Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 Next
Comments 52351 to 52400:
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:32 AM on 21 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Let's look a little closer at what might be required, if we want to figure out just how much of the season's drop in ice extent can be attributed to the storm. The trivial approach is to just say that the downward spike around day 220 in my comment #21 wouldn't be there if it weren't for the storm. As that graph is now on the previous page of comments, here it is again for ease of use:
From that visual, it does seem that quite a bit of ice extent was lost during the storm, thus it seems easy to think that if the storm didn't happen, the drop in ice extent would be that much less. But that ignores all the linkages between what was happening to ice and atmospheric dynamics before the storm, and what happened afterwards. The graph is also showing a five-day running average.
Let's look at just the 2012 ice extent data for the period around the storm, without any smoothing:
Now we can see some of the increased variation from day-to-day. We can also see the storm - August 5 is day 218, and there are three days (218-220) of much greater loss of ice extent than is seen elsewhere in the graph. Again, the trivial answer would be to say that without the storm, those three days would have seen substantially less ice loss than actually happened - an eyeball estimate might be 80,000 sq.km per day, for a total of 240,000 sq. km.
I say "trivial", because that analysis ignores several factors. First, the storm that hit on August 5 as the result of the weather patterns that preceeded it. If we magically change the physics so that the August 5 storm doesn't happen, then we need to magically change the physics of the period leading up to it. If we look at the prior week of ice extent loss, we then need to ask "what would have been different then?". A key feature of the preceeding week was relatively small losses on days 212-214. Perhaps the weather during that period was unfavorable to ice loss, and when the storm hit a few days later the rapid loss was simply a "catch-up"? If we draw a straight line from day 211 to day 215, it looks like days 212-214 were running about 170,000 sq. km "short".
Same thing if you look at the week after the storm: there are several days that appear to have less ice loss than "normal". Is this because the storm caused a decrease in ice extent that was just ice that would have been lost a few days later anyway if the storm didn't happen? And because it was lost during the storm, it just wasn't available a few days later, so we see the lower loss rate? Just eyeballing the trends, I can see the potential for an extra 170,000 sq.km of ice loss over the period 221-227, if the highest points (least ice extent loss) were moved down to the 100,000 sq.km/day rates that occur at the bottom of the range.
In either of these hypothetical scenarios, it is possible that the storm (in combination with the weather patterns that preceeded it or followed it) just affected the timing of the ice loss, and not the overall total. These "what if?" scenarios suggest that there is possibly just as much ice extent that was not lost during the week before or after the storm as there was lost during the storm - ice that would affect the seasonal minimum.
To examine only the few days of the storm and hypothetically remove the storm, while ignoring the possible alternate realities for the time before or after the storm is to succumb to confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.
...and I haven't even considered the fact that ice extent isn't necessarily a good indicator of ice melt (as has been pointed out in other comments), nor have I considered the fact that the estimates of ice extent have error bars on them, so day-to-day variations may be partly noise rather than signal. All this complicates the analysis, and means that a lot more would need to be examined in order to come up with a meaningful estimate of how the storm affected the seasonal minimum in ice extent.
To try to assess the effects of the storm by just looking at the spike in extent loss is a fool's errand, as I said earlier. Drawing such conclusions from a single graph and source of data is just handwaving.
-
DSL at 04:38 AM on 21 October 2012Update from Easton Glacier: Climate Crocks on Ice
Steve, I think you've brought this up before. The problem is not with available moisture. The problem is that life in these areas of the world have developed around glacial water supplies. Glaciers provide a more consistent water supply throughout the growing season than does rain/snow only. In order to mimic the role of glaciers, more dams will be necessary -- more infrastructure, more money, more ecological questions, more local politics. And there are critical rivers in the world where dams would seriously restrict movement of materials (thus forcing the construction of more elaborate and costly infrastructure). -
Steve Case at 03:57 AM on 21 October 2012Update from Easton Glacier: Climate Crocks on Ice
"These glaciers make up a large part of the water supply for major cities and agriculture in many parts of the world. Without them, a lot of Great Plains agriculture would be impossible. A lot of western cities would be impossible as well. Not to mention a lot of the south Asian population would be put under severe distress. We're talking about potential upheavals of millions of people having no water to drink and less food to eat. Yes, it is a serious problem." Just because a glacier recedes does not mean that the rain and snow stops falling. Indeed, in a warmer world, the IPCC tells us that there will more evaporation, more water vapor and more precipitation. The rivers in those watersheds that currently have glaciers will still flow even if the glaciers disappear. -
dana1981 at 03:33 AM on 21 October 2012The Climate Show #29
Electricity doesn't have to come from high carbon sources, Doug. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:44 AM on 21 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #39
Test. Edit test.Moderator Response: Test. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:13 AM on 21 October 2012Climate time lag
Sorry, Falkenherz, I lost track of you. Everyone did answer your question, repeatedly, and you ignored the answers and just kept grasping at straws, hence my attitude. You can't be bothered to understand the science, but then are annoyed that people can't explain it to you on a kindergarten level. Yet you were clearly never interested in getting answers, but simply pretending to care so you could argue a case that you believe in (even though you claim not to). Today you are posting about this thread on WUWT as "thingadonta" and exposing your true nature there. -
michael sweet at 21:14 PM on 20 October 2012Models are unreliable
dvaytw, Can you ask your friend if he can cite a single instance of a model that uses a 1979-1982 base? I have never heard of such a baseline. Usually climate models use a thirty year base. Hansen uses 1950-1979 and others use more recent data. A few special data sets use a 20 year base because the baseline is changing so fast, due to AGW, that 30 years is not representative of the true baseline. It is difficult to counter an argument that is completely non factual. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:47 PM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
FWIW I emailed a copy of my blog post to Prof Salby before it was posted for his comment, but received no reply. -
mikeh1 at 19:42 PM on 20 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
FYI The links to the graphics in The Guardian version of the article are broken. -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:20 PM on 20 October 2012The Climate Show #29
Global collaboration to produce a show that would have been impossible just a few years ago, without Skype and broadband internet. A Kiwi in England talking to a Pom in Kiwiland just shows how small our modern globe has become, powered by high carbon electricity. When oil becomes expensive due to scarcity and the shortage cripples heavy transport, coal mining and gas extraction will become uneconomic and this wonderful technology we all enjoy will come to a shuddering halt. Very sad. -
Rob Painting at 17:49 PM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
John Brookes- so far Professor Salby has failed to respond to emails. -
chuck101 at 17:33 PM on 20 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale @43 'NASA estimated from satellite pictures the extent of storm damage to be around 500,000 km^2.' Sorry Dale, reference for this assertion please. It doesn't pass the smell test. I can't believe that NASA would have given such a cut and dried figure for what essentially would be a very fuzzy estimate. It is standard operating procedure for 'fake skeptics' to throw numbers out there with no attribution and hope no-one notices. If you want to join the ranks of the real skeptics, you are going to have to back up everything you say. -
Lanfear at 17:17 PM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
Daneel@5 You are completely wrong! This shows that CO2 follows temperature, so CO2 does not drive the warming.Or maybe not:
The same data, only the relative position is changed. There are so many, simple, ways to trick the human mind that one sometimes wonders the competence of the 'designer'.
-
bill4344 at 13:52 PM on 20 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Potholer does another excellent take-down. -
John Brookes at 13:24 PM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
Have you told Salby? I'm sure he'll be extremely grateful, and will quickly publish a correction/retraction. He must be very embarrassed at having made such an odd error. -
dvaytw at 05:12 AM on 20 October 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I've spoken on this topic and done a lot of writing and debating on it. I think two thinks should be added: (6) Resorts to "magic bullet" arguments, erroneously believing an entire scientific theory can be unwoven with a single piece of evidence. (7) Resorts to a "I'm not saying X; I'm just a guy with some questions" position... (see Joe Rogan vs. Phil Plait) but does not actively seek answers for these questions or supply an alternate hypothesis which explains as much of the evidence as the existing theory does. -
dvaytw at 05:06 AM on 20 October 2012Models are unreliable
I'm sorry if someone has already brought this up, but I don't want to read the entire comments section. An AGW denier friend of mine has brought up this question: "Why oh why do so many models use 1979-1982 as a base?" I dismissed his question for the anomaly-hunting it is, but I am curious if, assuming his observation is correct, anyone here happens to know the answer. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:47 AM on 20 October 2012Models are unreliable
dvaytw, other than Christy I have not heard of anyone using that for a baseline referent, let alone any climate models. Climate model referents are typically based on 30-year periods or more. Suggestion: Have your friend cite a source for that claim. Because it reeks like bunkum. -
vrooomie at 04:25 AM on 20 October 2012The Future We All Want
Fabiano@8, one of the best, and now out of production was the Copper Cricket. . It's long been on my loooong list of "round tuits," to build one. Naturally, they are widely avaialble in China, and one sees them all over rooftops there. -
vrooomie at 03:49 AM on 20 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
"That's denial, plain and simple, and it angers me." Sphaerica, I am *sooooo* there with ya! As I gather and store more and more data about the true severity of the pickle humanity has made for itself, and encounter more and more deniers (and I *will not* stop using hat term, when apropos) I too, get red-faced. However...after having acknowledged my human side and even having assuaged my baser instincts on some other blogs, in the end, we, the scientists who have the responsibility to present our data, interpretation, and findings in such a way as to "win over" the true skeptics to the side of "follow the data," must not cave to that anger, or at least attempt not to. To that end, what Kevin C said was really, really good: "Now an aside about skepticism. I've been thinking about whether real skeptic and fake skeptic arguments can be distinguished on the basis of form alone - whether fake skepticism has a fingerprint which can be detected without investigating the content of the argument. -Fake skeptics will start from a piece of evidence which supports their position, and avoid encountering additional evidence in case it is inconvenient to their position. -Real skeptics will be looking for additional evidence to test their views against. With that in mind, we can see that there are some 'real skeptic' responses in this thread.... On that basis, can I suggest that this presents a constructive way to continue the discussion. We could take Dale's question at face value and look for good approaches to address it." In my view, and knowing Dale's "other work on other blogs, I am fairly convinced that he's a fake skeptic, but slowly and surely has shown some signs of at least ~attempting~ to move over into real skepticism. He pushes and pushes--and yes, quite often, ties himself into rhetorical knots despite mounds and mounds of evidence against his incorrect rhetoric--against the data; IMHO, that *strenghtens* not only "our" data and findings, but it also teaches us humility and patience, neither of which I possess in great enough measure. My JPL/NASA buddy wrote me this bit of verbiage, which I find particualry engaging, viz, humanity's blindness to the issue, and our lack of response and why, in response to his reading of this article. "It's not so much that I believe that the needle is finely balanced. Rather it's sort of a broad crest. Yet, momentum is a viable analogy in this case. First: there is nobody taking their foot off the gas, much less applying the brakes. Second: at the decision level there is nobody (at the top corporate or government levels) even considering such a thing as it would give up short-term competitive position (which is what both types of leaders are evaluated on). So from this perspective it kinda doesn't matter. There's no braking going on. Momentum alone will probably carry us over the crest. Our foot is still pressing the pedal and so we are flying past rather than coasting." It's the fact of that racing past a point of literal no-return, and the level of obfuscation we see here from the Dales and the WTFUWT'ers, that certainly does make me angry, too. In the end, we (scientists) who work endlessly to try to get this message across, though human and who occasionally tend towards anger, must keep trying to engage the few Dales who seem to want to at least try to 'get it.' Inch by inch, row by row...;) -
Fabiano at 03:18 AM on 20 October 2012The Future We All Want
Hi ljonestz! Thank you very much for your kind comment! Cheers, Fabiano. -
Composer99 at 03:16 AM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
Salby's graph appears to rely on a misrepresentation of IPCC/mainstream climatology, one which I have seen in many a comment thread. This misrepresentation relies on the assumption that the IPCC/mainstream climatologists believe global climate or temperature depends solely on CO2. As Chapter 2 (PDF) of the >IPCC AR4 (Working Group 1) shows, this misrepresentation is clearly false. -
markx at 03:02 AM on 20 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Thanks, Mark R. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the "Net Heat Content" measures we are discussing here derived from actual measurements of ocean temperature? If so, is there any possibility that measurements taken prior to the deployment of the 3,200 Argo floats may not have been accurate enough for us to be sure we have recorded a 0.09 C increase in temperature worldwide and across a 2000 metre depth? Or was this figure derived from modeling the calculated increase in energy content? "...We have estimated an increase of 24x1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean...." (Ref Levitus etal 2012) -
Doug Bostrom at 02:54 AM on 20 October 2012The Future We All Want
In addition to Fabiano's generous offer of advice, folks who like to tinker and are interested in solar hot water systems might want to visit the website Build It Solar which has a marvelous compendium of solar energy information for DIY types. One key tip: if you're building a home or remodeling, take the opportunity to include a path for plumbing and wiring to the roof. Make it easier to install a system for yourself or somebody else in the future. This seemingly minor matter is a large driver of installation cost, often the largest. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:33 AM on 20 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Kevin C, I disagree. Dale's "question" amounts to an implication of the following: 1) Grudging acceptance that yes, there would be a record low this year, but... 2) We don't know how much the storm contributed to the low. 3) The storm therefore could be responsible for all ice melt more than a smidgeon over the record. 4) Therefore it's not really that big a deal, and we can delay a little longer. Outside of this context, the question of "how much did the storm contribute to the record" is really of no interest at all (at least to me). It was a reasonably rare storm, so how soon will it happen again? If it doesn't, then four years from now will you say "remember that storm back in 2012?" or will you say "oh, yeah, that, I'd forgotten." It is only of interest if changes in the Arctic make it not-so-rare anymore, in which case that is a big story in itself, that Arctic melt has generated an unexpected positive feedback in new weather systems that exacerbate the melt. It was also only one factor, and the main factors (serious melt in spite of otherwise mild weather) this year, as well as the main factor (global warming) that is demonstrated by the multi-year trend, are what are of interest, not singular events that affect the details. So... to me, the question and the lengthy debate are all designed to put doubt into people's minds as to whether or not this year's Arctic low means anything in terms of global warming in general and specifically the dangers of the future pace of Arctic summer ice melt. That's denial, plain and simple, and it angers me. -
Salby's ratio
Chris G - WoodForTrees has "Scale" and "Offset" parameters that can be adjusted. Just make sure your changes are to the correct CO2/temperature scales, unlike Salby's. -
markx at 01:25 AM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
The obvious lesson is with use of the correct scales any two near linear curves can be made to match,or to not match. -
What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
The storm was not the sole cause of the observed low area, but rather one factor involved. Storms like that are part of the natural variability (+/-) of Arctic ice extent. It was also not a sufficient cause for this years area, as seen by previous storms of similar magnitude not driving ice area to record lows. The storm was a contributing but not sufficient cause, one that only induced some variability over a multi-year trend of low ice volume due to another causal factor entirely - warming. In fact, if 2012 had the same weather factors as 2007, I expect the ice area minima would have been much much lower - this years weather was nowhere near as strong an influence on variability as 2007's. What dana1981 and Albatross have shown is that the 05 August 2012 storm cannot (by itself) be blamed for the low 2012 area, part of denying (as many 'skeptics' have attempted) the issue of declining total ice levels driven by global warming. Pointing to the storm and misattributing low Arctic extent solely to that variability factor is a "Look, squirrel" red herring. -
Chris G at 01:07 AM on 20 October 2012Salby's ratio
Nicely done, Tom. Trivial: "Off these..." Shoyemore, thanks for that link. Now I'm wishing WoodForTrees had a ln ratio function that could be applied. Suppose not hard to do with the graph data itself. -
Fabiano at 01:03 AM on 20 October 2012The Future We All Want
Hi Doug! Thank you for your post! There are different types of water heaters. The best ones are made of durable material and the energy consumption for their production is low. They work very well and there´s little impact on the environment. You can make your own one as I did at home. If you´re interested please let me know so that I can give you some tips. My email is: fabiano.scarpa@inpe.br Cheers, Fabiano. -
DSL at 00:14 AM on 20 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
My two cents on measuring storm impact. I think the first thing to do is eschew extent as the proper measure of the storm's impact. Extent/concentration is important in predicting potential melt conditions, but it's not a good metric for actual melt. I know using area has some issues (though the melt pond issue should be much less of an issue during the freeze season), and PIOMAS, while recently confirmed by Cryosat, has fairly large error bars. However, area and volume are still the more direct measures of melt, and the dailies are more problematic than the trends. Extent is highly variable and obviously especially susceptible to wind and current. It's the one place where "skeptics" don't have to work so hard at indulging in a bowl of cherries. -
DaneelOlivaw at 22:24 PM on 19 October 2012Salby's ratio
I've also seen some rescaling tricks while looking around near denialist blogs. Hey, look! There's no relationship between CO2 and temperature:
Oh, wait, it turns out there actually is one:
-
chriskoz at 22:10 PM on 19 October 2012Salby's ratio
Nice debunking, Tom. Good to see you back and kicking on SkS after a longish break... The title would be better "Salsby's rescaling", which more adequately describes the misleading distortion by the subject, a central point of the article. BTW, Salsby is not the first one to employ the "graph rescaling trick". I've seen very similar trick on lord Monckton's slides. Unfortunately, I don't remember where Monckton presented it. Quite possibly, he did it on his visit to Australia, in which case Monckton is likely Salsby's inspiration. I dare to add that I share opinions that Monckton's willful deceptions can be considered criminal acts. So can be Salsby, Monckton's follower. It's not our duty to setup the trials here but our very duty is to debunk harmful deceptions. Well done. -
Kevin C at 21:29 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
A few possible lines. I don't have time to follow these up: 1. Obviously projecting sea ice anomalies forward across the storm is worth trying. The confounding factor is that the annual cycle seems to have been changing over recent years. This can be tested for the other storms as well. 2. While IIRC air temperatures were low this year, SSTs were high. If ice melt for other high SST years can be examined, then an attempt to determine the impact could be made. 3. Ice thickness, of course, which confounds any comparison with past years. While clearly a factor, I don't see a good way to test how big. 4. Other factors mentioned at Neven's: changing ocean circulation, influx of fresh water, low snow cover. First step: eyeballing the CT anomaly tape suggests ~300k drop over a month around the storm, but that ignores any decline which would be happening due to the new seasonal cycle. 2011 was also declining over the same period, so that's more likely an overestimate. Tamino has done something on anomalies against time varying baseline, that would be the next step. -
Kevin C at 20:51 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Looking at this discussion, there are a couple of ionteresting things going on. Firstly, there has been a re-framing of what the article is about. The article was a response to various claims that the arctic minimum was not evidence for a decline in Arctic ice (ideally some more of these could be cited). The messaging was often subtle and implicit, along the lines: 'Declining ice means new records, this record was a fluke, therefore there is no evidence for a decline'. Reading various news site comment threads you can see that the hoi polloi have taken the implied argument and run with it. The article was not directly addressing Dale's more neuanced position, although it contains work which is relevant to it. However the discussion has continued as if it did. You could call that a thread hijack (although I don't claim it was deliberate or even attribute it to a single poster or post, it happens unintentionally all the time). I do however think that one contributory factor was Dale's @5. Dale, I presume you would recognize that there is a well-used debating trick of asking an unanswerable question and then drawing conclusions (or inviting the audience to draw conclusions) from the fact the question has no answer. However, in context, the question could equally well be legitimate. None of us can decide without access to Dale's thoughts. Now an aside about skepticism. I've been thinking about whether real skeptic and fake skeptic arguments can be distinguished on the basis of form alone - whether fake skepticism has a fingerprint which can be detected without investigating the content of the argument. Here's the sort of thing I'd be looking for as a first guess, but it needs study (e.g. in climate forums):- Fake skeptics will start from a piece of evidence which supports their position, and avoid encountering additional evidence in case it is inconvenient to their position.
- Real skeptics will be looking for additional evidence to test their views against.
-
bratisla at 20:07 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
correction : "the added loss by the storm" instead of "the loss" in the last paragraph. I substracted 2012's figure from the mean of other years for the corresponding days, and then I widly integrated. All of that with my eyes as a calculator, so don't put too much weight on this estimate :] -
bratisla at 20:05 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Thanks Bob Loblaw, you throroughly answered my question then :) I didn't think about checking Neven's posts on skepticalscience, hence my miss. The difference of rate of loss between the storm day in 2012 and the other years does not seem that staggering. Therefore, I have difficulties with the NASA loss numbers due to storm indicated by Dale. So I searched on the Internet, and after a few tries making me land in Watts's universe, I found the following : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79256 where they say that August sea ice loss rates were enhanced by the storm, but no quantitative indication of the storm effect on the total sea ice minimum. From a naive point of view, and using Bob's graphs, I would say that the loss was in the 50-100 000 km² range, but not 750 000 km². I'm terribly sorry to disturb everyone here, but could someone please share with me a link from NASA/NOAA with the 750 000 km² number ? -
MarkR at 18:37 PM on 19 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Hi markx @ #60. You can see the error bars on Levitus et al pentadal estimates in their Figure 1. I'm not sure of the exact details, but those error bars are believable. We can estimate the rough size from basic statistics of Normal distributions. Typically the errors get smaller at a rate of the square root of the number of measurements. For 5 years you have about 180 measurements from each ARGO float, and with 3,200 floats that means that to reach 0.01 C uncertainty in the overall estimate you need to have each ARGO float measuring to within +-7.5 C. This isn't exactly how the measurements are done afaik, and it's actually more complex than that once you include other features, but it does indicate that the size of the change you're considering should be detectable and it makes the Levitus error bars credible. But it should be remembered that this is different from the radiative forcing values calculated, since they look at trends in the data. With enough data, the error in a trend can be smaller than you'd expect from the original errors. -
shoyemore at 18:03 PM on 19 October 2012Salby's ratio
Some supplementary information - Professor John Nielson-Gammon does a nice little "smell test" here to see if temperature rise since 1979 is within the ball-park of what would be expected from CO2. Carbon Dioxide and Climate -
amyjoy at 17:48 PM on 19 October 2012Most coral reefs are at risk unless climate change is drastically limited
This is a very interesting post and goes back to what I was taught in Oceanography and Marine Biology. This post is completely true and it is scary how we are potentially going to lose our corals. Unfortunately a lot of people see the best solution for climate change to be geo-engineering. There are so many feedback mechanisms to consider and most geo-engineering 'solutions' have negative affects somewhere down the line. For example: many people want to use the ocean to take up more CO2 and take it out the atmosphere (by Fe fertilisation) and an increased uptake of CO2 by the oceans will have large negative effects on the coral as this will create more ocean acidification. Simply the best solution is mitigation; decrease CO2 emissions. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:11 PM on 19 October 2012Salby's ratio
To misquote a saying from my youth: "Graphs and statistics are like a bikini: what they show is revealing, but what they hide is vital". Mr. Salby may be more crafty than careless. I think his rescaled bikini might have just given him a wedgie. -
YubeDude at 15:54 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
54 It is just as likely, if not more so, that the large margin of ice loss compared to the previous record was marginally helped by a cyclone that was significantly amplified in power by the vast amount of ice loss in the ocean where it spawned and then spun to full power. Who begat who? I do think that objectivity is compromised if a cyclone is labeled as a storm when all the metrics show a low system existed that can only be described as a cyclone (963mb). Choosing not to call it a cyclone only opens the door for contrarians to ask: why is it being low-balled, to suggest that something is being hidden and then to ask for what purpose are they suggesting this was not a cyclone of historic proportions? Tell them how big it was, mention how powerful it was, and add that the ice loss was on a trajectory for a new low before the cyclone helped it along. It's not the record that is the big news, it is the cycle of loss that is showing no signs of abating. -
LRC1962 at 15:47 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
@Dale, The proof I believe can be found in the ice loss charts themselves. Best if you look at all the different charts. If the August storm was indeed a prime mover of ice loss then there should have been a dramatic change in the slope of the losses over an extended period or if not that a near vertical drop at that point. All charts do show a dip, but if you compared the slope pre storm to the slope post storm the general slope of losses did not change that much, nor was there a vertical drop. Certainly it did more damage to the ice then already there, but the end result I believe would have been just about the same. The argument that it was following the same trend as 2007 at that point is also very incorrect. It just happened that the 2 years matched at that point. The truth of the situation was that the starting point of this years melt was far higher then in 2007 so that the slope 2012 was on was far steeper then in 2007, and just continued on that path. The only way 2012 before the storm could have avoided smashing the records was to have all of Aug and Sept to be very cold, cloudy, calm conditions. -
DSL at 15:09 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Let's see what happened to volume. The following is a graph of 15-day linear trends starting on July 15th. The dates on the graph are the last day of the 15-day base period. There is indeed a dip where the storm occurs. There is indeed a recovery. Must have been a storm at the beginning of August in 2011, too, 'cause there's a dip there, too. Just checked. Nope.
-
Dale at 14:26 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dana @50 Clarification: it's the qualification "by such a large margin". -
Jim Eager at 14:08 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
And you forget, Dale, that average ice age, and therefore ice thickness and strength, was much lower going into this summer than in previous years with storm events, making the ice far more susceptible to being broken up by a storm of similar magnitude. The proximate cause of this year's dramatic breakup and subsequent melt out may have been the storm, but the ultimate cause was the multi year decline in ice thickness due to the increased warming in the Arctic. -
Treesong2 at 13:53 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale's 'Look! A monkey!' tactics have been thoroughly demolished but I'd like to throw one more rock. Hope I didn't miss something already said. The effect of the storm was to smash up weak ice and leave a greater proportion of strong multiyear ice in what was left. So even if the storm were replaced with Dale's 'normal', is it not likely that melting, having more weak ice to work on, would have proceeded faster and longer than it did in reality, thus significantly or even mostly wiping out the differential effect of the storm? -
DSL at 13:39 PM on 19 October 2012Salby's ratio
No excuses. Just a straightforward excursion into ethical la-la land. It remains to be seen whether Salby can be held accountable for it. Yet another test case for the proposition that we're heading deeper into the condition of postmodernity. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:25 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale @ 47It is not unreasonable to propose that the Arctic storm was the cause of "such a large margin".
Equally, it is not unreasonable to propose that the margin would have been larger if the weather had been different. It is playing games to argue for one outcome or the other. Only if you can stipulate what the weather would have been like, in response to the factors that caused the storm, can you stipulate what the result might have been. The storm had a cause before the event, so you must stipulate what would have happened if not the storm. Clearly, it would not have been business as usual, so just excising the storm without replacing it with effects that caused the storm is hand waving. -
dana1981 at 13:16 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale @47 - the part of the post which you are nitpicking says"Can this single storm really be responsible for breaking the previous Arctic sea ice record by such a large margin? The short answer is no."
That is correct. By itself the Arctic storm was not responsible for 760,000 km2 of sea ice loss. The storm certainly played a role, but for all the reasons we discussed, the storm is not responsible for breaking the previous record.
Prev 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 Next
