see how many people just love to be right though, and being stupid enough to think that even if, let's say, global warming was wrong, that it's then fine to justify continued use of fossil fuels.
Have exhaust pumped onto your face for a few seconds and then imagine your children living in a world where, daily, more and more vehicles are introduced to add to that gaseous output. Sometimes looking for a clean alternative is good *just for that reason* - doesn't need to be economically or doom-avertingly justified.
Remember that CO2 isn't the only, or even the worst greenhouse gas. And the government don't actually get any control over us for making us believe it, it's been a big pain in their arses, of course people will profit - but compared to Big Oil™..?
"Please predict the weather tomorrow. What is the ratio of correctness? If the "models" don't get this right, what business do they have predicting "climate change", or whatever they call it today?" - herby
Herby doesn't know the difference between climate and weather. Silly boy.
Please predict the height of the next person to walk into a room. If the "models" don't get this right, what business do they have predicting the average height of the people who will walk in the room 10 years from now?
Keep plugging away at all those nasty non-believers, my friend. You'll beat them into submission yet.
Not to ignore the obvious, but since the prediction was for an "ice-free Arctic", and there's somewhere between 10% and 30% more ice than last year, wouldn't that mean that the prediction was a complete bust, regardless of the amount of ice growth?
A concerted attack of uninformed twaddle on Steve here.
If you don't want to read about global warming - or the lack of it - just go somewhere else and stop wasting our time with inane comments.
NSIDC is itself talking about extent of sea ice, not volume or thickness. All those criticising Steve for doing the same should stand up and apologise - fat chance I expect: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Short of dispersion as pack ice rather than as a solid crust it seems a very remote possibility that volume will not increase with area. And an even more remote change that the AGW industry would not be trumpeting the fact.
i think the answer to this discrepancy becomes clear when you factor in the measurements i've been taking
for instance, in my back yard i'm sure i've been sweating at least 50 per cent more this year than last
so not only is global warming increasing, you see, but it's being very sneaky. hearing that we're on to it, it has changed its tactics and is now targeting much more specific locales for its devious assaults, like the area immediately around my house
clearly, then, we must change our strategy in combating this global warming fiend:
Al, please send me an extra air conditioner ....
yours truly, etc, "i'm hot" in texas
I downloaded data from NSIDC's "Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data” data set for Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 and counted the number of grid cells with sea ice concentrations of 15 percent or greater (the criteria that NSIDC uses). There was a 14 percent difference between the 2. And, as I pointed out in my previous post (if it ever shows up here), NSIDC is reporting EXTENT rather than AREA, so the 10 percent difference they are showing could quite well be correct.
I have no idea how the author of the article came up with 30 percent.
Like many others, I invested my life savings in the Northwest Passage Shipping Company, when I read the news about a scientist saying that the north pole would be free from ice this summer.
Get in on the ground floor, right?
I thought I did my homework on it. First I verified that a scientist said it, then looked up "science" in Webster's.
Webster's read:
Science: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
I guess I read this wrong. I read science = systematic facts or truths.
In hindsight, I would have been better off calling a psychic hotline for my predictions.
Now I have to read all of you gloating that you never believed it.
Thanks a lot, you jerks.
I was going to sue the scientist over this. But I read through all the definitions of science agian, and decided that the person who made the prediction could not possibly be a scientist. So I am going to sue the newspapers for making this stuff up.
I would like some answers from the armchair scientists out there.
The climate changes. Why so much doom and gloom about it?
Why do you think now is so perfect? Worried that your beach front real estate might be under water, or 1/2 mile from the beach 100 years from now?
We know that there have been several ice ages, where the earth has been cooler than it is now.
We know that the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Do we know what the lowest ever temperature was?
How about the peak temperature between ice ages?
Are we on the temperature upside or the downside from the last ice age?
There have been warm periods and cool periods since the last ice age. Explain why there is not a steady increase in temperature, since the last ice age. Why are there variations?
Why do they sometimes last hundreds of years?
City living human history only covers a short span of history. But archeologists have found cities under water. They have also found port cities far from the water. Assuming we are now at the median, this would suggest that there is at least a +-100 ft natural variation in sea level, in the last 10,000 years. How would a change of 3/5/20 ft in sea level in the next 200 years vary from the historical norm?
If the sea level rose 20 ft over the next 200 years, would 1 billion people drown, or would they slowly move (to prevent said drowning)?
If sea levels dropped 20 ft over the next 200 years, marshlands would be lost, and mountains would get taller. But wouldn't the marshlands just move with the coast?
Several years ago the south east US was hit by about a hurricane a week, we were told that this was due to global warming and that we could expect more of the same. Since then, there has been a lack of hurricanes. This has caused an overall water shortage in the SE US, also due to global warming.
So, will global warming cause more hurricanes, or more drought for <insert region here>? (must pick one)
Interesting how some here are having difficulty seeing the obvious.
Sea ice extent (as defined by NSIDC) is a measurement of area, not volume. Counting pixels is a standard technique for doing digital numerical integration of map areas.
The maps and graphs should correspond 1:1, but they don't. Looking at NASA satellite imagery, the maps appear to be accurate - the logical conclusion being that the problem lies with the graphs.
As far as The Independent story went, I quoted exactly what the article said at the time. They later removed the text in question, as author Steve Connor wrote up on "realclimate." When a newspaper changes the text of an online article, they really should put a note there. (The BBC had some serious problems with that earlier this year when they kept modifying the text of an article which originally implied that global warming had stopped.)
Regardless, you can see the same text in many other articles, including the National Geographic article quoted in this piece.
When experts make comments about the North Pole being "ice free," it has the desired effect - thousands of newspapers quote it. Qualifying it with 50/50 odds is implausible deniability. If they don't have confidence in their predictions, they shouldn't say anything to the press.
This column seemed to me to be pretty pointless, other than as an example of how to argue by obsfucation and logical fallacy.
Mr. Goddard slams something called the National Snow and Ice Data Center
pretty heavily, but there is no indication that he contacted that organization to get their side of the story. Why? Isn't that a standard journalistic practice?
What was the motivation for making an issue over whether this year or last year had the smaller amount of sea ice? 2008 will at the worst have the second smallest amount of sea ice in the "satellite era". Drawing generalizations based on 2 years of data is an example of a Hasty Conclusion fallacy. If you go to the University of Illinois site that Mr. Goddard cited, you will find a graph of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area anomalies since 1978. There is a distinct trend towards smaller areas. Mr. Goddard chose to ignore these data which contradicted his position. This is a good example of Confirmation Bias.
Marco pointed out a classic Strawman Argument. Nobody has claimed that the
North Pole will be definitely be ice-free this year.
Mr. Goddard was also comparing apples to oranges with his discussion of NSIDC's statistics. According to their website, NSIDC tracks sea ice EXTENT,
not sea ice AREA. These 2 quantities are not the same. This might be another
example of a strawman argument, or perhaps Mr. Goddard just doesn't understand the difference. Regardless, Mr. Goddard attempts to calculate sea ice area by merely counting the number of pixels that have a greater than 0 percent sea ice concentration. Therefore, he is effectively assuming that pixels either have 0 percent concentration or a 100 percent concentration. Did Mr. Goddard not understand what the colorbars on the images mean?
While it is important to take regular measurements of weather / ice / pollution etc., what many people (especially the media) fail to realise is that climate change isn't measured over pathetic timescales like one year, but over decades and centuries.
Smaller scale example: imagine a temperature data logger. You look at it at 6am and 9am and notice the temperature is rising. Quick - get your sunhats - we're in for a heatwave! By 11am, the temperature has dipped as a raincloud comes over. By 1pm it's risen again, and by 6pm it's feeling rather chilly. Looking at the longer term data, you might notice a week or so when the temperature constantly dips aroundabout 11am. But it's only when you've got a year or so's data that you can see the overall average temperature patten, and only afer several years that you can confidently say that September tends to be warmer than November.
Remember that what the climate scientists are saying is that a significant change in weather patterns can be caused by a global average rise of only 1-2 degrees C. Normally we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Whilst glib statements like "We need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%" are laughable, even if AGW isn't happening, surely it makes sense to do what we can to reduce energy use, especially as the world's oil and gas reserves will one day reach peak (even though noone knows yet when that will be, and statisticians have as much success on predicting the date as cults do in predicting the second coming or the end of the world), the world's human population continues to rise, and countries will increasingly find the export / import of resources hindered by hotheads who find arms more exciting than jaws...
The flame (if it appears!) because AGW is so contentious, and politicians and scientists alike delight in generating hot air...
Re: "I'm bankrupt " by simpson
If you had done your homework you had seen the original statement wherein the scientist said there was a 50/50 chance of the north pole becoming ice free. There is no such thing as absolute truth in this world, science deals with probabilities.
___
Re: "Perfect temperature" by simpson
You state many good questions, most of which already has answers. The doom and gloom is about the change and the speed at which the change is coming. Predictions say we could raise the temperature by 6 degrees within 200 years.
The planet will survive, no problem there, but we are likely to be wiped out or at least reduced greatly in numbers.
Last time the temperature became 5 degrees higher than our 1950 level, 95 % of all species on Earth died out. This was a natural hot period where some event set of a cascade mechanism and more and more greenhouse gasses were released.
I think it's safe to say that a human population of 6 billion people cannot be sustained if 95 % of all species were to become extinct. That is what the gloom and doom is about.
Global warming is a term that understates the problems, as some regions will not experience any warming, while others will see significant warming. Global climate change is better term since we will see a change in climate and weather patterns. Tree lines will move towards the poles changing your local fauna and flora. Forests unsuited for the new climate might dry up, catching fire and both releasing more carbon as well as stop being a carbon sink. Some glaciers will continue to melt (which people rely on for water, they will now have none). A few might grow.
Yes we could sit back, continue our business as usual and see if the horrible scenarios turn out to become reality, or we could try to decrease the risks of those scenarios becoming a reality by any means necessary and to the best of our growing knowledge of global climate change.
___
Re: "Sea levels" by Joey
Since the Arctic sea ice is in the sea, not resting on land, it displaces the same amount of water that it will become when it melts. It's an equilibrium and the Arctic will not raise sea levels. Try filling a glass, putting in an ice block and see what happens when the ice melts!
The sea level will rise only when Greenland's ice as well as parts of the Antarctic ice melts since they rest on land mass.
___
Re: "Timescales...", by mittfh
You state that statisticians cannot predict when oil and gas reserves will peak very well. You're wrong, M. King Hubbert predicted the production capacity peak of the US within a few years, a remarkable prediction, and the bell shaped curve can be seen in most oil fields extracting oil.
He predicted world oil production would peak around the year 2000 looking at the growth rates of 1950. Since we had the oil crisis in 1970 and the legislation for more fuel efficient cars by President Carter, the peak was pushed a bit into the future as the growth rate was lowered.
We're likely at the peak now as production has plateaued since the year 2005. Most geologists who know anything about oil agree that if we're not at the peak now, we will be within 10 years. But I find it more likely to be sooner than that.
One could force an increase in production for a few years creating a new peak, but that would drive up prices exponentially so it's not likely to happen. More likely is that the price slowly and steadily goes up over time and we become more and more fuel efficient and use more public transportation to cut our need for oil as the price climbes on. The less oil we use, the cheaper it will be... But we will run out of "cheap oil" within 30 years if we continue on the current trend and do nothing. I consider $300 a barrel to be cheap.
No. As so many denialists point out, ice melting when in water doesn't change the sea levels.
If it's on land (like Greenland or the antartic) this is different.
mittfh: yes, so when over 50 years the temperature has gone up 3 degrees and you already know that during that time we have had only one thing that has been consistently increasing over that time (CO2 levels) *and* you have a reason why these should be linked (correlation is not causation, but if you have a causation that will correlate, you can link them), what do you think? It's all a lie???
Josh: Nope, water boils at 100C 90 hours later < 4 days > 3 days. Duh.
Can you give more precise links to where you got the 14% data? I'd like to try them out.
I used images from the CT website to get the 30%.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/
They normally match the NSIDC extent images very closely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6q2KKwUgy8
The CT images showed >40% delta vs. 2007 yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K-MnbOGfLE
I added a new video that shows melt over the last week - which appears to have nearly stopped. Some portions of the Arctic have already begun to re-freeze.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jii_33xW4Vg
Here is a live blow-by-blow of some Australian sailors attempting to navigate through the ice in the supposedly ice-free Northwest Passage.
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/
Thanks to Anthony Watt's crew for that link.
Good site to compare dates back to 79.
The Arctic has turned cold and the melt is far behind last year.
I expect a headline story from the BBC next week pointing out the huge increase in ice.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=16&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=15&sy=2008
Larsen took the St. Roch through in '44 with little trouble. And these were uncharted waters of the more northerly route.
Larsen kept a log which is in book form and wrote about the many years in the thirties and forties he spent in the north.
Maps of the voyage of the St. Roch.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
"Not to ignore the obvious, but since the prediction was for an "ice-free Arctic", and there's somewhere between 10% and 30% more ice than last year, wouldn't that mean that the prediction was a complete bust, regardless of the amount of ice growth?" - ScotchBonnet
No one predicted that the region would be ice free. What was stated that this year was another potential record melt and that the region of the ocean around the pole might be ice free - the first time ina long, long time.
If anyone tells you that scientists claimed that the Arctic Ocean was going to be ice free, then they are lying to you.
"Huge Volcanoes May Be Erupting Under Arctic Ice." Jimpeel
No effect what so ever.
The arctic ocean is a very big place. Did the hot magma from the mount st. helens eruption increaes the temperature of the air in Main?
Nope. And it would take billions of times more heat to heat an ocean perceptably due to it's depth and vastly larger specific heat compared to air
Anything but Co2. By Gawad, it has to be anything.....
"Interesting how some here are having difficulty seeing the obvious." - Goddard.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.56 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
Source NASAS -> http://data.giss.nasa.gov:80/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
Pretty obvious ay?
"The little RCMP boat easily made it through the Arctic's Northwest passage in 86 days from Halifax to Vancouver in 1944. How would that be possible pre AGW?" - Whelan
Because there are always abnormally warm years.
Currently the north west passage is 40% ice. And it could get through there today as well.
Look at the following plot and tell us if northern sea ice is in decline.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
Or here...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
"Whilst glib statements like "We need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%" are laughable, even if AGW isn't happening, surely it makes sense to do what we can to reduce energy use," - MITTFH
9 gigatonnes of excess carbon are being pumped into the atmosphere every year. Anything emissions that are over the rate at which the gas is sequestered will over time result in a near limitless increase in CO2 levels. Even to the point of making the air unbreathable.
The industralized nations are going to have to reduce their emissions by 80 to 90 percent to reduce emissions to sustainable levels, and to make room for the industrialization of the rest of the world.
The alternative is extinction.
" especially as the world's oil and gas reserves will one day reach peak (even though noone knows yet when that will be" - MITTFH
Peak Oil was reached 3 years ago.
Since the first atomic powered submarine they have been going under the polar ice and breaking it up allowing the ice to drift away and melt. How much heat do those subs leave at the arctic? The ice there is always on the verge of melting because it is floating on salt water which is warmer.
I would like some answers from the armchair scientists out there.
> The climate changes. Why so much doom and gloom about it?
Because the biosphere and human culture has evolved for the previous temperature regime.
Any variance from the norm is necessarily immediately suboptimal.
"Why do you think now is so perfect?
See above.
> We know that there have been several ice ages, where the earth has been cooler than > it is now.
A couple of dozen in fact.
> We know that the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Within the next 90 years the earth will have warmed such that it will be warmer than it has been for the last million years.
> Do we know what the lowest ever temperature was?
Yes 2'K the temperature of space.
> How about the peak temperature between ice ages?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
>Are we on the temperature upside or the downside from the last ice age?
We are nearing the natural end of the current interglacial.
> There have been warm periods and cool periods since the last ice age. Explain why > there is not a steady increase in temperature, since the last ice age. Why are there > variations?
Interglacials start with a rapid rise in temperature followed by an unsustainable overshoot and then a quick decline in global temps followed typically by a slow decline.
The current interglacial has followed that pettern until 100 years ago when it began to diverge. Global temps are now as high as they were during the unsuatanable peak that occurred at the end of the last ice age.
Why is there variance? The system is chaotic. and various natrual inputs perterb the system.
These inputs have all been quantified, and Co2 turns out to be the driving factor in the current temperture excursion.
> Why do they sometimes last hundreds of years?
Because the system is chaotic and sometimes orbits attractor A and somethimes attractor B,C,D,E,F etc.
>City living human history only covers a short span of history. But archeologists have found cities under water. They have also found port cities far from the water. Assuming we are now at the median, this would suggest that there is at least a +-100 ft natural variation in sea level, in the last 10,000 years. How would a change of 3/5/20 ft in sea level in the next 200 years vary from the historical norm?
Generally this is not a result of altertions in the depth of the ocean byt alterations in the height of the ground.
Historical norms are not important if all major U.S. coastal cities are under water as a result of CO2 emissions.
> If the sea level rose 20 ft over the next 200 years, would 1 billion people drown, > or would they slowly move (to prevent said drowning)?
If 1 billion refugees moved to America to escape the loss of their homes due to global warming, would the U.S. be willing to accept them?
"Several years ago the south east US was hit by about a hurricane a week, we were told that this was due to global warming and that we could expect more of the same."
You weren't told that by any scientist or even Al Gore. All maintain (correctly) that no individual weather event can be said to be caused by the ongoing human induced change in the global climate.
Modeling shows that warmer water causes stronger hurricanes. It also shows that hurricanes are chance formations And like the roll of the dice, sometimes you are going to roll a sequence of 6's.
"... Melting polar ice is a variable mixture as the colours in photos show. Was the Titanic in Polar Ice when it sank?... "
The Titanic was not in polar ice.
But, polar ice was in the Titanic.
@Mark: "... so when over 50 years the temperature has gone up 3 degrees and you already know that during that time we have had only one thing that has been consistently increasing over that time (CO2 levels) ..."
Only one thing?
You sure about that?
Pixel counting is all well and good - but, as myself and Jeff have pointed out above, you have to take into account what the pixels actually represent, rather than just assume that they all represent 100% ice cover. Have you done this, and if not, why not?
We are at a Solar minimum, with two succesive years without any solar spots, what statistically implies that the overall weather should be quite colder these years than average. In fact, I read at the beginning of the year how some claimed this should push the breaks somewhat in the global warming process.
Nevertheless this summer (and the pervious winter) has not been cool at all and the oyster mortality in France is sign (among other items) that warming goes ahead.
Just wait a handful of years and let's discuss this issue in the Solar max of c. 2017... or even just a couple of years from now it should all be more clear.
Check it out for yourself Alan. -8.7 deg C in Alert yesterday and you think the melt is accelerating?
You don't need to believe the junk science propoganda in the MSM or the biased science from biased scientists.
There is a huge increase in Arctic ice and the Arctic is below normal for temps, which likely means the melt will soon end.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index_e.html?id=NU
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=17&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=16&sy=2008
Actually the Northern sea ice is hugely accelerating in 2008 and the Earth is cooling unless you fudge the figures.
Explain how with such a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions in the last ten years and a slight cooling of the Earth the AGW theory is still viable.(slight cooling if Hansen is not allowed to fudge the numbers)
When Larsen piloted the St. Roch around the Arctic in the 30's and 40's the ice was at a low level as present day. Before the invention of the SUV.
No, the northern sea ice is accelerating and the earth cooling if you fiddle the figures.
E.g. if you look at total loss this year it is already more than last year. But if you take the minimum of the entirety of last year and the minimum when the year is not yet over?
So if you fiddle the figures and forget the year is not yet done, ice is increasing.
See how he fiddles the figures, folks?
Actually at this point the melt is mostly done for the year and there is a huge increase in the Arctic ice. That is fact.
Just look at the day to day comparisn from 2007 to 2008.
You can see the facts for yourself. No need to go through Hansen.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=17&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=16&sy=2008
And the St. Roch's 1944 route through the North is still blocked by a large amount of ice.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/nwp/nwp07.png
The AGW thesis is falling apart. Only the zealots will continue to believe.
Mostly complete is not complete.
If it was complete, there's only one thing you can do.
Go through its pockets and look for loose change.
NB: this tabloid piece is incorrect: the data he's using is derived from NASA figures, so if he derives from this derived data something different from the NASA figures, his analysis is incorrect.
Consensus : around 350bc Aristotle spoke of an earth centered universe, he was a brilliant thinker and people embraced what he had to say, around 200bc Hipparchus wrote a book describing this earth centered universe, it became the definitive work on the subject, around 100ad Ptolemy laid out the foundations of Calculus and created the first mathematical model of the motions of the planets, it could predict, including the retrograde motions, the position of a planet far into the future with a high degree of accuracy. and so there was Consensus between the Church, the State, the Scientists, and the mathematical Models. The argument was so airtight that for almost 2000 years it was Dogma, then came Copernicus who in 1543 proposed a Heliocentric universe, his ideas where so outlandish he was labeled a Heratic ( I'm guessing because the label Tobacco Scientist just didn't have the same impact back then), it would seem the Peer Review of the time gave his works a thumbs down. Then came Galileo who in 1633 observed the planetary motions in a way that only made sense in a heliocentric universe, at the same time Kepler created the Mathematical Models of elliptical orbits that for the first time where more accurate than Ptolemy's. There where more charges of Heresy, and house arrests, Trials and inquisitions, browbeating and chest thumping and foaming at the mouth, but eventually after 2000 years Consensus fell apart and the Dogma was sent to the trash bin.
Chris Fox said "...these troll pseudo-science articles that do little more than preach to a depressingly large gallery of fellow deniers who don't apperar to understand uncontested basic science about the behaviour of C02 and the notions of steady state conditions, or the nature of peer-reviewed science.
Consensus and Peer review need to be taken with a grain of salt, anytime you have peer review by those that are in consensus with you, your chances of getting a favorable review are greatly increased, I think of it as preaching to the Choir. what was peer review on sterilizing surgical instraments when spontaneous generation was dogma, how about "My religion is the only right one" or Peer Review on "My parents are idiots" amongst teenagers, I think you get the point.
I'm not sure what your point was about "steady state conditions" , you just kinda threw one out without explanation, more than that, I fail to see how it could possibly relate to Climate Change, which by it's very nature, is anything but a "steady state condition"
The notion that "fellow deniers who don't apperar to understand uncontested basic science about the behaviour of C02" is an incorrect perception, Most everybody agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas, hence the label "Greenhouse Gas", and here is another shocker for you, within the science community both camps are not that far apart as to the effect of CO2, the big disagreement is the overall effect, The IPCC models rely on "Feedback" and "Forcing" agents in the models to amplify the effects because even the AGW groups know that CO2 alone can't produce the scary scenerios. it is the value of these feedback and forcing agents that is highly contested. Some models use as a positive what some scientists declare as a negetive agent, other agents are exagerated to the point that by some estimates the IPCC has overestimated the overall effects of CO2 by as much as 2,000%, hence the discrepancy. but still we see statments like: "Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30 percent in the last 150 years, with half of that rise occurring only in the last three decades. It is a well-established scientific fact that CO2 (and other gases emitted from industrial and agricultural sources) traps heat in the atmosphere, so it is no surprise that we are now witnessing a dramatic increase in temperature." This is typical of the kinds of statments can be found all over, this one came from Union of Concerned Scientists: global warming 101. it uses a truth and a half truth to lead one to a false conclusion.
the statment starts out with the first sentence: a scientific fact, the second sentence: also a scientific fact, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses DO trap heat, but it is not very clear, why does it not include natural sources which would account for 95% of greenhouse gasses in the form of water vapor or at the very least note that man's contribution of CO2 to date is a mere 0.117% of all greenhouse gasses combined, perhaps this is because it would make the end of the second sentence, the conclusion, much less plausable and reveal it to be misguided and erronious conjecture. the only dramatic temperature swings in the past decade have been downward, not upward. and dramatic increases in temperatures WOULD in fact be very suprising with such small greenhouse gas shifts. from the very begining some of the worlds preeminant climatologists pointed out that such small shifts could never achieve the temperature results being predicted. even CO2 levels of over 400% of current would yield a temperature rise of less than 0.5°C by 2100.
Vendicar Decarian declared "In science, data has the final say." what was obvious was you stopped at 2007, from Jan2007 to Jan2008 All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) reported a drop in avg global temperature of between 0.65C to 0.75C. your data was from GISS, GISS data is based solely on ground based readings, the least accurate due to heat island effects. you are aware I hope that the data being generated by GISS was found to be flawed and was indeed too high. Hanson admitted blame for it but claimed it was a computer programming oversight. considering his track record many wonder if the oversight was intentional. He wrote this in Scientific American in March of 2004:
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."
there is a new effort to cull the ground based monitering stations that are no longer useful, these include stations that are now in the middle of a parking lot, next to A/C condensing units, at the end of airport runway being blasted by jet exhaust, and many others,
To me your header "In science, data has the final say." should read "to further the agenda, cherry pick the flawed and incomplete data and present it as the final say and ignore the more complete and timely data that contradicts the agenda"
"Vendicar Decarian declared "In science, data has the final say." what was obvious was you stopped at 2007, from Jan2007 to Jan2008" - Greg
Apparently Greg wants the 2008 average global temperature included before 2008 is over and the average can be computed.
You can't get much dumber than that.
"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) reported a drop in avg global temperature of between 0.65C to 0.75C. your data was from GISS, GISS data is based solely on ground based readings, the least accurate due to heat island effects." - Greg
Heat island effects are removed from the analysis by either omitting unfavorable sites, or through direct temperature adjustement.
As to GISS being strictly from ground based measurements, again Greg is entirely wrong.
From NASA.
"A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.) "
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
"you are aware I hope that the data being generated by GISS was found to be flawed and was indeed too high. Hanson admitted blame for it but claimed it was a computer programming oversight." - Greg.
Yes, a trivial error was found in a compensation factor for one set of satellite measurements. Within 2 days NASA provided credit to those who found the error, and a corrected recomputation that used an appropriate factor.
The net result of the "error" was to throw off the global temperature by a single digit in the third decimal place. A variance so slight that it is impossible to detect in a plot of global surface temperatures.
"considering his track record many wonder if the oversight was intentional."
Hanson is now one of the favorite whipping boys of the Denialist camp since he Publicly refused to be gagged by the orders issued by George Bush in his attempt to gagg scientists of all types.
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions." - Hanson as quoted by Greg.
Sounds like a respectable position that any moral scientist would take.
"there is a new effort to cull the ground based monitering stations that are no longer useful, these include stations that are now in the middle of a parking lot, next to A/C condensing units, at the end of airport runway being blasted by jet exhaust, and many others," - Greg
Done a long, long time ago.
"To me your header "In science, data has the final say." should read "to further the agenda, cherry pick the flawed and incomplete data and present it as the final say and ignore the more complete and timely data that contradicts the agenda"" - Greg
To me the U.S. constitues only 2% of the global surface area, and even if you removed all of the U.S. stations from consideration, the data would still show the planet is warming.
In fact, since the U.S. has been bucking the trend - as documented by Hansen - removing the U.S. data would only <INCREASE> the computed warming of the Earth's Surface.
"There is a huge increase in Arctic ice and the Arctic is below normal for temps, which likely means the melt will soon end." - Shawn Whelan
Bullshit. Melting continues, and at a high rate as the following link shows.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.some.0.html
However the sun will soon set, and then the melt will certainly come to an end.
"How much heat do those subs leave at the arctic?" Juel Edwards
Well lets estimate shall we.
Lets assume that the sub uses a 1 gigawatt nuclear reactor (much larger than what is really used). and it took a month to cross the arctic ocean.
Now the arctic ocen has a volume of about 5.1E35 cubic centimeters and over a month the sub would pour 2.6E15 joules of energy into that ocean.
The temperature rise due to the presence of that sub would therefore be somewhere around 0.000000000000000000001 'C
1.1E-21'C
I don't think it's anything to be concerned about. Ya think?
At least MMGW seems to have saved us the other apocalypses.
We’ll no longer die from population explosion, new Ice Age, alien invasion, asteroid strike, Y2K bug, mad cow disease, Ricin, SARS, bird flu or killer bees.
Thank you Global Warming – SAVE US!!!
Posted anonymously to avoid the Carbon Fascists.
Vendicar Decarian - Questions answered - most were childish..
Child-like questions are the best ones - we could do with more of these! My comments are preceeded with a #
.. the biosphere and human culture has evolved for the previous temperature regime.Any variance from the norm is necessarily immediately suboptimal.
>We know that there have been several ice ages, where the earth has been cooler than it is now.
A couple of dozen in fact.
#The two answers above are odd - you seem to be saying that life has evolved to be able to withstand ice ages and interglacials in the past, but now we have suddenly stopped evolving? Or does 'suboptimal' mean no more than we must adapt again, as we have always done? If so, it doesn't mean much...
> We know that the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Within the next 90 years the earth will have warmed such that it will be warmer than it has been for the last million years.
#Ooh, what an assertion! I presume you haven't read the latest debunking of the hockey stick? The MWP was much warmer. Don't you know that Wahl and Amman has been shot down?
> How about the peak temperature between ice ages?
> There have been warm periods and cool periods since the last ice age. Explain
Why is there variance? The system is chaotic. and various natrual inputs perterb the system.These inputs have all been quantified, and Co2 turns out to be the driving factor in the current temperture excursion.
#Oooh again! Some inputs have been guessed at. Did you see the paper on desert sinks for CO2 a week ago? A totally new sink which is not understood at all yet. We really know very little about the climate system.
#What has happened is that CO2 has been ASSUMED to be totally responsible for the current (minor) warming fluctuation, some computer models have been created which model that assumption, and these have then been manipulated to match the recent historic data which shows temperatures rising. Unsurprisingly, if you continue that trend, you will see amazing temperatures. However, this trend has reversed in the last few years!
#There is NO proof which shows definitively that human CO2 is responsible for any measured change. There are guesses, and models built on guesses, and biased interpretation of observations. If there was proof, we wouldn't be having this argument...
>City living human history only covers a short span of history. But archeologists have found cities under water. They have also found port cities far from the water. Assuming we are now at the median, this would suggest that there is at least a +-100 ft natural variation in sea level, in the last 10,000 years. How would a change of 3/5/20 ft in sea level in the next 200 years vary from the historical norm?
Generally this is not a result of altertions in the depth of the ocean byt alterations in the height of the ground.Historical norms are not important if all major U.S. coastal cities are under water as a result of CO2 emissions.
#Ground height variation (and erosion) are all happening much faster than absolute sea level change. Why do you blame CO2 emissions? We will need to engineer defences or resite cities because of tectonic variation or erosion far more often than we will need to for ocean warming...
> If the sea level rose 20 ft over the next 200 years, would 1 billion people drown, > or would they slowly move (to prevent said drowning)?
If 1 billion refugees moved to America to escape the loss of their homes due to global warming, would the U.S. be willing to accept them?
#Well, these figures are complete guesses, based on no reality. No country has yet had to consider relocating people because of Global Warming, though a lot of rubbish is talked about it by politicians who are hoping to get money. However, if we just accept this figure at face value, 1 billion refugees over 200 years is 5m per year. The US currently accepts between 1m and 2m per year legal permanent migrants. So, assuming the migrants were spread over the world, I would guess that no one would notice the slight increase. But it's not going to happen.
#Degree-level icon, because NO ONE should just be asking someone else for interpretations of data at this stage of the game. There is now sufficient research to disprove all the assertions made by Global Warmers. Just go out and find it..
"Questions answered - most were childish.."
Pot and kettle situation. Worst is, the Pot is putting boot-polish on itself...
"#There is NO proof which shows definitively that human CO2 is responsible for any measured change. "
Yes there is.
Carbon from coal oil and gas has is a different isotope from that from living organisms. 50% of the carbon in the atmosphere is of the isotope you ONLY get in fossil fuels. They don't burn by themselves in trillions of tons.
We dig the coal.
We burn the coal.
Now why is it that the atmospheric CO2 was *just right* to make the earth liveable for us humans and at that level is saturated all the way up and doesn't change a thing any more? (hang on, I think I've got it: God did it that way, didn't he? You're a god botherer).
Of course what you *meant* was "there is no proof that I accept that human CO2 is making a change".
NASA/GISS/Hansen/Schmidt are "whipping boys" not because they refuse to be gagged but because they are fanatics, take extreme positions and denigrate all contrary evidence and other scientists. The GISS temperature record has been fudged, modified and discredited repeatedly, the latter most notably by climateaudit.org. They do not agree with the two satellite record series and they invariably err on the side of greater warming.
The climate models lack adequate data to test and validate them. We do not understand natural climate variations sufficiently to distinguish current trends from them. The estimates of their likely accuracy lack any plausibility. The critical behaviour of clouds is a fundamental uncertainty that strikes at the heart of the assumed positive amplifying feedback that the models portray.
Steven,
You ask Jeff, who apparently DID do a proper analysis based on the raw data, the following question:
"Can you give more precise links to where you got the 14% data? I'd like to try them out.
I used images from the CT website to get the 30%."
From which I conclude that you accuse the NSIDC of misleading statements, without even knowing where their data is, let alone bothering to download and analyse it.
Btw, look at the following image from IARC-JAXA, seems we're heading for second place, beating the pre-2007 record of 2005:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
I notice that the pattern there seems to be "up a little bit, down a lot. Up a little bit down a lot. Up a little bit." this year we're looking at "up a little bit". If you REALLY think that a single year is showing you something, then next year should be "down a lot".
Based on short term patterns, which Steven thinks is good enough.
Larsen crossed the Northwest Passage from East to West in 1940 to 1942.
Then Larsen crossed from East to West in 1944. His route would not be passable this year. And he did this through uncharted waters without the aid of satellites, GSP or even a compass most of the time.
"The St. Roch returned to Vancouver by a more northerly route, through LANCASTER SOUND and Barrow Strait, in only 86 days (22 July-16 Oct 1944)."
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007114
If the ice was at a similar low level in the 30's and 40's wouldn't that tell you that the climate of the Earth did not begin in 1979?
The truth is the increasing temps the Earth is experiencing is normal climate.
The science is predicting the eclipse and then blaming SUV's for shutting down the Sun. A tiny increase in manmade CO2 is not burning up the Earth.
Explain the last ten years of huge increases in manmade CO2 and all the legitimate sources for temp showing a leveling and now falling temperature?
There has been a tiny increase in CO2 and a huge increase in manmade CO2 in the last ten years. Note that China is now the number one emitter of greenhouse gasses and is increasing these emissionsat a tremendous rate. Ditto for India and the rest of the developing third world. If the CO2 is going to burn up the Earth theory is right we are toast. Don't worry though it will be shown to be the greatest scam in the Earth's history.
When things turn cold Algore will turn up the thermostat and count his money while he admires his Nobel peace prize and chuckles at the suckers.
"Questions answered - most were childish.."
#Umm... that was your quote. I'm not sure if you can be a pot and kettle at the same time...
"Carbon from coal oil and gas has is a different isotope from that from living organisms. 50% of the carbon in the atmosphere is of the isotope you ONLY get in fossil fuels. "
#A cite for this odd figure would be nice. Here is a New Scientist paper which estimates human CO2 input to atmosphere at about a tenth of the biomass input from rotting and such: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638. Perhaps you are confused by the claim that about 50% of 'human' CO2 goes straight into sinks, with the remainder going into the atmosphere? If so, read more slowly, and get an adult to help with the long words...
"They don't burn by themselves in trillions of tons."
#Actually, that's just what underground fires do. These are usually non-human in origin. See the wiki...
"Now why is it that the atmospheric CO2 was *just right* to make the earth liveable for us humans and at that level is saturated all the way up and doesn't change a thing any more? (hang on, I think I've got it: God did it that way, didn't he? You're a god botherer)."
#Umm... This is hard to answer. Because it doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure that being 'accused' of being religious has anything to do with CO2 at all??
"Of course what you *meant* was "there is no proof that I accept that human CO2 is making a change".
#Well, I meant what I said. Which was "There is NO proof which shows definitively that human CO2 is responsible for any measured change." There is a reasonable estimate for human CO2 input into the atmosphere, but NO PROOF that it is changing anything.
#There is a reasonable estimate that the earth got marginally warmer between 1970 and 2000 (and is getting slightly colder now), but NO PROOF that that was because of CO2, either natural or man-made. In fact, we know so little about the climate that we don't know why these changes take place at all.
#But don't bother to try to persuade me. Why don't you go to Junk Science? They have a standing $500,000 prize for the first person to prove that humans are causing the planet to warm. Here, I'll give you the URL: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/ . Marshal your arguments, send them to JS, and buy yourself a course in elementary science with your winnings. Or not, as the case may be...
#A penguin dead of boredom from hearing the same simple errors...
"Carbon from coal oil and gas has is a different isotope from that from living organisms. 50% of the carbon in the atmosphere is of the isotope you ONLY get in fossil fuels. They don't burn by themselves in trillions of tons"
Actually I seem to recall having read that the major cause of CO2 emissions from China at present is a large fire from an underground coal seam that is covering an area of several thousand square kilometers.
Multiply that out with other fires across the world and thats gotta be several trillion tons from fossil fuels.
Also, can anyone tell me how long carbon stays in the atmosphere for before being recycled? Along the lines of every cell in the human body being replaced every 7 years or so, do we have any idea how the cycle works, or does it just kinda lurk around in big pools in the sky?
"Questions answered - most were childish.."
#Umm... that was your quote. I'm not sure if you can be a pot and kettle at the same time...
Nope, that was from your post. Right at the very start. Obviously the extreme onanism has caused some sighted difficulties.
If you're looking for easy money, talk to Exxon. They have had a purse for $100,000 for submission of a paper showing AGW is false. Since it is so obvious to you it is false, this should be a shoe-in for you.
In addition, should you so prove, you'll likely be up for a Nobel prize.
Lucky boy!
You seem pretty sure of yourself. That means your opinion must be anchored in hard solid evidence.
Can you please answer the following two questions for me?
Name and explain the mechanism that causes CO2 below 280 ppm to warm the Earth, and the CO2 above 280 ppm not.
On geological timescale, the rise in CO2 levels coincides exactly with the human CO2 emissions due the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. If this is a coincidence (as you are convinced it is), name and explain the mechanism causing the current rise in CO2.
Oh, and of course, I only accept PROOF.
Sir, you've hit the nail on the head.
To explain:
Al Gore and his ilk have forced a logical fallacy upon us, one which all the armchair scientists accept, because it's one of the most common logical errors, so you don't realise your mistake.
You take a fact: average global temperatures are increasing (for argument's sake, as we're not even sure of that anymore)
You take a second, coincedental fact: Human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are increasing at the same time
You suddenly, incorrectly conclude that one caused the other.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Just because the timing coincided - i.e. just because temperatures appeared to rise at the same time as CO2 did, does not prove causality. Not until you can correctly understand the thousand other factors that are also causal, and eliminate them as possibilities.
Now, here's the thing - at the moment, climate science is in it's infancy, and the fact of the matter is that we don't even KNOW what all the factors are which affect global temperatures. In fact, the ones we do know, we are only just beginning to understand.
Hence, we have NO IDEA what effect CO2 has. And no way to predict temperatures any distance into the future. Not at the moment, anyway.
This is why Dodgy Geezer quite correctly states :" There is NO proof which shows definitively that human CO2 is responsible for any measured change"
"ppm=Parts per million"
"310ppm to 380ppm"
"Very tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere."
Seems you are using gut instinct to do science: "if it is only 0.03% then it is negligable". Seems you slept your way through lesson one in science: never trust your feelings.
The first 280 ppm gets us a comfy +15 C avg temperature (instead of -18 C). So this very tiny, tiny, tiny amount definitely does a lot.
What if I exposed you to the very tiny, tiny, tiny concentration of 380 ppm sarin? Would the effect of that be negligable?
The NSIDC definition for "extent" is the area of ice >= 15% concentration. Thus 100% is treated identically to 15%. All of the pixels used in this analysis match the NSIDC definition.
As of Sunday, August 17 - the UIUC maps show 2008 about 25% larger extent than their 2007 map. Looking at the trend, it appears that this season will end with about 15-20% greater extent than last year. The NSIDC graph and the CT maps appear to be converging somewhat over the last week.
"You suddenly, incorrectly conclude that one caused the other."
No, that was never done by any scientist. There is more proof than that, like the isotopes that Mark referred to.
In absence of any other remotely plausible explanation you go for the obvious one that is staring you in the face. That is called common sense. You keep insisting that it the rising CO2 levels is caused by some unknown, unnamed mechanism and call that LOGIC.
By the way, I am not suggesting that you base science on common sense, the common sense must be applied to policy. If something is proven without a reasonable doubt, then common sense tells you to accept that and move on. Asking for 100% certainty often proves counterproductive.
So, Lu let me ask you the same question as Dodgy Geezer: name and explain the mechanism that is causing the current rise in CO2 levels.
Steven Goddard wrote "As of Sunday, August 17 - the UIUC maps show 2008 about 25% larger extent than their 2007 map."
If you look at the actual ice files for Aug. 17 for each year, you will find that there is about a 12.5 percent difference in area. Why doesn't Steven Goddard use the actual data rather than JPEG images?
My comments preceded by # as usual...
"Umm... that was your quote. I'm not sure if you can be a pot and kettle at the same time...Nope, that was from your post" Mark
#Sorry, wrong responder. Should have been aimed at Vendicar, as below...
"Questions answered. Most were childish. By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 02:14 GMT"
"If you're looking for easy money, talk to Exxon. They have had a purse for $100,000 for submission of a paper showing AGW is false." Mark
#Cite a reference please, I am unable to find any evidence that what you are claiming is true. You already have my reference above.
"Can you please answer the following two questions for me? Name and explain the mechanism that causes CO2 below 280 ppm to warm the Earth, and the CO2 above 280 ppm not." Anne van der Bom
#What part of "We really know very little about the climate system.." do you not understand?
"On geological timescale, the rise in CO2 levels coincides exactly with the human CO2 emissions due the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. If this is a coincidence (as you are convinced it is), name and explain the mechanism causing the current rise in CO2." Anne van der Bom
# Umm.. let me get this straight. You produce a correlation and claim causation. I say that is not proof. You then ask me to PROVE what else may be causing a temperature rise, because otherwise I have to accept your assertion that it's CO2 and nothing else?
#I think I understand this approach now. Sorry for not picking it up sooner, but I thought we were using scientific logic. Now, I have got a different correlation for you - here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming . You will see a very close correlation between the decrease in pirates since the 1800s and Global Warming. If you do not accept this, you must name and explain the mechanism causing the current rise in CO2. Oh, and of course, I only accept PROOF, which, unfortunately, is a little thin on the ground, as evidenced by the failure of anyone to claim the Junk Science prize...
"What if I exposed you to the very tiny, tiny, tiny concentration of 380 ppm sarin? Would the effect of that be negligable? Anne van der Bom"
#Why, yes. I don't think you could measure the amount of global heating that would cause. It might cause all sorts of other effects, but it wouldn't do any heating, which is what we are talking about, isn't it? I mean, you aren't making the logical mistake of an argument from False Analogy. Are you? I mean, for that analogy to work, you would have to prove that the climate was exqusitely sensitive to CO2 in the same way that a human body is to a chlorinase inhibitor. And as far as I can recall, the effectiveness of CO2 decreases logarithmically ....
"You suddenly, incorrectly conclude that one caused the other... No, that was never done by any scientist. There is more proof than that, like the isotopes that Mark referred to." Anne van der Bom
#Cite a reference please, I am unable to find any evidence that what you are claiming is true. You already have my reference above.
#And so the circle continues....
Lu wrote
"Al Gore and his ilk have forced a logical fallacy upon us, one which all the armchair scientists accept, because it's one of the most common logical errors, so you don't realise your mistake.
You take a fact: average global temperatures are increasing (for argument's sake, as we're not even sure of that anymore)
You take a second, coincedental fact: Human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are increasing at the same time
You suddenly, incorrectly conclude that one caused the other.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Just because the timing coincided - i.e. just because temperatures appeared to rise at the same time as CO2 did, does not prove causality. Not until you can correctly understand the thousand other factors that are also causal, and eliminate them as possibilities."
Sorry, but the AGW theory is not based simply on the coincidental timing of CO2 and temperature increases. People have actually measured the changes in solar irradiance, suspended volcanic debris, and other known or suspected factors in climate change and estimated what effect they should have on the climate. Only by including the effects of the increase in CO2 can they come up with an estimate that is anywhere near reality.
Almost nothing in science (or life) can be "proven" in the absolute sense that mathematical theories can be proven. And it can't be ruled out that some mechanism besides CO2 will be found to explain the warming. But right now, CO2 seems to be the most plausible explanation for the warming in the last 3 decades.
Global warming denial is pushed by GW (Global Warmer?) Bush and his petro-friends. That fact alone would cause me to mistrust anyone who claims to know the science better than the scientists. For you Tories, keep in mind that even Saint Thatcher believed that global warming was a threat.
For those of you mislead by Bush, see http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt12_head_Still%20warming?
Quote Mark
"And if we replaced the CO2 with cyanide?
Your body has enough iron to make a nail.
If we extracted just that ounce of metal from you, would you be OK? After all, that is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the water content of your body."
With that statement do you believe you have proved the theory of AGW?
CO2 is a benign beneficial gas that is pumped into greenhouses to make plants grow.
So you disregard the orbit of the Earth, the position of the earth, the position of the Moon, the activity of the Sun and the million other things that affect the climate of the Earth? Quite simple.
Kinda like saying water boils at 100deg c. There are many things that determine the boiling point of water and it only boils at 100deg C under specific conditions. This climate is very complicated and the temp is not determined by a few ppm increase in CO2.
There are lots of different ways to represent data. Images are often one of the best, because they not only contain all of the essential location and magnitude data, but they can also be processed real-time by the human brain in a neural network vastly more powerful than any supercomputer.
Your devotion to NSIDC calculations is admirable, but they are not the only possible interpretation of the data. If you want to convince me to use the NSIDC numbers, then explain to us why the CT maps show a much larger extent difference vs. 2007. I'm looking for a technical explanation - your apparent love of government data sets is not a compelling argument.
"Check it out for yourself Alan. -8.7 deg C in Alert yesterday and you think the melt is accelerating?" - Doofus.
I just checked the temp at alert. It's -7'C but the water temparature of the salt water ocean around it is still +4.
And that is why the melt will continue for another couple of weeks.
"You don't need to believe the junk science propoganda" - Doofus
Correct. I don't believe anything you say as you clearly don't have a clue.
"There is a huge increase in Arctic ice and the Arctic is below normal for temps, which likely means the melt will soon end." - Doofus.
Nope, there is no increase in arctic ice, and I've sent you the links to satellite mages that show this to be the case.
"So you disregard the orbit of the Earth, the position of the earth, the position of the Moon, the activity of the Sun and the million other things that affect the climate of the Earth? Quite simple." - Whelan
No, those things are considered by the existing global climate models. But since they all change over a period of tens of thousands of years, and modeling is typically done to determine changes that will occur over tens of decades, the other factors are not particularly relevant.
Solar factors are the most important second order driver in the climate models of course, but since the sun has been cooling over the last 30 years while global temperatures have been rising, it's pretty clear that the activity of the sun is hiding some of the effects of CO2 enhanced global warming.
"CO2 is a benign beneficial gas that is pumped into greenhouses to make plants grow." - Whelan
If CO2 is benign then I advise you to hold your breath for 3 to 4 minutes and tell us how if feels.
CO2 is a metabolic waste product. And that's why your body goes to great lengths to immediately remove it from your tissues.
"Not much thawing at those temps. Actually should be ice forming in some areas.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif" - Whelan
Which shows that the ocean temperature 300 miles from the North Polie is +3'C
Ocean water is salty and melts at somewhere around MINUS 2'C
"Sorry Anne, the atmosphere is composed of many ingredients, that tiny amount of CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, water vapour for one is much more important and there are millions of other things affecting the climate of the Earth."
All of the major influences are accounted for with water vapour being the most troublesome.
And of course water vapour levels are controlled by surface tempearature on a water planet like the Earth.
So small increases in surface temperature are magnified, as they cause more evaporation and higher water vapour levels.
The basics aren't rocket science.
But then, walking and chewing gum constitutes rocket science to the typical denialist.
Below normal cold in the Canadian Arctic.
How did Henry Larsen in the little St. Roch in 1944 so easily make his way through the Northern Northwest Passage and now after 60 plus years of AGW you could not accomplish the same thing in 2008? Is this just some sort of cycle of the Earth's climate and not actually at all related to manmade CO2 and carbon taxes?
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/nwp/nwp07.png
Erm, Shawn, I never mentioned AGW. Your comment seems to reflect what passes for reading comprehension nowadays. Global warming and AGW are two separate issues, but I would suspect that if you don't accept the data on GW, you won't accept the existence of AGW.
So you are a Bushie, then? Drunk the Kool-aid, have you?
A few days ago NSIDC declared the Northwest Passage to be open, but their August 17 map shows all possible routes as frozen over.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Apparently ice has started to accumulate again in some parts of the Arctic.
Nope. But these elements haven't changed enough in the past 100 years to account for it.
I mean, it's not like we took a jump to the left, is it.
Although, since you've done the maths about orbital positions et al (else why would you consider these sufficient for changes), maybe you can show us how they have changed, hmm?
Quote Shawn:
'"And if we replaced the CO2 with cyanide?
Your body has enough iron to make a nail.
If we extracted just that ounce of metal from you, would you be OK? After all, that is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the water content of your body."
With that statement do you believe you have proved the theory of AGW?'
No, but it does prove that just because it's 0,03% of the atmosphere doesn't mean it isn't having a large effect.
Just like having a little iron in your body is like 0.03% is keeping you alive. Whether this is a good thing or not I will not say.
Oh, and watch "Appollo 13" sometime. Look at how Lovell thought long and hard about the lovely, benign and completely natural CO2.
Steven Goddard:
"There are lots of different ways to represent data. Images are often one of the best, because they not only contain all of the essential location and magnitude data, but they can also be processed real-time by the human brain in a neural network vastly more powerful than any supercomputer."
However, the human brain is not as accurate quantitatively as a computer is. The particular color scheme used can influence how humans perceive an image.
"Your devotion to NSIDC calculations is admirable, but they are not the only possible interpretation of the data. If you want to convince me to use the NSIDC numbers, then explain to us why the CT maps show a much larger extent difference vs. 2007. I'm looking for a technical explanation - your apparent love of government data sets is not a compelling argument."
I sent an email to U. of Illinois. yesterday (Sunday on this side of the pond) asking what steps they take in creating their images. I haven't received a reply yet. But according to the site, CT gets their ice data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction, which is a branch of the National Weather Service, which in turn is a branch of the United States Department of Commerce. NCEP only shows the most recent day, at http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/nh.xml (at least that's where the Aug. 18 image was). Does it look identical to the CT map for the same day?
I sent an email to U. of Illinois. yesterday (Sunday on this side of the pond) asking what steps they take in creating their images. I haven't received a reply yet.
The University of Illinois also is a government institution.
"Al Gore and his ilk have forced a logical fallacy upon us, one which all the armchair scientists accept, because it's one of the most common logical errors, so you don't realise your mistake." - Lu
Ya, Global Warming was invented by Al Gore.
Ahahahahahahahaah.........
It's astonishing that you can manage to feed yourself, when your appreciation of the world is so limited and myopic.
I'm sorrry that you are upset by the fact that Gore is a very good reporter of Global Warming Science. But by what spark of childish illogic do you conclude that Gore invented Global Warming Science?
Of course anyone who is involved in climate science knows that the original calculation of how much temperature rise could be expected from a doubling of CO2 was done well over 100 years ago by one of the greatest scientists of all time - Svante Arrhenius.
Gosh I wonder how Arrhenius did that ay? Did he consult with Al Gore first?
Ahahahahahaahah
"You take a fact: average global temperatures are increasing (for argument's sake, as we're not even sure of that anymore)" - Lu
Well you might not be sure, but I can assure you that every legitimate scientist on earth is sure.
I have posted a plot of temperature over time twice now. Did you purposely ignore it?
"You take a second, coincedental fact: Human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are increasing at the same time You suddenly, incorrectly conclude that one caused the other." - LU
As I said, your knowledge is lacking and your appreciation of science nearly non-existant.
Science knows that adding CO2 increases the earths temperature because science has measured with great precision the absorption spectra of CO2. And since Science knows what frequencies at which CO2 emits and absorbs, Science can readily compute how much scattering back toward the earth's surface there will be, and hence how much heating will result.
These calculations rely on <NOTHING> more than the fundamental laws of radiative physics and thermodynamics. And if those are wrong, then all of science developed over the last 200 years - every shred of it... Is also wrong since all of it is based in part or in total on those basic laws of physics.
"Now, here's the thing - at the moment, climate science is in it's infancy, and the fact of the matter is that we don't even KNOW what all the factors are which affect global temperatures. In fact, the ones we do know, we are only just beginning to understand." - LU
Sorry. We do. You don't. But then you are scientifically illiterate.
"Hence, we have NO IDEA what effect CO2 has. And no way to predict temperatures any distance into the future. Not at the moment, anyway." - LU
Sorry. We do. You don't. But then you have proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate.
"This is why Dodgy Geezer quite correctly states :" There is NO proof which shows definitively that human CO2 is responsible for any measured change"" - LU
Outside fo mathematics science doesn't provide proof of anything, and never has.
Your regurgitation of a "criticism" of there being no <scientific proof> is therefore yet another example of your Scientific Illiteracy. The natural sciences never provide proof, and never have.
I would say that your general level of science comrpehension is on a par with a grade 5 public school student.
Pathetic.
Vendicar Decarian - Questions answered - most were childish..
"Child-like questions are the best ones" - Geezer
Only when they come from children. It gives adults the ability to train them.
When adults ask such questions, it simply shows their intellectual inferiority.
---
the biosphere and human culture has evolved for the previous temperature regime.Any variance from the norm is necessarily immediately suboptimal.
>We know that there have been several ice ages, where the earth has been cooler than it is now.
A couple of dozen in fact.
---
"The two answers above are odd - you seem to be saying that life has evolved to be able to withstand ice ages and interglacials in the past, but now we have suddenly stopped evolving?"
What makes you think that life evolved to withstand ice ages? How readily would human civilization to scraped off the map by 2 mile thick glaciers scouring over North America?
What I said was that the biosphere has evolved to be optimal for it's current state. I didn't say that it had evolved to be optimla for a glacial cycle.
And since it has evolved to be optimal for it's current state, then any change of state is necessarily suboptimal.
It really is quite simple to understand. I fail to see the origin of your confusion unless it is simply willful ignorance on your part.
"Or does 'suboptimal' mean no more than we must adapt again, as we have always done? If so, it doesn't mean much..."
Suboptimal means a reduction in the count, of individual organisms in any niche, and a reduction in the number of niche that are available to be occupied.
---
Within the next 90 years the earth will have warmed such that it will be warmer than it has been for the last million years.
----
"Ooh, what an assertion!" - Geezer.
Wrong. It's a scientific calculation.
"I presume you haven't read the latest debunking of the hockey stick? The MWP was much warmer. Don't you know that Wahl and Amman has been shot down?" - Geezer.
Which one? There are dozens of hockey sticks in the scientific climate change literature, all based on different data sets, and all supporting each other.
Are you referring to the hansen hockey stick that was reviewed and vindicated by peer reviewers at the the American Physical Union?
---
Why is there variance? The system is chaotic. and various natrual inputs perterb the system.These inputs have all been quantified, and Co2 turns out to be the driving factor in the current temperture excursion.
---
"Oooh again! Some inputs have been guessed at. Did you see the paper on desert sinks for CO2 a week ago? A totally new sink which is not understood at all yet. We really know very little about the climate system." - Geezer
And one that is completely irrevalant, since the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 has unequivaquiibly been shown to be a result of the emissions of man.
Unless of course you are going to claim that a CO2 sink is a source of CO2.
"What has happened is that CO2 has been ASSUMED to be totally responsible for the current (minor) warming fluctuation" - Geezer
No, It is Computed that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming. And this computation was performed first, well over 100 years ago.
There are no assumptions required. Only the emission/absorption spectra of CO2, and H20 and the equations discribing the change in water vapour concentration with temperature.
"some computer models have been created which model that assumption, and these have then been manipulated to match the recent historic data which shows temperatures rising. - Geezer.
You are delusional.
If the models - which are the life work of hundreds of researchers, are being manipulated then this would involve a conspiracy amount thousands of unrelated scientists from all over the world. And would require that tens of thousands of others remain silent about the falsification.
Sorry. That little KKKonspiracy is a figmant of your delusional mind.
" Unsurprisingly, if you continue that trend, you will see amazing temperatures. However, this trend has reversed in the last few years!"
Quite impossible since climate trends are not defined over such a short period of time.
Climate trends are defined over the time frame of decades, and for you to claim that climate change has reversed over a period of a few years, shows that you are completely ignorant of what climate is, how it is defined, and what the term means.
Further, there has been no change in the trend. Global temperatures continue to rise.
The universe doesn't care how much you lie about it. Your delusions do not change the measured facts.
"There is NO proof which shows definitively that human CO2 is responsible for any measured change." - Geezer
There is no scientific proof that you aren't a banana.
Science doesn't deal in proof, and never has.
Demands that science provide proof are the demands of someone who is scientifically illiterate.
---
Generally this is not a result of altertions in the depth of the ocean byt alterations in the height of the ground.Historical norms are not important if all major U.S. coastal cities are under water as a result of CO2 emissions.
--
"Ground height variation (and erosion) are all happening much faster than absolute sea level change."
Erosion isn't a significant factor in ground level change. Unless you are referring to the build op of silt at river delta's.
Ground level changes occurr primarily as a result of tectonic faulting, or the upwelling of magma from deeper in the earth's mantle.
"Why do you blame CO2 emissions?" - Geezer.
Becuase scientifically it's impossible not to.
> If the sea level rose 20 ft over the next 200 years, would 1 billion people drown, > or would they slowly move (to prevent said drowning)?
---
If 1 billion refugees moved to America to escape the loss of their homes due to global warming, would the U.S. be willing to accept them?
---
"Well, these figures are complete guesses, based on no reality." - Geezer
Most people on this planet live in coastal cities. And by the tiime 2100 comes around there will be 9 billion people on this planet. If only 20% of them need to be resettled due to the flooding of coastal cities, then that is 2 billion people.
Are you willing to accept them?
"No country has yet had to consider relocating people because of Global Warming," - Geezer.
Your question regarded a rise of sea level by 20 meters. And you asked about the repercussions of such a rise.
Now when one facet of those reprocussions are provided to you, you now claim that your own assumption - a 20 foot rise - was unrealistic.
I can only conclude that your question was therefore a dishonest one.
"though a lot of rubbish is talked about it by politicians who are hoping to get money." - Geezer
Money grubbres like yourself are always worried about other people stealing their money. If it's not whining about warming, it's whining about the scientific link between cancer and tobacco, or the link between CFC production and Stratospheric Ozone depletion, or the link between the emission of sulfuric acid by smoke stacks and the falling of sulfuric acid from rain clouds.
The world has come to ignore the whining of money grubbers like yourself, as we know that your motivation is not only anti-scocial, but explicitly immoral in the extreme.
But you have made your motivation clear. You are a coward who fears that he will be forced to pay for the part he plays in the destruction of the Biosphere.
Awwwww. Tooo bad...
"However, if we just accept this figure at face value, 1 billion refugees over 200 years is 5m per year."
Where did you get the 200 year figure? It's different than your previous assumption.
Aren't you going to make an honest attempt even to stick within the constraints of your own question?
"The US currently accepts between 1m and 2m per year legal permanent migrants. So, assuming the migrants were spread over the world, I would guess that no one would notice the slight increase." - Geezer
An increase of 150% is a Slight increase?
And if we use your original time frame it's 300%?
And if we are realistic, it's closer to 600%.
Honesty doesn't appear to be your strong point Geezer.
"But it's not going to happen." - Geezer.
I See, so you wouldn't accept the refugees that you create.
And the conditions in the question you asked will never happen
If so, then why did you aske the question? Child.
"Degree-level icon, because NO ONE should just be asking someone else for interpretations of data at this stage of the game." - Geezer
Mindless, Incoherent drivel.
"Below normal cold in the Canadian Arctic
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/nwp/nwp07.png" - Whelan
And this image you link to, shows <LESS> ice than the one you provided yesterday.
The sad fact of the matter, is that Global Warming Denialists really are as idiotic as Shawn Whelan here.
The arctic ice continues to melt.
"Note that China is now the number one emitter of greenhouse gasses "
Nope. Sorry. The U.S is still the number 1 emitter of CO2 both in absolute terms and per capita.
And on a Per Capita basis, China emits 1/6th that of the U.S.
China will eventually exceed the U.S. emissions rate in absolute terms. But it will <NEVER> reach the current U.S. rate of emission.
And the U.S. will never again emit at the rates it is currently emitting.
Non-compliance with emission controls will result in trade sanctions being placed against the failed AmeriKKKan state.
If AmeriKKKa will not act rationally then it will be starved into submission.
If even stronger measures are needed, I will not hesitate to implement them.
"As of Sunday, August 17 - the UIUC maps show 2008 about 25% larger extent than their 2007 map. Looking at the trend, it appears that this season will end with about 15-20% greater extent than last year. The NSIDC graph and the CT maps appear to be converging somewhat over the last week." - Goddard
And 50% of the existing "extent" has an ice density of less than 50%.
Now there definately is going to be more ice this year than last, but the trend for this year is also clearly less ice this year than in all years prior with the exception of last year.
This year will have the second smallest coverage of ice since records began.
CT obviously uses NCEP data with some coastal noise removed. Compare with NCEP images from (nominal) 1 day before:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20080811.jpg ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/history/ice/nh/nh12.20080810.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20080818.jpg ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/history/ice/nh/nh12.20080817.gif
BTW, NSIDC doesn't seem to have an archive of daily images, but they do have the image of 366 days before:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration.png http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_record_concentration.png
And note that NSIDC (and others) doesn't use an equal area projection, so pixel counting isn't quite correct (raw data needs to be weighted too to be exact).
The reason that NSIDC reports a relatively small difference in extent between 2007 and 2008 may be high amounts of coastal noise, and the provisional data of 2008 seems to have less of it. So the real difference in extent is likely to be greater. But the difference in area is smaller, and the remaining ice seems to be in an even poorer state than in 2007.
The current rate of decline is notable at this time of the year, and almost all ice melted within the Arctic. The export through Fram Strait has been almost zero during the last weeks.
...must be the Register's strange idea of "entertainment".
There is nothing fanciful about the idea of AGW, and the deniers seem pretty unanimous in their need to use unscientific gibberish and plain old lies.
As for this year's Arctic Ice melt - it is NOT AS MUCH as last year's, but MORE than any other year prior to 2007.
The years 2005, 2006, and 2007 each successively broke the record for Arctic melt.
The trend, which was a straight steady warming trend, has turned over the last decade into a sharp parabolic curve towards warming.
Despite these facts, The Register's Goddard is trying to tell us the Arctic is getting colder, based on the (partial/incomplete) 2008 measurements.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
This sort of nonsense "journalism" (or is it satire? still not sure...) does the Register no credit.
Your devotion to NSIDC calculations is admirable, but they are not the only possible interpretation of the data. If you want to convince me to use the NSIDC numbers, then explain to us why the CT maps show a much larger extent difference vs. 2007. I'm looking for a technical explanation - your apparent love of government data sets is not a compelling argument." - Steven goddard
It's already been explained to you in detail. You make the assumption that any ice = 100 percent ice, while real scientists omit any ice concentration below 15% as it is marginal, transient, and destined to melt.
Sadly Steven Goddard hasn't got a clue. And his analysis has been found to be fraudulent.
I could address all your "criticisms" at length, but I have neither the time nor the inclination, so I'll keep this short.
Firstly, I never suggested/implied Al Gore invented Global Warming, I merely used him as the main spokesman for the theory we're discussing here.
Right, more importantly, you say:
"Science knows that adding CO2 increases the earths temperature because science has measured with great precision the absorption spectra of CO2. And since Science knows what frequencies at which CO2 emits and absorbs, Science can readily compute how much scattering back toward the earth's surface there will be, and hence how much heating will result."
So, you've correctly explained how we calculate THEORETICAL heat increases caused by CO2. You see, in our system (Earth, Sun etc.), there are a host of other factors which cause both increases and decreases in temperature. Now, your assertion is that we have made allowance for these factors, and we've concluded that the CO2 is the main one.
If you do some research, you'll find that scientists have found that we aren't even close to understanding all the heating and cooling mechanisms which affect our system, and there's simply not enough data to be able to reach any conclusions.
Now, I'm not gonna provide any links, 'cos frankly, I can't be arsed. Use Google, there's plenty of info out there.
“The two answers above are odd - you seem to be saying that life has evolved to be able to withstand ice ages and interglacials in the past, but now we have suddenly stopped evolving?”
Hate to say this, but this comment is complete bo££ocks. ‘Life’ does not evolve, individual species do. Those that can get through periodic turbulence in their environment do so, and the others die out. Those that survive then have the capacity to evolve into further branches, often supplanting those that did not make it.
Humanity itself is still evolving, like all other species. We probably have the pathways necessary to ensure that a pool will survive a lot of what the planet can throw at us.
But your feeble argument seems to be confusing the ability of species to physically survive with the consequences of possible destruction of the environment that supports our industrial society.
My apologies - I'd not realised you were going on about something so irrelevant to GW.
The "extent" of the ice cap is dependent as much on ocean currents and surface winds as it is on the temperature. As many, many people above have pointed out, the volume of the ice is more important than it's "extent" if you're interested in the effects of GW. Next time you'd do well to think twice before getting seduced by graphics which may be pretty, but have at best a very shallow meaning.
"So, you've correctly explained how we calculate THEORETICAL heat increases caused by CO2. You see, in our system (Earth, Sun etc.), there are a host of other factors which cause both increases and decreases in temperature. Now, your assertion is that we have made allowance for these factors, and we've concluded that the CO2 is the main one."
Now you haven't correctly explained how these other factors affect the temperature.
Since you seem so absolutely convinced that these are the only factors and CO2 is absolutely not a factor, you must have done the maths to prove it, yes?
So show us.
At the moment, all you have is "these other things cause warming" (a THEORY) and "therefore CO2 isn't the cause" (a LIE).
Quote Vendicar
"The sad fact of the matter, is that Global Warming Denialists really are as idiotic as Shawn Whelan here.
The arctic ice continues to melt."
But what is the truth. Perhaps we should look at the facts.
Look at this link for yesterdays temperatures from the northern route of the Northwest Passage.
Yes Vendicar, it is freezing. Then look at the same day from 2007 and see the great difference in temps.
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/hourlydata_e.html?timeframe=1&Prov=NU&StationID=1776&Year=2008&Month=8&Day=18
Quote Vendicar
"The blockage consists of water that is less than 60 percent ice, and 40% open water.
Let me give you a hint Steve. The blue part is water, not ice.
Idiot."
The Northern Northwest Passage never opened this year although it did in 1944.
How do you explain that after 60 more years of AGW?
"The more important northern route, through the wide and deep Parry Channel, is still ice-clogged. The northern route opened in mid-August last year; it may still open up before the end of this year's melt season."
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Quote Vendicar
"Nope. Sorry. The U.S is still the number 1 emitter of CO2 both in absolute terms and per capita."
Based on what?
I notice you never let facts get in the way of your arguments.
And don't start calling people names just because your argument is being dismantled.
Quote Mark: "At the moment, all you have is "these other things cause warming" (a THEORY) and "therefore CO2 isn't the cause" (a LIE)."
I said no such thing. I'm merely trying to explain that we don't know enough to understand all the factors that cause warming and cooling, and therefore we can't yet conclude that CO2 is the culprit. (Assuming of course we are warmer than we would've been anyway.)
For example, we're currently studying how things like ocean depth affects global cooling, but we've only just scratched the surface, we barely understand it. The same goes for average cloud cover, ocean currents, etc, etc etc.
I'm definitely not saying global warming isn't happening. Nor am I saying CO2 isn't the cause, I'm saying that the reasoning we've used to come to this "conclusion" is wrong. We don't understand the system enough to be able to say, one way or the other.
The point is, we've been told that climatologists have figured out exactly how the system works, put in all the factors, and come out with an answer of CO2.
We've also been told there's a consensus in the scientific community regarding this. They all agree that it was done properly, that all the factors and calculations are correct and that the conclusion is correct.
But neither of these statements is true. We don't know what factors to put into our calculations and computer models. And, as with any science in its infancy, there's nowhere near consensus in the community, as we have many theories and very few facts, so far.
I'm not denying or confirming the global warming theory, I'm saying that as scientists, we must admit we don't have enough data, and not go around treating our theories as facts.
Quote Vendicar
"A few days ago NSIDC declared the Northwest Passage to be open, but their August 17 map shows all possible routes as frozen over." - Steven Goddard
Here is a map of the only region that has any blockage.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/nwp/nwp07.png
The blockage consists of water that is less than 60 percent ice, and 40% open water.
Let me give you a hint Steve. The blue part is water, not ice.
Idiot."
The passages are now blocked by ice. I think an apology is due.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20080811180000_WIS56CT_0003912829.gif
"But neither of these statements is true. We don't know what factors to put into our calculations and computer models. And, as with any science in its infancy, there's nowhere near consensus in the community, as we have many theories and very few facts, so far."
Yes, yes we do.
We have astronomers who have been assiduously watching the sun and measuring its output to see how stars grow. The position and orientation wrt the sun of the earth is very important for accurate start charts. The axial tilt is measured VERY precisely for astronomy,
So those figures ARE WELL KNOWN.
How oceans react cannot be a big figure because oceanographers (and fishermen, fish stocks require lots of food which the ocean only realises when there's mixing going on) and so these figures are very heavily constrained to what these people already know.
Same with the rest of it.
All these other processes are responsible in total for less than half the change in climate temperature averages AT BEST (if you consider only the upper possibilities of all the other factors). Most likely is a third of the changes.
CO2 is enough to make that difference.
"BTW, NSIDC doesn't seem to have an archive of daily images"
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/seaice/polar-stereo/nasateam/near-real-time/browse/north
"And note that NSIDC (and others) doesn't use an equal area projection, so pixel counting isn't quite correct (raw data needs to be weighted too to be exact)."
NSIDC provides a file with the grid cell areas. Because the "true" latitude is so far north (70 degrees), weighting by the area, which I have done, makes only a slight difference (about a tenth of a percent).
"The reason that NSIDC reports a relatively small difference in extent between 2007 and 2008 may be high amounts of coastal noise, and the provisional data of 2008 seems to have less of it. So the real difference in extent is likely to be greater."
I don't think this would significantly effect my results for several reasons:
* spurious concentrations due to coastal noise are a small percentage of the total number of "iced" pixels;
* I limited my domain to north of 63 degrees, so I wasn't counting spurious concentrations in Hudson Bay or the Great Lakes;
* I only counted pixels with at least a 15 percent concentration, as the provisional 2008 data has a 15 percent cut-off. The greater number of spurious concentrations in the 2007 data appears to have been largely due to the inclusion of concentrations less than 15 percent in the 2007 data.
As the following image shows, the arctic meltdown continues at it's near record pace.
Every day that passes, the terminus of the northern slush pack retreats further and further.
Dispite the real world measuremetns that show the slush pack retreating every day, Whelan and Goddard continue to lie about the ice pack growing in extent.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.000.png
"Here is a map of the only region that has any blockage.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/nwp/nwp07.png"
Indicating that there is no blockage unless you consider 2 pixel widths which corresponds to perhaps 10 miles total of slush with a concentration of 30% ice and 70% water.
Whelan appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that BLUE represents WATER, not ICE.
You can't get any dumber than that.
"The passages are now blocked by ice. I think an apology is due.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20080811180000_WIS56CT_0003912829.gif" - Whelan.
Now Whelan tries to claim that the passage is ice blocked by pulling up a map from August 11th.
What little ice existed then has been pushed to the northern shores of the surrounding islands and this combined with the ongoing melt - his own reference provided earlier claimed that the sea water temperature was +4'C in that area, have melted the entire channel clear over the last week.
Now is it incompetence that causes whelan to post a map that is a week old and then claim that it shows current conditons?
Or is he knowingly lying?
You can already see the effects of Global Warming because it causes Climate Change which can be either warmer or cooler depending on if it gets warmer or cooler. In effect the carbon tax is working when things stay the same.
Remember Y2K. I single handedly fixed the whole Y2K problem and what thanks do I get? "Oh there was no problem". No you dummies, that's because I fixed it now give me my $100 billion.
"Nope. Sorry. The U.S is still the number 1 emitter of CO2 both in absolute terms and per capita." - Vendicar
"Based on what?" - Whelan
CO2 emissions.
"And don't start calling people names just because your argument is being dismantled." - Whelan
I recognize a fool as a fool, and a liar as a liar.
You have proven yourself to be a fool and a liar on multiple occasions.
If that upsets you then perhaps you should be something other than a fool and a liar.
"For example, we're currently studying how things like ocean depth affects global cooling, but we've only just scratched the surface, we barely understand it. The same goes for average cloud cover, ocean currents, etc, etc etc."
Ignorant Claptrap.
All first order inputs to the climate system have been identified and quantified and in fact were quantified 20 years ago. In large part all second order unputs have also been identified and quantified, and with a few exceptions that effort was completed 10 years ago.
The primary unknown variable in computing climate change has for quite sime time now, been the estimate of the Stupidity of the Human Race.
LU's efforts to raise the stupidity quotient are noted.
"I could address all your "criticisms" at length," - LU
Doubtful as you obviously have no concept of how science works and barely any knowledge of how the natural world works.
"Firstly, I never suggested/implied Al Gore invented Global Warming, I merely used him as the main spokesman for the theory we're discussing here." - LU
And a spokesperson who is solidly supported by the scientific community "his ilk" as you put it, and the scientific literature.
"Science knows that adding CO2 increases the earths temperature because science has measured with great precision the absorption spectra of CO2. And since Science knows what frequencies at which CO2 emits and absorbs, Science can readily compute how much scattering back toward the earth's surface there will be, and hence how much heating will result." - Vendicar
"So, you've correctly explained how we calculate THEORETICAL heat increases caused by CO2. You see, in our system (Earth, Sun etc.), there are a host of other factors which cause both increases and decreases in temperature. Now, your assertion is that we have made allowance for these factors, and we've concluded that the CO2 is the main one." - LU
Correct. The output from the sun is being measured constantly by solar astronomers as are all other sigificant factors that you might care to mention that might alter global surface temperatures.
Solar ouput for example, has been in slight decline over the last 30 years for example, and hence solar output can be excluded from the factors causing the observed Warming of the Globe.
"If you do some research, you'll find that scientists have found that we aren't even close to understanding all the heating and cooling mechanisms which affect our system, and there's simply not enough data to be able to reach any conclusions." - LU
Research consists of reading the scientific literature, something that you are incapable of doing, and something I do with regularity.
Your concept of research is regurgitating the mindless nonsense that you read on KKKonservative blogs. Nonsense passed down from other nonsense KKKonservative blogs, which is based on half truths obtained from yet other nonsense Denialist blogs.
Scientists as a profession don't write for KKKonservative blogs, don't read KKKonservative blogs, and don't publish their research in KKKonservative blogs.
The communiation media of science is peer reviewed and not rewritten by a corrupt, lying, MORON who illegitimately occupies the AmeriKKKan White House.
"Now, I'm not gonna provide any links, " - Lu
Of course not. You don't have any creditable links. All you have is Denialist Bullshit and and Denialist Ignorance.
If NSIDC says there is 10 percent more ice than last year and CT says 30 percent, where on CT's maps is there ice that doesn't show up on NSIDC's maps? Since 130/110 is about 118, there should be about 18 percent more sea ice coverage on the CT maps on the corresponding NSIDC maps. This means more than a slight difference at the edges, which would most likely be due to JPEG (lossy compression) vs. PNG (lossless compression) differences anyway.
I see that Mr. Goddard's article has gotten quite a discussion going. I've emailed The editors at The Register, but haven't heard back, and just recently Mr. Goddard directly.
Mr. Goddard's approach to counting pixels is simply not the correct approach. First, let me clarify a couple things.
1. The satellite data doesn't directly measure sea ice area or extent. It measures brightness temperature - a measure of the amount of energy emitted by the ice. This is converted to area or extent using an algorithm.
2. There are several different algorithms and they can yield different results in terms of absolute numbers. However, their trends and change from year to year show similar magnitudes. The Bremen AMSR data is from a different algorithm - hence it looks different.
3. Both UIUC and NSIDC use the same brightness temperature data.
4. Both UIUC and NSIDC use the same algorithm, but with some differences in the specifics, so the numbers aren't perfectly matched, but there is very good overall agreement and they yield the same conclusions about changes in Arctic sea ice.
5. People have talked a lot about "pixels", but one needs to understand what one is talking about. There are two types of "pixels". One is "data pixels"; this is a function of the spatial resolution of the sensor (i.e., how small of an area the sensor can resolve). For the data UIUC and NSIDC uses, the data pixels are about 25 x 25 km. The other is "image pixels", which describes the qualities of the image.
6. The data has to be gridded onto a projection, which yields a gridded resolution, which is also about 25 x 25 km, but varies depending on the type of projection and where the grid cell within the projection. The input data for both UIUC and NSIDC is on a 25 x 25 km grid. The UIUC grid that Mr. Goddard analyzes has been interpolated onto a different grid. I do not know the specifics of that grid, but such interpolation will change how the data looks when viewed.
7. The data can then be conveyed in an image. The image has an "image pixel" resolution. This is generally given in dpi or dots per inch. Higher dpi means a sharper image. However it does NOT change the fundamental resolution of the data.
8. An image is simply a way to convey data; it is not data itself. Therefor it is not proper to do analysis on the image. You need to use the data.
9. The gridded data, when analyzed, must account for the projection in terms of the area of the grid cells. You have to sum the ice, weighted by the correct area for each grid cell. NSIDC uses a polar stereographic projection with a true latitude of 70 N. Other than at 70 N there will be distortion that needs to be corrected for, as NSIDC does.
10. NSIDC freely distributes all the data, tools to work with the data, and the grid cell area files. So anyone can do their own analysis.
11. NSIDC's methods have been around for over 20 years, have been thoroughly vetted in peer-reviewed science journals, and confirmed numerous times over by independent scientists conducting the proper method.
12. Finally, Mr. Goddard need not have wasted his time doing his image pixel counting. He could've simply referred to the UIUC site, which actually counts the pixels properly and creates a timeseries plot:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
If you look at that plot, you'll that because it is area instead of extent, the raw numbers are lower. However, while it's a bit hard to make out the values real accurately, you see that this year on Aug. 11, it was ~4 million sq km, while last year on Aug. 12, it was ~3.6 million sq km (actually, since it's a one-year sliding window, Aug. 12, 2007 is no longer visible, but that's what it was on that data and the current range shows a similar difference). That's a bit more than an 11% difference. So Mr. Goddard's analysis of UIUC's data doesn't even agree with UIUC's analysis.
Hopefully Mr. Goddard will make a corrections soon.
Walt Meier
Research Scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
"Since RealClimate is obviously your spiritual and emotional home, Vendicar, why don't you go back there instead of insulting and ranting at every other poster here?" - Alan
I don't tollerate liars Alan. And neither do I tollerate fools.
Hence I do not tollerate AGW denialists.
CT had much less ice extent than NSIDC in mid-August last year, while this year's data are very similar.
Compare http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20070812.jpg and ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/seaice/polar-stereo/nasateam/final-gsfc/browse/north/daily/2007/nt_20070812_f13_v01_n.png
I made an overlay of both, as far as possible due to different map projections: http://i36.tinypic.com/nxjteb.png
MODIS image of the eastern Beaufort Sea at that day: http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T072240405 (cloudy elsewhere).
CT images had much fluctuations from day to day at that time; NSIDC images were much more stable. The increase between 2007-08-12 and 2008-08-11 in extent based on CT images is indeed somewhere in the range 20-40 %, but comparing single days doesn't make much sense with that much daily fluctuation (apart from the questionable method of pixel counting in anti-aliased and distorted images).
AGW believers, AGW denialists - neither terms have anything to do with science; politics and psychology maybe.
Science is about discovering the unknown, not worshipping the supposedly known. Some humility and an open mind goes a long way. Absence of both is little recommendation. Neither are bad manners.
OK, but do we have "round-earth believers" and "round-earth denialists"? Do we have "gravity believers" and "gravity disbelievers"? Or maybe that last one should be "intelligent-falling believers" and "intelligent falling disbelievers".
So why is it when you discover the unknown and that unknown says "burning all that oil is heating the planet and you may end up with a planet too hot to support 6Bn people or your culture" make it no longer "finding the unknown" but "worshipping the supposedly known"?
When Newton made his discovery that F=ma that we started worshipping accelleration???
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=19&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=19&sy=2008
Shows that the ice extent is quite close to last year. Shows also that rate of recession of ice is greater this year than last year for the month of July and so far for August.
That is the case too with the cherries and peaches and tomatoes this summer, despite the hottest and driest summer on record (Pacific Northwest)...they are late maturing due to cold spring.
Perhaps the arctic ice retreat will extend into October and exceed that of last year in extent of retreat.
chao
JMF
There is a major difference between 1st year sea ice and older, multi-year sea ice. 1st year ice has much more salt in it, and therefore melts at a faster rate than older ice with less sea salt.
The winters here are now much milder than they ever were in the decades of 1950-1980. Heck, we can grow kiwi's, palms, and even bananas on the coast of British Columbia.
Our ski hill closed down in the 1990's, was put up for sale in 2007. No one bought it, and it has only opened once this decade. We never get temperatures lower than about -25 Celsius, but in the 1950's and 1960's we would get -40 celsius temperatures.
And even more weird is the fact that the coldest temperatures of the year is not always January, but can be in March or earlier in November.
I used to fly small planes in the winter here. Most years Shuswap Lake froze over, as did Kamloops Lake. Last winter was the first winter this decade that ice formed on Kamloops Lake.
Even some large lakes in Wells Gray Park are not freezing up.
The only lake in BC which has "never" frozen over in the interior is Kootenay Lake....but now the trend, more often than not, is that most large lakes in the southern half of BC are not freezing over at all.
Plus, I completed graduate course work in climate change science, and agree that climate modification is in progress because of anthropogenic emissions such as GHG's, deforestation, inputs of ozone depleting substances into the stratosphere, more aerosols than ever (China and India together lead the pack in this which causes cooling in the North Pacific, increase snow melt and ice melt due to lower albedo's).
The real serious issue in my opinion with rapid climate change is the loss of habitat and species extinction. Humans can adapt, but most terrerstrial life forms cannot adapt fast enough, or move....so there will be some species at risk of extinction, and adding to the normal rate of habitat loss, that means disaster for most ecosystems.
In BC because the winters never get cold, the Mountain Pine Beetle has (MPB) killed off most of the Ponderosa and Lodgepole pine here. The extent of the epidemic is shocking. Over 80% of the mature timber in the Caribou and other regions is dead. The MPB larvae are killed off when winter temperatures reach -37 celsius or lower for a sustained time.
Since the bulk of the pine forest is 100+ years old, we have a very good record of what past winter temperatures were on average here in BC: and that is that it has always reached lower temperatures than -37 celsius here on average.
There was some past epidemics of MPB in southern BC, but they did not become large, nor impact the entire provincial forest containing pine.
regards
JMF
So who can tell me how Henry Larsen took the little St. Roch through the northern NW Passage in 1944 in only 86 days from from Halifax to Vancouver?
Larsens route through the Arctic after 60 plus years of supposed AGW would not be possible this year. Was there less ice in the Arctic in 1944 than 2008? It certainly appears so.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=19&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=19&sy=2008
The ice has already begun to increase in the Canadian Arctic with below normal temps as opposed to last years above normal temps. The Arctic is quite cold except for the Russian side.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif
It is beyond me how you could look at the satellite ice map and think 2007 and 2008 are equal in area.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=21&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=20&sy=2008
So, Shawn, take a look at this comparison, between 1st August and 19th August *this* year:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=01&fy=2008&sm=08&sd=19&sy=2008
Given the title of the article, "Artic ice refuses to melt as ordered", are we going to get an apology from Mr Goddard because the ice *is* in fact melting? Yeah, right.
Or how about this one:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=19&fy=1980&sm=08&sd=19&sy=2008
The difference between 2007 and 2008 is minuscule when compared with the difference between the early 1980s and the last few years. Saying that 2008 is only 60% of the extent of 1980 whereas 2007 was 59% doesn't mean that the world is getting cooler again.
In any case, looking at individual years is pointless. Climate changes only show up when you look at longer term trends, using 5- or 10- year rolling averages.
The weather office data shows that SST of the Arctic on August 20th, 2008, are quite high for the Arctic Ocean.
New sea ice melts below 0 Celsius, and as salinity increases the melting temperature decreases. See the following graph:
http://nsidc.org/seaice/intro.html
The graph shows that the freezing temperature of some first ice may be -2 celsius. I don't see to many SST on the Environment Canada web site for the Arctic Ocean below -2 celsius.
May be what will happen this year will be a repeat of the last few years: record levels of open sea water.
Good question regarding the antique sea crossings in the Arctic. Don't have the answer of the top of my head, so will research the cause or proximate cause for that.
regards
JMF
John Foster
As far as I can see the "little ice age" ended around sixty years ago for reasons that can't be attributed to AGW but were almost certainly "natural".
Then we had a period of cooling followed by a period of warming followed currently by a flat or cooling intermission. What comes next seems at best uncertain.
Yes, turning grass and forest into concrete and increasing CO2 is going to have some effect on climate but how significant that is compared with the natural forces and regulatory systems is simply unknown. Given the inadequacy of data and theory present climate models are little more than speculation and their track record is poor.
As a scientist, global warming is something you measure, not something you believe in.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
