Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 Next
Comments 52701 to 52750:
-
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... -
Composer99 at 00:32 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale: Your analogy does not hold up insofar as you are attempting to ascribe a single causal factor (rainfall) to a phenomenon (a multi-vehicle collision) which necessarily has many contributing causes (weather, baseline road conditions, driver behaviour, conditions of the vehicles involved, and perhaps others). For your analogy to hold, it would have to be the case that previous Arctic summer storms had caused unusual sea ice losses despite comparatively stable ice conditions. The OP notes two pertinent points which I think you have failed to overcome in your attempt to name the August storm in the Arctic as the primary causal agent of the record low:In the past, Arctic summer storms similar to the 2012 event did not have a major impact on sea ice extent or September sea ice minimum. [Emphasis mine.] The 2012 record-breaking minimum can be attributed to a number of factors. The summer storm likely played a role, but [the record-breaking minimum occured] primarily because the ice was thinner, weaker, and less extensive to begin with than in prior years due to its long-term human-caused decline. [Emphasis mine.]
These statements from the concluding remarks are backed up with reference to evidence in the body of the OP, whereas your contrary speculation is not. The two items emphasized, taken together, quite clearly refute your attempted argument by analogy. BWTrainer's criticism appears to me to be more on the mark than not. -
Kevin C at 00:22 AM on 19 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale@11: I disagree. While the 750,000km^2 number can be derived from very simple analysis, it ignores all the other information we have about the system. Estimating from 2007, while useful for providing an upper bound, ignores the Cryosat2, PIOMAS and ice age data, all of which indicate that the ice was thinner than 2007. While a naive analysis says a new record was likely, a less naive analysis will give a stronger result. -
What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale - "If the storm had not have occurred, would we still have had that minimum ice extent?" (emphasis added) If conditions were different, we would certainly have a different minima - that should go without saying, quite frankly. I believe this falls into the category of a rhetorical question, ie. one asked for the purpose of rhetoric. Follow the trends, look at (as others suggested) predictions prior to the storm. It would likely have been around the 2007 minimum, which I'll note occurred with "perfect storm" of variations towards a minima. That's because the trend is downward, the central expectation is dropping severely. If 2007 did not have all the various factors pushing for low ice, we would have expected about 9mk^2 extent as a minima that year. If we had the same factors in play this year as in 2007, all pushing for low ice (as an "all things equal" comparison), this years minima would of course have been considerably lower than it was. -
Dale at 23:31 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
BWTrainer @10 What's with the insult? Is that the only way you can argue? 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. Conditions being ripe for this occur is irrelevant. If a road develops more and more potholes each year and then suddenly one day it rains and there's a major multi-car accident, what caused the accident? The rain of course, not the potholes. -
Dale at 23:24 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Kevin C @8 There's really no need to go elsewhere, just looking at the graphs in the article leads one to what I would say would be a fairly accurate estimate. With rate of melt similar to 2007, and being so close to the 2007 levels up to the storm, it's not unreasonable to estimate that minimum ice extent would be around the 2007 mark (specially considering no conducive weather for faster melt was recorded, except the storm). Thus for the purposes of this article, with the storm ice melt was 750,000 km^2 more than it should've been. Note here: NASA said they estimated from satellite photos that around 500,000 km^2 of ice was churned and broken up by the storm. Sorry, but I have to disagree with the comment in the article the storm wasn't responsible for the large margin. The other conditions are basically irrelevant, because if those other conditions were the cause of the large margin, then you need to justify that the melt would still have been as it was with the storm. -
BWTrainer at 23:24 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Reasoning with fake-skeptic Dale tends to be an exercise in futility, but what the heck, this will only take a minute: That this year set every record is of course important, but it misses the forest for the trees. Look at any graph of extent or volume going back as long as records have been kept, and you see a clear and drastic downward trend. Debating whether 2012 would've been the record in the absence of the storm, or "only" the 2nd or 3rd lowest, really obfuscates the issue. -
bratisla at 22:11 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
I will do a naive comment : maybe calculating and showing the daily/5day average rate of loss of sea ice [i]area[/i] and [i]extent[/i] would be useful for the discussion ? From my (limited) understanding, we should see that the storm did not have a very strong impact on sea ice area (ice is covered by water during the storm, thus fooling the sensors, but reappears thereafter) and a stronger impact on extent. I did not do the calculations, nor I am knowledgeable in Arctic sea ice. I did not see anything on neven's blog about loss rates (but I didn't search that hard). Just thinking aloud. -
CBDunkerson at 22:08 PM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
hank_ wrote: "What on earth is a 'fake skeptic'??" Technically, the term 'skeptic' has long been misapplied to the point that 'person who questions' is now common usage regardless of the validity of the 'questions'. However, the original meaning was more along the lines, 'person who questions facts and assumptions to determine the truth'. Thus, people who uncritically accept complete nonsense (e.g. 'global warming has stopped') are not skeptics under the original meaning of the term and when they seek to apply that original, laudatory, meaning to themselves they are being 'fake skeptics'. They are not questioning the facts, but rather latching on to any easily dis-proven lie with which they can shield themselves from the facts. That the term 'skeptic' has been misappropriated by kooks for so long that it now could be taken to mean, 'person who irrationally disputes without factual foundation' isn't relevant as that clearly isn't the meaning the self-styled 'skeptics' are going for. -
Kevin C at 20:56 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
If you are genuinely interested in the answer, head over to Neven's and go through the threads from early August to see what the predictions were - people posted a variety of predictions using a variety of methods. Or check the SEARCH outlooks, which include predictions from experts and amateurs (you may want to weight them by their past reliability, see Dana's review here). Or take the data and make your own hindcast starting from before the storm. It seems to me that volume would certainly have set a new record, and it is more likely than not that NSIDC, CT and Bremen would also have set records even ignoring anything we know about declining thickness and ice age. -
Dale at 20:34 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
scaddenp @6 Sorry, but that's not really an answer to my question. If the storm had not have occurred, what would the minimum sea ice extent be? -
John Russell at 20:31 PM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Excellent post on the same topic (includes ref to Nuccitelli et al 2012): http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=239 -
Falkenherz at 20:12 PM on 18 October 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
Hi! The previous discussion seems to have trailed off, so I take the occasion to pick up some comments which describe the "basics" from Shakun, namely Daniel#32, Sphaerica#69, for better understanding. The connection seems to be well explained. But how is, according to Shakun, the physics supposed work when warming drops to cooling? He just seems to have covered the warming part? Also, there may be a difference between the time needed for building up icesheet and the time for melting. How does that figure in the explanations? My background, leading to some connected questions: Coming from the article about climate sensitivity, I have read Hansen&Sato 2011, and they produce matching modelled temperature shifts for the ice core data, based on historic estimated albedo and GHG forcing and current "consensus" climate sensitivity. It looks like a perpetuum mobile after the triggering event. So, I am still unconvinced about the role of the forcing from the insolation event. Its local high radiative forcing seems to be ignored, said to be levelled out globally with the opposite happening on the SH. Isn't that a too easy assumption? A strong local heat is created, and because of the GHG heat trapping function, should have contributed to global warming, compared to a corresponding lower cooling down from a much lower heat level on the SH? Are (natural, global) GHG levels really that fast reactive or even faster reactive than changed albedo from (strong, local) ice sheet alterations? The latter for sure do happen first and thus should direct temperature shifts in a much more dominant way, thereby diminishing the role of the feedback of subsequent albedo/GHG (which first apparently need oceanic processes to even start globally). Which would result in a lower climate sensitivity than current consensus. I understand that albedo usually is part of climate sensitivity, but the special situation here coupled with local insolation makes it seem to be in the beginning more like a (local) driver, resulting of course in more subsequent albedo/ghg/climate feedback. Maybe I stop here, sorry if questions are a bit unsystematic, I am still confused on how things are supposed to play together. I would be happy for some short and clear explanations on my question marks, if possible. -
scaddenp at 17:46 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Dale, like extreme weather, AGW loads the dice. A good storm could have happened last year and produced similar result. The continued warming means multi-year ice is gone so each bad summer chips away at it. Will next year be lower yet? Probably not. But another big low will happen the next time the weather dice throw bad. Just like you can bet that the next record breaking global temperature will happen with an El Nino rather than in a La Nina year. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:18 PM on 18 October 2012The Future We All Want
Solar domestic hot water is the poster child example of how feckless we are in our energy habits in the United States. Point your browser to the following Google Maps link and cruise around. The location is Sun City, Arizona. Take a look at the rooftops. What's missing? What's under the roof of every single one of those dwellings, consuming about 20% of the household energy input? Meanwhile, Arizona's electrical generation capacity is overwhelmingly powered by fossil fuel including substantial coal generating capacity. Water heaters not using electricity as an intermediary between flaming coal and natural gas are just burning gas directly. When we look at Sun City AZ we're looking at a community of recalcitrant cavemen, just one town of thousands, a few hundred households of hundreds of thousands more. This is basically insane. Solar domestic hot water is deadly dull old-school technology, Joe-the-Plumber state of the art. Dollars and watt-hour equivalents are sleeting down from the sky in positively destructive quantities in Arizona and much of the rest of the United States yet we're so slothful and lazy we won't lay our hands out to grasp any of the free stuff. Crazy. Do we want to be losers? Do we deserve to be losers? Sometimes it seems we convey that impression. -
Fabiano at 16:38 PM on 18 October 2012The Future We All Want
Hi Doug! You raised a very interesting point. Thank you! Yes, solar water heating is by far the best option since this system will reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Coal is the main source of energy in Australia as far as I know which is a problem of major concern. Anyhow modern electric tankless water heaters are very efficient in terms of energy consumption and their units do not emit greenhouse gases. -
Dale at 15:56 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
After reading the article I still have this question: If the storm had not have occurred, would we still have had that minimum ice extent? -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:48 PM on 18 October 2012Global Surface Warming Since 1995
Shock! Horror! Andrew Bolt and the Murdoch Empire caught misrepresenting the truth! Who would have thought it? Are they not as pure as the driven snow? Are they not so far above us that their pronouncements should be meekly accepted by the inferior rest of us? This is the most humble day of my life. -
dana1981 at 15:47 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Doug @3 - thanks, fixed. YubeDude @1 - there's not much we can do about climate deniers quote mining, as we saw during Climategate. All we can do is put the quotes in the proper context when that happens. -
matthewsmar@gmail.com at 15:08 PM on 18 October 2012Global Surface Warming Since 1995
And Yet... Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun Thur 18 Oct "Theory Grows Colder") continues to use this as proof that the "warmists" are wrong -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:56 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Very interesting to see how all the factors interact. [pedantry]The large swells caused the breakup of large (>1 km) multi-year ice flows up to 5 meters thick, into much smaller flows (100-150 meters).
I think 'flows' should be 'floes'?[/pedantry] -
rugbyguy59 at 13:37 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
Yubedude, While you've done a great job of illustrating the methods of the denialist mob, I don't think much can be done about it. If you're hoping scientists will or can modify their language to stop people from doing such things, I think it's asking the impossible. About all that can be done is to educate people who are interested in truth and hope enough take interest to spread the word. Truth, especially in complex matters with political implications, is always at a disadvantage. Thanks to Skeptical Science for providing us with so much of what is needed to do the job.
Prev 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 Next
