Recent Comments

Prev  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  Next

Comments 68751 to 68800:

68751. John Hartz at 16:07 PM on 5 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       @John Cook: The Advanced rebuttal needs a good rewrite!
68752. Phila at 12:53 PM on 5 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Cornelius Breadbasket #1 You inquire why are conservatives so sceptical about climate change? It may be business links or maybe its related to the fact that conservatism is by its very nature opposed to change. So climate change and society changing to deal with it are both resisted. That may've been the initial issue, but at this point I think it boils down to a simple inability to admit being wrong. Granted, some of 'em undoubtedly have a financial incentive to mislead or be misled, but for most rank-and-file conservatives, the problem is more likely that if AGW is correct, they aren't. I don't think you see the same syndrome on the scientific side of the argument. I don't know anyone who accepts the consensus science who wouldn't be relieved to find out it was incorrect or exaggerated. (I also don't know anyone cocky enough to bet the planet's future on that very small chance, natch.)
68753. Gettingwarm at 11:25 AM on 5 December 2011
       Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
       Slightly off topic but the way that the Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are hyping Climategate II calls for creative action. I ask that you go to http://climateaudit.org/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com and ask Steve and Anthony to release all their personal e-mails regarding climate change. Please!
68754. Bert from Eltham at 10:12 AM on 5 December 2011
       Separating signal and noise in climate warming
       All of Science is about signal to noise ratio. The trouble with pseudo scientists and ignorant crackpots is that they cannot differentiate between the two or conveniently ignore the difference. Nearly all of Science is counterintuitive and unless you have studied up to at least a first degree level your 'common sense' will inevitably fail at interpreting what is really going on. Charlatans and con-men have known this for a long time. Otherwise how do you explain the success of many scams on supposedly intelligent victims. What is at stake now is the future habitability of our whole planet. We cannot pick up the pieces after the scam artists have won. Bert
68755. Bob Loblaw at 08:00 AM on 5 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Fred: there are several fundamental principles that you seem unclear on. First of all, radiation transfer through a semi-transparent medium such as the atmosphere is not as simple as a "hot to cold" analogy with thermal transfer. Sphaerica has pointed out that radiation emitted will be in both the upward and downward direction - indeed it is omnidirectional: from a point, radiation will be emitted equally in all directions. When considering a plane (e.g., the atmosphere at a particular altitude), it is convenient to think of the upward and downward fluxes independently, and indeed this is also the typical sort of measurements that are made: one instrument with a 180 degree field of view facing up, and one facing down, to get the downwelling and upwelling fluxes respectively. The amount of IR radiation emitted at a particular altitude is a function of temperature at that point, but the measured flux is not just what is emitted there - it also includes any IR radiation that was emitted at other altitudes and is just "passing through". In general, radiation arriving at a point can be either transmitted, absorbed, or scattered. We can express this as t + a + s = 1. The amounts are typically expressed using Beer's Law, using an optical property called the optical depth. Overall, the principle is that flux at a point is only partly the result of emissions at that point. Conversely, heating or cooling at that point is not the result of the fluxes at that point, but the combination of emission and absorption. To add to this, in the atmosphere there is also energy transfer by convection, either through thermal transfer (usually called "sensible heat") or through vapour transfer (evaporation and condensation energies, called "latent heat"). Thus, to proper look at heating, cooling, and energy transfers, you have to look at it all together (although this does not imply that each individual component can't be discussed in isolation). The class of climate models that put all this together looking only in the vertical (i.e., ignoring horizontal variation) is the 1-D radiative-convective model.One of the very early papers in this area is Manabe and Strickler 1964. One aspect of this paper can be seen in figure 1, where they compare the vertical structure of at atmosphere that only allows radiation transfer with one that also does convective transfer. Here is that figure: The left side shows the radiative-transfer only atmosphere. The series of lines show the model approaching equilibrium from warm and cold states. Note that the lower atmosphere (troposphere) has extremely high lapse rates. This is not a stable condition in an atmosphere where convection can occur - the lapse rates exceed the point where free convection will happen. The right side of the figure shows the model results when convection is allowed - the modeled lapse rate is limited to the observed value. It is fundamental to understand that the observed tropospheric lapse rate is not the result of radiation transfer alone - it is controlled by the rates of convective heat transfer. Also note in figure 1 that the radiation-only and radiative-convective version show much the same structure in the stratosphere - the upper atmosphere is more or less at radiative equilibrium, and the resulting profile is stable.
68756. Johnb at 07:36 AM on 5 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Quote PhilMorris at 05:42 AM on 2 December, 2011 ''And according to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the Artic could be ice free by the summer of 2015! Yet I understand that none of the current models assume Artic ice melting this quickly - I've been told that models have been assuming 2040 to 2060 before the Artic is ice free. I suppose models will get updated to reflect what is really happening - and it won't be good news! Also the models assume what is now known to be very conservative estimates of methane release from the permafrost layer. 2100 still seems to be the timeframe for showing what will happen to the planet - maybe 2050 or even earlier should be the goalpost. 2100 is too far out for ordinary people, let alone governments, to feel that consequences may affect them. A 'goalpost' just 40 years out may have a better impact on getting governments to take notice - maybe.'' Perhaps if the maths of compound interest were used it may register. The 6% increase in global greenhouse gas emissions for 2010 just announced if compounded for the next 11 years will mean a doubling of emissions over 12 years. A doubling of GGE in 12 years has to get some level of attention span. We shall experience the consequences long before that short amount of time is up.
68757. monkeyorchid at 00:47 AM on 5 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Excellent work, Sapient Fridge! If everyone who's commented here writes to RT with letters like yours, hopefully it'll knock some sense into them...
68758. Sapient Fridge at 23:52 PM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       The Radio Times web sites has a contact link which leads to the E-mail address radio.times(at)bbc.com I wrote to them and asked if it would be possible for them to check the science behind statements like Mr Lawson's before publishing them in future. Asking people to back up their "facts" with science references would quickly stop this kind of misinformation being printed in reputable places such as the Radio Times.
68759. mspelto at 23:36 PM on 4 December 2011
       La Niña reappears: still weak, but expected to slightly strengthen
       The weekly detailed discussions indicate just how much information we gather on this phenomenon. This La Nina appears to be quite similar to the rebound La Nina in 2009. After a stronger winter 2008 La Nina ended, we reentered a weaker La Nina fall of 2008. This ended in the spring of 2009 with the development of an El Nino by summer. That rapid transition was of interest to me because of the extraordinary glacier melt in the Pacific Northwest of North America that summer.
68760. Paul D at 22:42 PM on 4 December 2011
       La Niña reappears: still weak, but expected to slightly strengthen
       Are the current Rhine river levels low (revealing the WWII bomb this week) because of water extraction or because of a lack of rain?? In the South East of England rivers are low and there is a threat of drought next year. Apart from that, it is a warm winter, with insects, birds and plants getting confused. We have had bees and other insects out and about.
68761. les at 22:00 PM on 4 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1140 - Fred "Next time you pass a power station,ask yourself why all that energy from the cooling towers is being wasted as evaporation to the atmosphere? Why is it not fed back to heat the boilers? The answer is that it is" ... The Carnot Cycle - which describes the limits on amount of work that can be extracted between two 'heat' reservoirs at different temperatures. There's no concept of 'low quality' energy! I hope next time anyone passes a power station and wonders about steam evaporating from the cooling towers they actually think of the excellent physics of another of Fourier's generation - and not the dire butchery of physics that continues in the posts of Fred, damorbel etc.
68762. monkeyorchid at 21:38 PM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Does anyone have an email address for the Radio Times? We ought to send some letters in response, then maybe some might get through. However they don't give it on their web site and the email us form requires complicated set-up...
68763. stefaan at 18:19 PM on 4 December 2011
       La Niña reappears: still weak, but expected to slightly strengthen
       Over here in western europe we are also having a very hot summer. Yesterday we had a 'climate manifestation' in Brussel, 14°, while its normally somewhere between 0 and 5°C...
68764. Daniel Bailey at 17:32 PM on 4 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Santer et al 2011 (discussed here) show that 10 year flat periods can occur in overall warming periods caused by human influence and that at least 17 years is needed to establish a human influence on tropospheric temps. It takes a world-class time series analyst to properly control for exogenous factors to establish significance in time series of less than 17 years, as Tamino does here. If your counterpart doesn't understand significance testing then ask him how he can believe anything at all that anyone tells him, one way or another, about climate science. Or the stock market.
68765. Riduna at 16:56 PM on 4 December 2011
       Not so Permanent Permafrost
       Charlie @ 25 Fig. 2 in this article was taken from UNEP/GRID-Arendal which in turn, as you point out, took it from WWF. The WWF Librarian advises that their graph was derived from Lawrence, David M. and Slater, Andrew G. 2005. A projection of severe near-surface permafrost degradation during the 21st century. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS (32):L24401, doi:10.1029/2005GL025080, downloaded 11/8/2011 from http://www.ggr.ulaval.ca/Cours/GGR-7011/fichiers-7011/Cours/Lawrence,%20Projection%20pmf%20degradation-2005.pdf. “we used the data from Lawrence & Slater, 2005, but created our own figures directly from the data, rather than reproducing the figures from the paper.”
68766. John Hartz at 16:41 PM on 4 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Daniel Bailey: As soon as I state that a 9-10 year period is stastically insignificant, he will ask me why it isn't.
68767. Daniel Bailey at 16:28 PM on 4 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       A 9-10 year period is statistically insignificant (ask him to show the significance testing he's done on those 9-10 years). Thus there is no deviation or break in the overall trend. 15 of the 17 warmest years in the modern record have occurred in the past 17 years (which cover the warmest decade in the instrumental record).
68768. John Hartz at 14:19 PM on 4 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       DB: Our exchanges suggests to me that the Advanced rebuttal needs to be updated to better explain the issues we have addressed in #230 and #231. I'm getting hammered on a comment thread to an article posted on NPR who insists that Figure 7 shows a definite cooling trend over the last 9-10 years.
68769. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:05 PM on 4 December 2011
       La Niña reappears: still weak, but expected to slightly strengthen
       Thank you for the overview, particularly of how La Nina affects locations around the world. We are enjoying a wonderfully mild spring by comparison with the record hot weather we've had recently in springs this past decade or so (down here in south eastern Australia). The average maximum temperature for November was 26.8C, still 1.5C above the long term average (25.3C), but it has been much hotter in the recent past. Having rains has fuelled so much vegetative growth and gardens are looking luxuriant. The downside is that the extra growth provides fuel for fires. (Hopefully not too many more this summer.) I'm enjoying it while we can. This part of the world is getting hotter and drier overall, so this interval of rain and mild weather makes it a good time to establish 'green curtains' to insulate the house and make other medium term preparations before the next hot and dry spell.
68770. Doug Hutcheson at 12:20 PM on 4 December 2011
       Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
       In an attempt to suit actions to words and inform myself better, I have located and downloaded the zip file of the Climategate 2 emails. Working from the 'Read me file - formatted.docx' document, included by the hacker as a kind of guide to the naughty bits in the emails, I have started comparing the selected snippets with the original messages, to get the context. I am not a climate scientist, so much of the technical discussion goes over my head, but I am able to form my own opinion of the degree to which these emails should worry me. So far (and I have not worked through all 5000+), I see only robust discussion and the kind of peer review of papers that leads me to think the final versions are likely to be balanced and conservative in their conclusions. I also note that the vast bulk of the emails in the zip file are password protected and the hacker is unwilling (or unable) to release the encryption key. Smelling a rat, I am entitled to suspect that these locked messages detract from the sensationalism the hacker is trying to purvey. By hiding the raw data and highlighting supposedly salacious phrases that prove, on examination, to be taken out of context, the hacker has lost credibility, in my view. Having performed my own research, I am happy to state that I agree with the conclusions presented by Peter Hadfield in the video posted above. As one of the untrained majority this release of emails was supposed to confront, I find them a non-event and believe that anyone relying on them to support their pet conspiracy theory would do better to spend their time researching the originals as I am doing.
68771. Icarus at 11:30 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       How much (if any) of the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice is the product of accelerating glacier outflow due to global warming?
68772. John Hartz at 11:17 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       DB: Thank you for providing the information about "temperature anomaly. Can you tell me what reference value or long-term average was used to compute the temeparture anomalies for each of the eight figures in the Advanced version of this rebuttal?
       Response:

       [DB] Typically, if no baseline is specified it is understood that the baseline used is 1951-1980.  However, since the above work goes back to original data any baseline theoretically could have been used (but it's safe to assume that they share a common baseline).  JC would be the one to ask for a definitive answer.

68773. John Hartz at 10:41 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       The Advanced verwion of this rebuttal contains seven graphics of selected temperature anomalies plotted against time. Nowhere in this article can I find a definition of what a temperature anomaly is. Can someone please explain what I am looking at in each graphic?
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Per NOAA:

       What is a temperature anomaly?

       The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

       What can the mean global temperature anomaly be used for?

       This product is a global-scale climate diagnostic tool and provides a big picture overview of average global temperatures compared to a reference value.

       Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

       Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

       Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

       For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

68774. muoncounter at 10:37 AM on 4 December 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Now this is interesting: A drop in carbon dioxide appears to be the driving force that led to the Antarctic ice sheet's formation, according to a recent study led by scientists at Yale and Purdue universities of molecules from ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples. The key role of the greenhouse gas in one of the biggest climate events in Earth's history supports carbon dioxide's importance in past climate change and implicates it as a significant force in present and future climate. ..."The evidence falls in line with what we would expect if carbon dioxide is the main dial that governs global climate; if we crank it up or down there are dramatic changes" It may be time to reinvestigate that whole 'lag' thing.
68775. Bob Lacatena at 10:24 AM on 4 December 2011
       It's the sun
       950, Tom, For the record he does have a few pages of similar forecasts up to 2055. I just really don't see the point since there's no clue as to what they are forecasts of or how they can be evaluated, let alone of what value they have to anyone, anywhere. Wet... Dry... Wet twice. WTF?
68776. Tom Curtis at 10:06 AM on 4 December 2011
       It's the sun
       Don Gaddes @948, Victoria is part of Australia, but the retrodictions/predictions where for Australia, not for Victoria. Ad Hoc alteration of the prediction after the event to avoid falsification is no reason for confidence in the theory. Defending your father's theory on the basis that he did not have enough information develop an accurate theory impresses still less. Consequently the only information I am interested in from you is, what was the date of the predictions listed by Sphaerica? Where they all, as I suspect, hindcasts?
68777. Bob Lacatena at 09:56 AM on 4 December 2011
       It's the sun
       949, Don,

       Whoever decides to further research and expand this work will be in for an exciting ride.

       Go do it. As it stands now, there is no value or substance whatsoever to the work, and trying to sell something that is ¹/₁₀^th baked is never going to work. Why do you appear to be pleading for someone else to pick this up and finish it? That job falls to you. No one else is going to spend the time, and this site does not exist to help you find someone else to pursue your fantasies for you.
68778. Don Gaddes at 09:43 AM on 4 December 2011
       It's the sun
       Oops, seems like it's now operating,excuse my Paranoia. For Tom Curtis (946) Firstly Tom, you are on shaky ground quoting El Nino and BOM 'records' to me! I think Victoria is still part of Australia? I suggest you read the rest of the Forecast to the end of the century and the accompanying notes (if not the whole work.) (-snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] You were warned here to provide significance testing to support your claims.  Failing that, to provide links to peer-reviewed articles published by working scientists in the field in scientifically relevant papers (in this comment here). 

       The comments that you posted that failed to follow this course of action were deleted.  As will subsequent comments, unless you step it up with the requisite testing and citations.  Nothing you have presented thus far meets those standards.

       Your practice thus far is to employ circular reasoning: 

       "Read the book to see what the book says; questions can be answered by studying the book more."

       A continuation of this course of action is simply wasting everyone's time.

68779. Bob Lacatena at 08:56 AM on 4 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1140, Fred Staples, It's not hard to understand at all. You are simply misapplying what you know, and you can't see that.

       The back-radiation energy from the atmosphere (Trenberth diagram – sink to source) cannot be considered separately from the primary radiation (source to sink).

       Yes it can. They do not "net off." Read the book instead of looking at the pretty pictures.

       ...ask yourself what would happen if the atmosphere and the surface were at the same temperature?

       The atmosphere would cool by radiating half of its energy up into space, and half down back to the surface, which would warm further. You now have an imbalance. The surface would radiate even more up to the atmosphere, which would thus not be able to cool as much/quickly as if it had been left alone, but would then cool further by radiating half of the energy up and out into space, and half back to the surface. In this way both the surface and the atmosphere would cool. This would continue until radiative equilibrium was restored and things returned to their current temperatures, with a surface that is warmer than the atmosphere. No magic required. Now ask yourself: how does the atmosphere know not to radiate energy downward, because the surface is warmer? What if the surface is cooler? How does the atmosphere "know" the difference? What form of magic do you use that science cannot?

       Can you see any supporting evidence to link warming to CO2?

       Pages and pages of it. That you can't is a sign of your ignorance, your inability to understand what you misunderstand, and your unwillingness to look further (look up "cognitive dissonance"). Can you find a single, reputable scientist who agrees with anything you are saying? Or are you alone (with the exception of certain other outlandish characters that visit this particular thread) in your "understanding" of thermodynamics. Let's see, what's more likely... you are right, and the rest of the world's paid, educated scientists are wrong? Or you are missing something, and maybe should put more effort into unlearning what you misunderstand so that you can begin to contribute to a meaningful discussion on the numerous important and worthy aspects of climate science, rather than this nonsense.
68780. Fred Staples at 08:13 AM on 4 December 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Why is this point so hard to understand Sphaerica?. Next time you pass a power station,ask yourself why all that energy from the cooling towers is being wasted as evaporation to the atmosphere? Why is it not fed back to heat the boilers? The answer is that it is sink energy, and the boiler is its source. Sinks cannot heat sources. The energy in the sink is of a (much) lower quality than the energy from the source. Entropy increases during the energy transfer. The earth is the source of heat for the atmosphere. The back-radiation energy from the atmosphere (Trenberth diagram – sink to source) cannot be considered separately from the primary radiation (source to sink). The useful energy, to heat the atmosphere, is the difference between the two. They net off, as in the Petty diagram. If you still cannot see this, ask yourself what would happen if the atmosphere and the surface were at the same temperature? They would radiate against each other, but the energy transferred could not do anything. The net transfer, and the heating effect, would be zero. Remember, also, that at its effective emission altitude, the temperature of the atmosphere cannot change. It must be 255 degrees K to radiate the “bare earth” energy to space, and balance the incoming radiation. The composition of the atmosphere might change the altitude of the effective emission level, as in the “higher is colder” theory. That is why we must look at the mid and upper troposphere temperatures to detect an AGW effect. Have a look at the Met Office charts at the Hadley Centre new radio-sonde product, and the UAH satellit records. Can you see any supporting evidence to link warming to CO2?
68781. AnotherBee at 07:59 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       @26 Dorlomin, regrettably, I think that Lawson is doing more than fishing. He's playing the "science isn't settled" game. He does not have to win the argument, merely to spread sufficient doubt for the public to accept a policy of doing nothing.
68782. Bob Lacatena at 06:38 AM on 4 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       32, CW, The really sad thing about your hypothesis is that prior to the 1990s, arctic minimum sea ice concentrations were so great that the two major motions of the Arctic Ocean surface didn't matter one whit, because the ice was all locked up. I wonder how we got into a scenario where this is even a matter for discussion? 1979 September 15 extent: 1982 September 15 extent: 1985 September 15 extent:
68783. muoncounter at 06:10 AM on 4 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       CW#32: "we should see a period of Arctic Sea Ice accumulation." Note here that winter 2011 freeze-up is on track with 2007 -- and that is more than 2 std dev below the mean. -- NSIDC News ... each decade, the October extent has started from a lower and lower point, with the record low extent during the 1980s (1984) substantially higher than the record low extent during the 1990s (1999), which in turn is substantially higher than the record low extent during the 2000s (2007). That's not indicative of an accumulation underway. Maybe next year.
68784. jimspy at 06:00 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Here is the Discovery Channel's response to my query on this issue several weeks ago: "Frozen Planet will not be airing on Discovery Channel in the United States until early next year and many programming and scheduling decisions have yet to be made. We do know that the stories, messages and essence of all of the BBC’s seven episodes will be represented throughout the truly landmark series."
68785. ClimateWatcher at 05:56 AM on 4 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       31 - John Russell, Yes, that animation, based on a peer reviewed study, demonstrates the motion of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. The ice moves with the bouys denoted by the red dots in the animation. Watch as they move out of the Arctic to the east of Greenland. There are two major motions of the Arctic Ocean surface - the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift: If the through flow current dominates, more ice is lost. If the gyre dominates, multiyear ice just spins around and accumulates. To be sure, global temperatures have increased. But when one looks at the temperatures of stations north of 80 degrees, 2009 and 2010 were actually cooler than normal during the melt season and 2011 witnessed remarkably normal melt season temperatures: Arctic Temperatures The Arctic Ice model referenced above indicates complete loss of summer ice within about five years and continued annual decline thereafter. On the other hand, if dynamics are more significant, we should see a period of Arctic Sea Ice accumulation. The tests of these hypotheses are at hand in the coming years, regardless of what we may think about them.
       Response:

       [DB] "But when one looks at the temperatures of stations north of 80 degrees, 2009 and 2010 were actually cooler than normal during the melt season"

       Umm, no:

       

       "and 2011 witnessed remarkably normal melt season temperatures"

       And no, again:

       

       [Source]

       Readers should take note that the use of DMI (80° north temps) is a known skeptic diverserionary tactic for these reasons:

       1. 80° north is not global nor very much even regional
       2. The Arctic summer melt season dominates near-surface temps due to the enormous volumes of melting ice

       

       [Source]

       "On the other hand, if dynamics are more significant, we should see a period of Arctic Sea Ice accumulation."

       No.  You ignore the extra warmth being accumulated in the Arctic due to increased transport of warming oceanic waters into the Arctic (via the North Atlantic and through the Bering Strait from the Pacific), not to mention the increased 24/7/365 warming from increased CO2 levels.

68786. John Russell at 03:31 AM on 4 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       @Climatewatcher #21: I think this animation, based on actual data, tells all you need to know about your 'testable hypothesis'.
68787. dorlomin at 03:23 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Personally I think that all Lawson is doing here is fishing. He is not trying to land a blow on Attenbourgh but is trying to make some waves and get himself a bit of publicity and hoping to get in the papers and maybe the TV news. He is smart enough to know that when it comes to a battle over credibility he will lose this one, but this is about raising awareness of his think tanks and him as its spokesperson. He is likely to be continuing his effort to make himself the "go to" person for a sceptic quote whenever journalists are looking for a 'balance' quote.
68788. Tjall at 03:04 AM on 4 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       Thanks for the warm welcome ;-), the explanations and all the links. Interesting stuff. A lot of reading to do for me. Tjall
68789. DSL at 02:52 AM on 4 December 2011
       It's the sun
       In other words, Don, you're pushing failure.
68790. DSL at 02:35 AM on 4 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Side note (but related): I was watching Aqua Kids this morning on a FOX channel in the US. One of the news reports was on ocean acidification. It pointed out that the oceans have taken up at least half of the anthro CO2 released in the industrial age, threatening a number of species sensitive to changes in ocean pH. The clown fish was given as an example. The report finished by saying there was still time to do something. It's a dubious sort of silver lining: the news for kids is more honest than the news for adults.
68791. SocialBlunder at 01:21 AM on 4 December 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Created this post to explain Milankovitch cycles. It uses links to NOAA and NASA sites instead of SkS as deniers are complaining about the bias and religiosity of SkS. Milutin Milankovitch calculated the effect of eccentricity cycles in the 1920's. This effect was validated by ice core samples in 1976. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch.php - follow links under "on the shoulders of giants" Astronomical calculation indicate insolation should increase _gradually_ over the next 25,000 years. We aren't due for a decrease in insolation from orbital eccentricity for 50-100,000 years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html While Milankovitch cycles can explain centuries long changes, they do not explain the rapid greenhouse gas caused changes in the past decades. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.... I hope the fact that the Milankovitch theory you appear to be just learning has been well known and accounted for in climatology for over 30 years gives you the ability to better discriminate between scientific websites and dodgy ones. Hint: the dodgy ones wonder if the current warming is due to natural variation.
       Moderator Response: [John Hartz} It would be helpful if you could provide us with specific examples of what deniers are saying about SkS. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
68792. Riccardo at 23:23 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Nicholas Berini request made me think of the correlation between southern and northern hemisphere sea ice. Here is what I get: A few numbers: - the slope of the linear fit is -0.25 SH Km2/NH Km2 and (barely) significant; - though, the determination coefficient R2 is relatively low (0.22); - the Pearson correlation coefficient is -0.34, not much but it's there; - strange enough, ice area (from the same source) shows a smaller and non-significant slope, R2 is just 0.07 and the Pearson correlation coefficient is -0.1 A correlation betweeen NH and SH sea ice apparently exists, though rather weak. If they both reflect the response to a warming world, the simple sum of the two extents makes no sense, let alone the trivial observation that SH sea ice is increasing. Rather, the sum of the absolute values of the anomalies would better represent the common cause. But we know that it's not that simple, we need the physical representation of the processes, i.e. GCMs.
68793. John Russell at 21:27 PM on 3 December 2011
       2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
       I question the use of the title half way down the post, 'Other highlights', John. I'm not sure an extreme weather event that caused the death of thousands of people should ever be referred to as a 'highlight' -- that is, "the most exciting or memorable part of an event or period of time, to use the dictionary definition. And it does rather play into the hands of those who would cast us as wallowing in disaster. Perhaps 'notable events', 'lowlights', 'low points' or 'low spots' -- take your pick -- would be more appropriate?
68794. Paul D at 20:38 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Cornelius and nigelj I think Lawson is driven by ideology. If there are business links then it is because the leaders of those businesses share that ideology. I think it should be made clear that not all businesses and conservative politicians in the UK share the extreme views of Lawson et al. Zac Goldsmith is Conservative, but his ideas aren't a great deal of different from most people that have concern about AGW and the environment. The core issues are compatible with any political principles, the issue is how you achieve the goals.
68795. John Russell at 20:15 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       The statement in the post -- "Sadly, the BBC feels that sales in the climate denial-heavy United States will be more successful if it drops the climate change episode in sales of the series abroad" -- is not quite correct, Dana. From what I've read the BBC offers the last episode as an option. The decision to take it is purely for the buying broadcaster. On the subject of David Attenborough's comments. From what he's said about it, it would seem that last episode sticks very much to the facts about how climate change is impacting life in polar regions and, in his words, is uncontroversial. He appears to avoid controversy by not asking the question, "are we causing this?". That's why Lawson's ignorant attack is so inappropriate. More on this at Carbon Brief.
68796. Brian Purdue at 19:17 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       It’s quite likely that Lord Lawson’s information on global sea ice came from (Lord) Monckton. Monckton quote: “In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice.”
68797. oneiota at 16:54 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Further to #19 here is a link to a position analysis from the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre with regards to Antarctic sea ice. This analysis gives a clear explantion as to the particular dynamics involved and the impacts of change.
68798. Bernard J. at 15:20 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Keith Pickering's post at #3 and Dana's at #4 deserve to be highlighted. Lawson is ignoring (either though simple ignorance of basic science or through deliberate intent to obfuscate) the fact that Antarctica is sitting on a thumping great continental land mass, whilst the Arctic ice cap simply floats on ocean. He's also ignoring the thumping great ozone hole over the Antarctic. These factors greatly affect how much ice forms over each pole, over time. Consequence - the Arctic ice cover will essentially decrease consistently with global warming, whilst Antarctic ice cover will likely increase to a small degree in initial stages but decrease with more extreme warming anomalies. To say otherwise is to misrepresent the science: in effect, it is to lie about the science... I hope that Attenborough takes the opportunity to clear up the matter, and to show the public just how mendaciously Lawson is playing loose with the scientific truth.
68799. michael sweet at 13:17 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Daniel, I think your graph is mis-labeled and should ony read global sea ice area. Here is another graph showing the same data. . (source Cryosphere Today) The anomalies are the red line at the bottom of the graph. Two years ago at WUWT they used to use this graph to "proove" the sea ice was increasing, but since it is obviously going down now they no longer post it.
       Moderator Response: [DB] I will contact Neven to get more info on it (from his graphs page).
68800. Daniel Bailey at 12:29 PM on 3 December 2011
       Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
       Amidst calls of RTFOP, apologies. Been a long day. Extraneous graph removed.

Prev  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  Next