Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 Next
Comments 52401 to 52450:
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:11 PM on 19 October 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Rosco, that is news to me. Can you provide a link to their research that says "that there has been no warming for the past 15 years"? It must be powerful stuff, to overturn the laws of physics and the metrics of ocean heat content. -
YubeDude at 12:46 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
I missed something from 47# The storm was characterized as "an Arctic cyclone" yet reading the article I see no mention of this label. Also it appears that little credit (other than where the article talks about fetch and wave action) is given by Dale to the strongest action responsible for the break up. surface waves. It is only because of the loss of ice that this fetch is created and it is only over a large fetch that wave and swell activity can reach a potential to break apart thinner sections of ice. The storms potential only exist because of the open water after the extensive loss of ice. It's not the wind on the ice, it's the wind on the water that creates a sea surface that will impact the ice. Wind driven ice is proportionally small when compared to the winds effect on sea surface and those effects on the ice mass If a mod wants to consolidate this into my post @48...? -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:35 PM on 19 October 2012The Future We All Want
Fabiano, thanks for the link to that pdf. I am reading it with interest. Here, in Queensland, solar energy systems for hot water and electricity enjoy government subsidies of various types. I am in favour of both uses of solar energy, but my budget does not yet stretch far enough to be able to afford the initial capital outlay, even though there is a long term payoff. If/when the carbon cost of electricity and gas are added to their consumption cost, I expect the equation to become a no-brainer. From a sustainability viewpoint, there must be embodied carbon costs and the consumption of non-renewables (such as metals and rare minerals) in supplying conventional water heaters and in solar systems, but I do not know what they are. If solar construction causes more damage to the environment than conventional, it would not be such a good idea. -
YubeDude at 12:06 PM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
46 post to try and clear the air, then the 47th post did a reasonable job of synopsis only to turn and throw another log on the fire of rhetorical excess by anchoring to the idea of storm=cause of large margin; not partial cause or marginal cause but rather "the" cause. A few good analogies have been used, here is mine. A cold and fat homeless guy meets a girl, ask for a kiss, she says no. Next day same guy sees the same girl only this time he has shaved, again she says no. Next day he asks again only this time he is wearing a clean shirt, same answer. This goes on for so long that finally he has warmed up, lost weight and is now dressed to the nines, he is funny with wonderfully engaging banter, he has an expensive haircut, nice watch, is very polite and respectful, only this time he has splashed on some Stetson. She has been won over and now gives him the kiss. Proportionally speaking, how much credit goes to the cologne? It appears that some want to assign an undue amount of credit to a storm that undoubtedly played a role in this seasons numbers but only after enormous ground work had been laid. I am interested in the question someone raised that posited, maybe the storm was as powerful as it was due to the extensive ice loss; ice loss driving the storm more than storm driving the ice loss. -
Dale at 11:27 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
I just want to point out, that only Dana @38 has attempted to answer my question. Thank you Dana. Q. If the storm had not have occurred, would the minimum ice extent have been the same? A. I think it's accurate to say that 2012 wouldn't have broken the record by as much if not for the storm. THUS: The statement in the article that the Arctic storm was NOT responsible for "such a large margin" isn't entirely right. Regardless of all other factors, which are conditions on the long term trend, the 2012 minimum ice extent is so bad because an Arctic cyclone ripped up a huge section of ice, pushed it into warmer waters and caused it to melt a lot earlier than it would have (thus impacting other factors in the Arctic such as albedo, ice structure stability, etc etc). It is not unreasonable to propose that the Arctic storm was the cause of "such a large margin". -
markx at 10:38 AM on 19 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Given that the world wide ocean temperature from 0 to 700 metres has risen a measured 0.18 degrees C in 55 years, and the world wide ocean temperature from 0 to 2000 metres has risen 0.09 degrees C in that time period: I ask; 1. How much has the 700 to 2000 metre temperature increased in that time? 2. How confident are we in the accuracy of these measurements? Especially going back 55 years, before the time of Argo buoys, when it was mainly buckets and ropes? (Ref Levitus etal 2012) -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:21 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
"NASA estimated from satellite pictures the extent of storm damage to be around 500,000 km^2. They noted large chunks of ice broken off the main pack and pushed southwards towards warmer waters where they would melt much faster." And what exactly made the ice so susceptible to be broken off and carried away? Your questgion is still a rethorical one, of no real interest. Here is another question of that kind: NASA said 500.000 sq.km eh? If that storm would have happened at the same time of the year to the ice pack of 15 years ago, how many sq. km would have been carried away? What that storm reveals is not that one can quibble over a weather event to argue about how badly a record low was broken (although it did that too). It reveals that summer Arctic sea ice shows signs of being moribund. No rethoric can diminish that fact. -
Bob Loblaw at 10:02 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale: Do you understand the link between the graph I have provided and the graphs that are in the main post by Dana and Albatross? Specifically, their figure 2? My graph is simple the slope of their graph, which means that their graph is the integral of mine - or sums, if you prefer. You don't have to do the sums to compare the average melt rates: that's in figure 2, which clearly shows that 2012 was in substantial decline compared to previous years long before the August storm. The steep slope in figure 2 is not the result of the storm, as was pointed out in the post. You are utterly wrong in using your eyecrometer on my graph to conclude that 2012 was is not abnormal in terms of ice loss. Yes, picking 2007 weather is a cherry pick, just as picking "normal" to replace the August 2012 storm is a cherry pick. You don't feel I'm justified in my cherry pick, yet you still haven't justified yours. If the "comparison should be done with similar weather", then you can't remove the storm and replace it with dissimilar weather ("normal"), either. Once again, you are one-sided: you are only willing to consider cases where your hypothetical "different weather" is limited to "weather that reduces ice loss". You are still assuming your conclusion. Your replacement of the storm with weather conditions from 2012 is not reasonable, because if the storm were somehow magically prevented then the rest of the summer's weather would not have been the same. The energy and dynamics would have to go through a significant shift in the period following the storm/not storm, to compensate for the changes in energy that "removing" the storm would have. You can't tell if the rest of the summer would have had more, less, or the same amount of ice loss without a lot more detailed analysis than your hand-waving. You need to include an analysis of everything else that would have changed after the time of the storm, presuming that the storm didn't happen. Unfortunately, your mind-set won't let that happen, probably because to consider that would force you to reconsider your conclusion. You will only consider possibilities that move one way: to reinforce your preconceptions. -
Neven at 09:56 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
the 2012 summer was pretty ordinary, not conducive for high melt like 2007, and not conducive for slow melt I think that's wrong. In the weeks preceding the storm weather conditions were very conducive for slow melt. The same conditions slowed the melt in 2010 and 2011, but they didn't this time. Just read the intros of the ASI updates on the Arctic Sea Ice blog for a chronology, especially this one. The 2012 melting season was the melting season that definitely confirmed that the ice is thin. PIOMAS was already telling us that for quite some time, but that's a model so we couldn't be sure. Sea ice behaviour at the end of the 2011 melting season already raised the veil a bit, but what happened this season is very strong evidence, backed up by satellite observations (CryoSat-2 and SMOS). Would the margin between this year's record and that from 2007 (perfect storm) be as big if the ice hadn't been as thin? That's the question. The pertinent question relating to the big summer storm is this: Will we see more big summer storms as the thin ice retreats earlier so that the waters warm up more? Let's hope not. Very good post by the way, Albatross and Dana. Thanks for digging up all that info on previous storms. I will re-post on the ASI blog. -
Rosco Bell at 09:13 AM on 19 October 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Britain's Met Office’s Hadley Centre is said to be reporting that there has been no warming for the past 15 years. What do you make of this?Moderator Response: That "saying" is incorrect. See the Skeptical Science rebuttal. -
Dale at 09:13 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Bob @37 A comment on your graph: it shows the red line moving up and down in the range of years. There's some bad melt days, and some not so bad. That looks fairly common across all years. I'm not doing the sums to see if the average daily melt is worse than the average of all other days, but I would not say it's abnormal. If it were, then the red line would stay on the high melt level all year. As for choosing 2007 weather conditions to replace the storm, that's cherry-picking. You're cherry-picking conditions from a bad weather year to slot into an average weather year. Comparison should be done with similar weather, not extreme weather. Like I can't say definitely that if the storm had not have occurred the weather would have been the same as it had been, you cannot say definitely the weather would be like 2007. The difference is, at least my replacement with weather conditions from 2012 is reasonable. DSL @39/40 NASA estimated from satellite pictures the extent of storm damage to be around 500,000 km^2. They noted large chunks of ice broken off the main pack and pushed southwards towards warmer waters where they would melt much faster. Jim @41 You forget that the article lists other storms of similar size and intensity right from the beginning of the satellite era, and no conclusion of increasing frequency or intensity of storms over time can be made. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:12 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
My own inclination is to believe that the storm this summer only acted to reveal exactly how weak the remaining ice is, rather than the other way around. In this Dr David Barber lecture he discusses his trip on the ice breaker Amundsen where they found the quality of the ice to be substantially degraded in ways that were not being picked up by satellite imaging. I believe the Arctic ice sheet is about to start a final rapid decline. I may be wrong but I don't think there will be a recovery next year. I think it's slipped of the edge of the cliff and it's just a matter of how quickly it's going to hit bottom. -
Jim Eager at 08:22 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale, you are leaving a factor out of your hypothetical question: that the storm itself, or at least its size, severity and duration, may be a result of the increasing warmth in the Arctic and the amount of open water present immediately prior to the storm. Both the climate of the Arctic and the physical nature of the sea ice has clearly changed, which means even random natural weather events, such as the storm, reflect that change at least in part. -
DSL at 08:10 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale: "The 2012 abnormality is not." Wrong. As I pointed out upstream, area in 2012 recorded daily anomaly record lows for 109 consecutive days -- starting in late June. Before that streak began, there was another stretch of 16 days. 2012 was dropping faster than any other year well before August. Storm schmorm. -
DSL at 08:03 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale, I've done a back of envelope to approximate the storm damage. I used SIA, though, because I think extent is a nearly useless measure (less error prone, but also much less useful). I cam up with a max additional drop of 150,000 km2 over the remainder of the melt season. There's a clear rebound in both area and volume records that suggests that the effect is actually much less than even that. I'd like to know how you'd calculate it, if you had access to all data. -
dana1981 at 07:54 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Just as a technical note, Albatross is co-author on this post and did a lot of the important research. A lot of people are saying "Dana" - I want to make sure he gets credit for his work on this too. I think it's accurate to say that 2012 wouldn't have broken the record by as much if not for the storm. Just like we can say 2007 wouldn't have broken the record by as much if weather conditions hadn't been ideal. But the point remains that similar storms in previous years had very little impact on the eventual minimum; therefore, it's safe to say that this year's storm only could have had a significan influence on the minimum because the ice was already much weaker. So if you're blaming the storm, you're also blaming the long-term sea ice decline. -
Bob Loblaw at 07:49 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale @35: ...and we see that your "skepticism" is totally one-sided. Replacing the 2012 weather with the 2007 weather is just as valid as your choice of replacing the storm with other weather from the summer 2012 - they are both mind games. You have absolutely no justification is assuming that "no storm" means "replaced with normal conditions". Why? Because that "normal conditions" of the rest of the summer of 2012 was exactly the type of conditions that created the storm of early August. The storm is the result of a combination of dynamics and energy transfers. If the storm hadn't happened, the pressures and energy build-up would had to be dissipated in some other fashion, and the rest of the weather on either side of the storm would also not be the same. And you have absolutely no idea what that different weather would have done to the ice. You can't just erase the physics of the storm and pretend that it would not have any other effect on the physics of the rest of the season. In effect, you have assumed your conclusion: you are convinced that "no storm" means less of a record, because you start from a position where "no storm" can only lead to weather that causes less ice loss. You are keeping the weather that leads you where you want to go, and magically erasing the weather that might lead you elsewhere. It's cherry-picking the weather that you want. It's not science. ...and you haven't said a thing about the graph I presented above, that shows that large parts of the melt 2012 season had ice loss rates that were on the greater side of "normal". All it would take for the 2012 record to reach the same magnitude - in the absence of the early August storm - would be for the melt rates on some of the "low melt" days to approach the melt on some of the "intermediate" days. And physics requires that to prevent the August storm, something else would have had to change in the weather around it. -
reg61 at 07:46 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Thanks for those clear explanations. Probably a Dhoo moment called for. -
Kevin C at 07:44 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
That is a hypothesis. Dana presents an alternative hypothesis. The distinction between the two hypotheses is that Dana examined previous Arctic storms in order to test his hypothesis. -
Dale at 07:05 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Bob @32 I think "replacing" the storm with 2007 weather is not valid. We know from reports that expect for the storm, the 2012 summer was pretty ordinary, not conducive for high melt like 2007, and not conducive for slow melt. Therefore "under normal conditions" replacing the storm with 2012 style of weather is more appropriate. Which under those conditions, I can see how a new record would be set, but not to such a large margin. CoalGeologist @33 Fair points, and I agree. Moving goalposts are bad. But what we're talking about in this article is attribution, ie: how much ice melt did the storm or underlying conditions cause? We can all agree based on the long term trend that Arctic ice is shrinking due to more warmth in the region. We can all agree based on the long term trend that 2012 is an abnormality. But what caused the abnormality? Was it the underlying long term trend or natural variance? For that we look back at how other similar examples are done, ie precedents. If we look at long term temperature, the growth in temperature is attributed to the long term slow rising trend. Abnormalities (ie: higher or lower years by large margins) are attributed to natural variance (ie: El Nino,, volcanism, etc). Thus using the same principles, the underlying long term Arctic melt is attributable to the growing warmth in the Arctic. The 2012 abnormality is not. So what can you attribute such a large margin to? The storm. -
Composer99 at 07:02 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale: The problem is that your speculatory question is directly rebutted by evidence noted in the OP. One might say it has been pre-bunked. dana shows several previous years in the satellite record with similar major early-August storms, and no discernable effect upon eventual sea ice extent minima. In some years, the minimum extents are higher than previously and in others they are lower. If it were truly the case that the storm was a critical causal factor in this years' minimum, surely the other years would show consistent decreases. In addition, your claim ignores the vulnerability of the severely-deteriorated sea ice (as a result of ongoing warming) to storm activity, which I have already quoted from the OP's concluding remarks. The effects of the storm require, of necessity, the prior vulnerability of the sea ice to have had a significant impact on the eventual minimum. As far as I am concerned, that is as good as saying "the storm is not responsible". I might also add that your behaviour here, which has been characterized as 'fake skepticism' is consistent with many of your myriad other posts on this site. No one need assume anything about you when we can review your posting history, and it strikes me as unreasonable to expect us to ignore that history when commenting on this thread. -
CoalGeologist at 06:48 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale... You make a valid comment. It's an unfortunate fact, however, that ideologically-motivated AGW Denialism has tainted valid skepticism. There tends to be a knee-jerk response within the scientific community to regard even valid skepticism with suspicion. I think the point made by several of those who have responded to your comment is that the storm was likely a necessary component of this year's melting, but that it does not provide a sufficient explanation. The other essential element is the background climate change. In other words, this year's record is highly unlikely to have occurred unless both conditions were satisfied: 1) exceptionally thin ice (due to AGW) and 2) a strong storm. (The storm itself was NOT so unusual.) Skeptics vary according to the level of "proof" they require before rejecting whatever is the null hypothesis. And you certainly have the right to set the bar very high, if that is your inclination. The risk you have to recognize, however, is not to lapse into dogmatism and the "Moving Goalpost" fallacy, which is common in AGW Denialism. This is partly why you've received the response that you have. When legitimate, unbiased climate scientists encounter what they perceive (correctly or incorrectly) as a "moving goalpost", the common conclusion is that there will NEVER be sufficient proof to satisfy them. I believe this is the actually the case for many prominent pseudo-skeptics. What's up with that? -
Bob Loblaw at 06:38 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale: let's see how far your "skepticism" goes. You say: I'm sceptical of the claim in the article that the storm is NOT responsible for "such a large margin". If we want to make the storm "not happen", we have to replace the storm with some other weather. Let's think about what would happen if we didn't have this summer's weather, and instead had weather similar to 2007, which (nearly?) everyone agrees was ideal for arctic ice melt. In that case, I expect that my hypothetical summer of 2012 would have seen even greater melt than actually occurred. In that scenario, I would be equally justified in saying "the weather of 2012, even with its great storm of August, prevented an even greater loss of ice and a larger margin of record". You are playing the fool's errand of assuming that removing the August storm means that the weather that replaced it is automatically benign - that whatever weather happens instead wouldn't cause the same high rate of ice loss. Yet the graph I posted in comment #25 shows rapid ice loss around day 160 in 2012, and rapid ice loss around day 180 in 2007, and day 200 in 2009 (to name but a few). What weather events caused those rapid ice losses? What if those types of weather events replaced the August 2012 storm? You are falling prey to the "uncertainty" argument that fake skeptics often use: treating the situation as if every uncertainty falls in the direction of the pre-conceived conclusion you don't want to let go of. If you want to play the "what if this didn't happen?" game, then you have to specify what you think will happen in its place. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, you are just using rhetoric. -
Bob Loblaw at 06:14 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Note that adding up the trends of three segments would only match the overall trend if the three linear segments also intersected at the dividing points - i.e., if years X and Y are the dividing points between the three segments, then the linear fits for segments A and B would have to calculate the exact same temperature value for year X, and segments B and C would have to match at year Y. This is unlikely, and Riccardo's perfectly linear overall trend is one of the few cases where they would. The best example of how different segments do not match up is the Escalator graph, featured on the upper right corner of every SkS page. Look at how different the temperature values are at the dividing year of the short "trends" in the "skeptics" version. There is no way that those trends will add up to the correct value of the realists' overall trend. Every short segment has a large vertical displacement from the adjacent one(s). It is mathematically possible to force several line segments to intersect at the dividing X value, but you end up with an additional constraint on the regression, and a different result from what you get with three independent fits. -
Dale at 06:01 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
I'm NOT denying that the ice melted fast, that it would've been a bad year, that the ice was thin, or that extra warmth in the Arctic has no affect. I'm sceptical of the claim in the article that the storm is NOT responsible for "such a large margin". Isn't that what this site is supposed to be about? Being sceptical? Well sorry, but to me you all seen "accepting" not "sceptical". If you want to say the storm is not responsible, you have to show that under conditions without the storm the result would have been similar. In this regard I don't believe you can. Yes, it's reasonable to say a new record may have been made, but not to "such a large margin". IE: if the storm had not have occurred, the record may only have been by 250,000, not 750,000 km^2. GET IT? Or are you all so willing to jump to conclusions and ASSUME things about me? And Sphaerica, can you please stop with the personal insults. It shows more about your character than your argument. I did not insult you, so why do you feel the need to personally insult me? -
Riccardo at 05:57 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
reg61 you'd be right only if the 30 years trend is perfectly linear, which is not. The larger the difference between the decadal trends the more easily you'll find discrepancies. Plot together the 30 year trend and the three decadal trends and you'll see the effect. Also notice that the trends come with an error you should take into account. -
DMCarey at 05:43 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
@23 DSL, Oh hell, I can actually picture that now. "If the seas weren't so rough the long-term ice recovery would have started this year" @28 vroomie, ain't that the truth? While I can't say I grace the boards of WUWT often, attempting to remedy the dissemination of misinformation on the comment boards of any given CBC article which can be tied to global warming seems like a part-time job. On every article I see the same tried and tired myths "the climate has changed before" "the warming stopped in 98" "it defies thermodynamics" "Lindzen, Spencer & Roy said" "climategate proved" et cetera ad infinitum This new Met office myth is proving frustratingly popular at present -
CoalGeologist at 05:40 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
To make your trend calculator utility easier to use, I recommend you provide more specific instructions on the main parameter entry screen. The prompt "Start Date", suggests that the entry could refer to a specific day rather than the year, which leaves open many possible formats. Entering a day rather than a year returns the rather unhelpful error message "Insufficient data for trend calculation", which provides no hint that the date is in the wrong format. Optionally, you could omit the prompt "Trend Calculation", although there's plenty of space available. The following instruction might work: Enter data range (Format "YYYY[.Y]"): Start date: _____ End date: ______. Also, you might add a hyperlink on each of the two trend calculators to jump from one to the other. Nice work on this, BTW! Much appreciated! -
reg61 at 05:01 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Sphaerica Thanks for the explanation. Tried your method and it does make the difference closer. I was not expecting them to be exactly the same but the differences (25-29% of the 30 year trend) when I worked them out did seem on the large side. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:46 AM on 19 October 2012The Future We All Want
Yeah, Fabiano, and we've known this in the U.S. for decades. Lots of talk, no action! Other countries are not so crazy. I live in Seattle, have a shading problem w/our roof from trees but even so a minor amount of effort and money devoted to solar hot water heating eliminated about 40% of our domestic hot water energy consumption. Practically a worst-case scenario and still a substantial benefit. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:41 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
The analogy I used over at Tamino's blog last month was this: The Arctic ice is like a house with a termite infestation. If a storm blows in and takes down half the house you can't really blame it on the storm. All the storm did is hasten the collapse. The real damage being done is still the result of the termite damage. Horatio Algeranon then graced us with this piece... “Thermites” A thermite mound Is at the poles The sea-ice found Is full of holes Weakened by The warming mites On summer days And summer nights -
Bob Lacatena at 04:34 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
reg61, I'll let Kevin give you a more specific answer, but if you look at the controls you'll notice the "12 month moving average" control. I'm not sure how Kevin programmed it, but it looks (from the graph presented) that if you use a date range of 1980-1990, you're missing the first 6 months of 1980 and the last 6 months of 1990, because there isn't enough data around that point to compute the moving average. [Yes, you could argue that he should program it to include those points, and so go back prior to/beyond that to get the data to compute that point, but... he didn't.] So for example, if you compare 1979.5-2010.5 with 1979.5-1990.5, 1990.5-2000.5, and 1999.5 to 2010.5, you'll get a lot closer. It's still not exactly the same because computing a trend is not like just taking the difference between your starting and ending points. As I said, I'll let Kevin explain further, but short answer... yes, you're naive to expect them to be the same. -
vrooomie at 04:21 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dana@4, your point is dead-on, and, whilst *doing my duty*, and reading up on the latest claptrap at WUWT, a certain moderator there, going by the intials of R.(ichard)C.(ourtney), proves beyond ~any~ doubt that there's little, if anything that can be done to stop the deniers yapping their fallacies... "There is no evidence of man-made global warming from emissions of fossil fuels; none, zilch, nada." Reality--and science, both of which move forward--will end their lunatic fantasies; well, some will. Others, as we sail past 4-5-?? degrees of warming, and food insecurity becomes a planetary catastrophe, will defend to their *deaths* that "CAGW" was just a hoax. Some days, it's difficult for me to focus on the science..... -
CoalGeologist at 04:04 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
It's worth keeping in mind that climate is defined on the basis of 20 to 30 year running averages, and cannot be interpreted on the basis of individual events, other than in the statistical likelihood of individual events occurring. The high rate of climate change in recent years challenges this definition, as statistically significant changes in climate can be discerned on a substantially shorter time frame. Moreover, these long-term changes cannot be explained by anything other than anthropogenic drivers. Discussion about the impact of an individual storm events on Arctic sea ice extent is relevant only in this context. It is the running average that is relevant, as clearly depicted in the topmost graph. Based on this trend, we can expect new record minima to be set every few years. Every time a new minimum is set, it will be due to some special circumstances that cause that individual data point to fall below the generalized trend. The question raised by Dale @5 is valid, but is fundamentally irrelevant in the context of climate change. If Dale's question is being raised with the intent of casting doubt upon the conclusion that AGW is responsible for the general trend, then it is a Red Herring, and should be identified as such. -
reg61 at 04:02 AM on 19 October 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Hi. Like the calculator but noticed the following: If I find a trend for NOAA for 1980-2010 it is 0.162C/decade which is a warming of 0.486C for the 30 years. If I find separate trends for 1980-1990 (0.071), 1990-2000(0.227) and 2000-2010(0.064), for the 30 years gives a warming of 0.362C. Similar differences obtained when using GISTEMP or HADCRUT3 I am naive expecting these to be the same? Be patient. -
DMCarey at 03:40 AM on 19 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Well Nick, that one is certainly on the bizarre side. In light of the tabling of another massive omnibus budget bill that may(not sure yet) involve further cuts to environmental monitoring; I wonder if extra CO2 is being circulated into the ventilation of Canada's House of Commons? -
Bob Loblaw at 03:02 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Clarification: when I say "the loss rates are on the low side of normal" and "as low as or lower than most previous years" in the above comment, I'm writing from a mathematical perspective where more negative numbers are lower on the graph. As the graph uses positive numbers for gains and negative numbers for losses, lower points on the graph actually represent a greater loss rate - so much of this season shows loss rates that exceed past years. The 2007 record was destined to be history long before the August 2012 storm. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:41 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Bratisla @ 9 asked about providing a graph of rate of sea ice loss. I did so in late August/early September, in this comment on a post by Neven. The graph shows changes in sea ice extent from the JAXA data, smoothed with a 5-day running mean. Here is the graph again:
The August storm is the precipitous loss around day 220. Note that there was also a huge loss around day 160 - roughly two months before the storm. Generally, the loss rates are on the low side of "normal". Clearly, the August storm did affect loss rates, but clearly other factors were in play, too - much of the season prior to the storm shows loss rates as low as or lower than most previous years. Note that 2007 also had a similar minimum (greatest loss) around day 185 - so the August 2012 storm was not unprecedented in causing huge losses.
I've kept watching the data in this manner - the rest of the season has nothing remarkable, so I won't try to post another version of the graph with the updated data. Readers that wish to do so can find links to the data at Neven's blog (or retype the url given on the graph).
To use a baseball analogy, the melt and conditions earlier in the season loaded the bases - the storm was the clean-up batter that hit the Grand Slam home run. After that, the defence crumbled and the batting team just kept getting run after run after run. Although the one pitch that was hit out of the park was significant, you can't blame the blowout on that single factor.
The fake skeptic's claims that everything is normal, other than the August storm, is just bunkum.
-
Fabiano at 02:31 AM on 19 October 2012The Future We All Want
Hi Doug! Well According to the National Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Solar Water Heaters (SWH) can reduce both energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. The document is available here: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ush2o/48986.pdf -
vrooomie at 02:28 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Sph@16, this all brings to mind a thought process I've had brewing, for a bit: We need to creater a new taxon, and taxonomic terminology, to these threads. I'll start the ball rolling: I'm sure the brain trust will polish it better. "Ostrichus climata minimus." On topic; yea, you, and all the other prevaricatin', gravy-train-entrained, conspiratorial, and lyin' *scientists* seem to agree. We did it. It's getting worse. It's not likely to get better anytime soon. I've long ago reached my "Oh, shit!" moment: this years Arctic news just bumps that button harder. Next year is going to be *verrrrry* interesting. -
DSL at 02:23 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Of course, the ultimate silliness will occur when a big storm arrives when there is no sea ice in September: "Storm prevents sea ice from recovering! If looked at in just the right way, using a 14th order polynomial extrapolation, we can see that extent was set to expand to 30 million km2 by early October! The alarmists keep saying that the planet is warming, but it's really just these pesky storms. What idiots!" -
dana1981 at 02:06 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
It's obviously impossible to answer the question 'would there have been a record minimum if not for the storm?'. My guess is that yes, there would have been, because prior to the storm the sea ice was already declining at roughly the same rate as in 2007, and the ice is thinner than it was 5 years ago. Plus I find it hard to believe that one storm could make a three quarters of a million km difference in the ultimate minimum extent. But as I said, there's no way of knowing, and as Albatross said, the only reason the storm made a significant difference was because the ice was already in such poor shape due to the long-term AGW trend. -
Albatross at 01:51 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Thanks for the comments. It is odd that some people are having trouble joining the dots when it was all laid out very clearly in the main post. That fake skeptics would try and use the storm as a scapegoat to deal with their cognitive dissonance was predicted by Gareth Renowden on 12 August 2012, not to mention in the introduction to this very post, yet here they are still trying. Gareth said: "It will be claimed that it was all caused by the major Arctic storm that hit in August, and thus can’t be attributed to global warming." This blog post clearly demonstrates that ordinarily(i.e., before anthropogenic global warming initiated this paradigm shift in the Arctic system unseen for millennia) such a storm would have been a non-issue. But, because the ice is so thin, so emaciated, as a result of the rapid warming over the Arctic (most of which is because of anthropogenic warming), this storm did play a role. However, we cannot magically go back in time and remove the storm and then watch how things would have unfolded thereafter. What we do know is that even before the storm struck, the ice was in trouble, despite unfavourable conditions for ice loss. So to ask what would have happened if it were not for the storm is a rhetorical question and as such cannot be answered. To ask that is just looking for excuses as was predicted fake skeptics would do. And lest we try and fool ourselves into thinking that it is "only" the Arctic ice that is in trouble. Greenland experienced a record melt season this past summer, and that was before the melt season was even over:
Caption: Standardized melting index (SMI) for the period 1979 - 2012. [T]he years between 1979 and 2011 use the full length season (May through September) where 2012 uses only the available period May through August 8th. Note that 2012 value is much higher than any of the previous years, despite the shorter period. [Source]
Also, the June snow cover over the N. Hemisphere (when the albedo feedback would be greatest) continued its steep downward trend in 2012.
[Source]
Now putting this all together presents a very coherent and troubling picture. So perhaps it is understandable that some people are in denial.....
-
DSL at 01:15 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
rugbyguy59, ain't that the truth. Climategate rather convincingly confirmed the proposition that the target audience isn't willing to lift a finger to fact-check. The general situation with climate science communication in mass media strongly suggests that there are no consequences for lying outright. I'm all for limiting the possibility of mis-quoting or recontextualizing, but . . . But this is off-topic. The extraordinary feature of 2012 wasn't the August storm. It was the fact that long before August, area (CT SIA, not extent, which is a more consistent but much less meaningful measure) recorded 14 consecutive days of a 60-day total drop over 6 million km2. That means that for fourteen days, the average daily drop for the preceding 60 days was over 100k km2. Only one such day had occurred in the instrumental record prior (in 1985). Until yesterday, area was on a record anomaly streak of 109 consecutive days. 2012 now holds 137 daily anomaly records. 2007 is second with 69. Regardless of the storm, 2012's massive instrumental record record loss of 11,474 million km2 of area (which beat the previous record by over 534k km2) marks it as a milestone melt season.Moderator Response: [Sph: Requested correction applied.] -
Nick Palmer at 00:58 AM on 19 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Another reason to stop our atmospheric levels getting towards 1000ppm. Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance -
Bob Lacatena at 00:44 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Readers, Dale said:I'm not disagreeing with the downward trend, or the fact that this year would or would not have set a new record. What I disagree with is the assertion in the article that the storm is not responsible for such a large margin.
Which translates as:I'm not disagreeing with the downward trend, or the fact that this year would or would not have set a new record. What I disagree with is
the assertion in the article that the storm is not responsible for such a large marginthat people should pay any attention to that, when they can instead focus on particular details that confuse the issue and distract them from the fact that the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate and there's going to be hell to pay as a result. -
Riccardo at 00:41 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
It's quite easy to convince oneself that 2012 was unremarkable. Fit a 2nd order polynomial (the highest statistically significant order) and look at the residuals. You'll find it well inside the variability of the last decades. (Dashed lines represent plus or minus 1σ and 2σ)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:41 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale is grasping at straws so thin that only one hell bent on shielding himself from reality would reach for them. So what if the storm made it a bigger melt? It was still far from the perfect melting conditions of 07. NSIDC was already predicting a new record before the storm. Perhaps it wouldn't have been shattered weeks ahead of schedule but just broken around the normal time of time of the minimum. Big freakin' difference. Arctic sea ice is still on a death spiral beyond any nightmarish scenario imagined by any specialist only 20 years ago. Dream on Dale, reality will catch you, whether you like it or not. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:40 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale, Go ahead and "believe" what you want to believe. It's what you'll do no matter what. Readers are asked to consider that the vacuous nature of Dale's (and other deniers') argument is going to become painfully clear in coming years as the Arctic ice continues to retreat, with or without such storms. And if such storms become more common because of changes in weather patterns that result directly from the retreat of the ice, what then? Obfuscation and distraction is the denier style. There's always someone else or something else to blame. There's always another reason to doubt and hesitate. There's always a reason to shirk action and responsibility. And there's always, always a carefully constructed reason "why," phrased as a seemingly detached, rational question, one that on the surface may seem perfectly reasonable, like "If the storm had not have occurred, would we still have had that minimum ice extent?" It's a question that so cleverly avoids all of the important facts, like that without warming temperatures the storm was irrelevant, or that storms like that have happened before without the same effect, or -- and this is the most important -- that the exact minimum is irrelevant, so whether or not the storm added an X factor is not relevant. The ice is melting. The globe is warming. This is made painfully and unavoidably obvious by each new summer minimum extent. Harping on nonsense like "the storm did it" is just a good way for people (like Dale) to be able to stick their heads in the ground and act like ostriches. A child could see through this one. Really, it's an embarrassment to deniers everywhere that they are getting this stupid with their arguments. -
Philippe Chantreau at 00:33 AM on 19 October 2012Global Surface Warming Since 1995
"Are they not as pure as the driven snow?" Snow is melting pretty fast these days...
Prev 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 Next
