Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 Next
Comments 95251 to 95300:
-
Marcus at 17:47 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 "Antarctic sea ice to expand, is awfully convenient" Typical Denialist-speak I'm afraid. You've been outed mate. I'd suggest you'd do much, much better at WUWT, because your claims won't be held up to nearly as much scrutiny as they are here. -
Marcus at 17:45 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1. In the Southern Hemisphere, we've seen a significant rise in temperatures in the Southern Ocean. This has caused rain-making systems to shift southwards towards Antarctica. At low altitudes, this increased precipitation is causing increased calving & ice loss along the peninsulas, whilst at high altitudes its-surprise, surprise-falling as *snow* & *ice*. So when you look at the total ice extent for Antarctica, you're seeing both the increased ice extent on the higher altitude Eastern side of the continent (from increased, warming-induced precipitation) & the declining ice extent on the Western side of the Continent (caused by the same warming-induced precipitation increases). -
Marcus at 17:40 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Okay, correction. Some areas of Antarctica are warming at +0.1 degrees per year (especially around the peninsulas) the rest of Antarctica is warming at closer to a rate of 0.03 to 0.05 degrees per year-which still makes it significantly faster than average warming for the same period. -
RW1 at 17:39 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter (RE: 121), "So now we are supposed to have two 'complex series of factors'; one causing melting, the other freezing. Each unexplained, undocumented and apparently unknowable. Science marches on, I suppose." No, the point is it's very likely the confluence of factors are just as numerous and complex for both, and assuming anthropogenic CO2 induced warming is what's primarily causing the Artic ice to melt while also assuming a confluence of complex factors, completely unrelated to anthropogenic CO2 induced warming, is what's primarily causing the Antarctic sea ice to expand, is awfully convenient. -
Marcus at 17:38 PM on 20 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Even if we ignore the fact that this is NH data only, then what I see, Angusmac, is a roughly 0.6 degrees of warming between the period of 600 AD & 1000AD (though the actual dates might be very different)-to put that in context, this represents a rate of change of +0.15 degrees *per century*. By contrast, the warming of the last 60 years has been at a rate of +0.12 degrees *per decade*-a rate ten times *faster* than during the MWP. Not only that, but paleo-climatologists have identified clear forcings responsible for the MWP (primarily a sustained, multi-century rise in solar activity, as determined from Be-10 & C-14 isotope analysis.) By contrast, the last 60 years of warming has been against a backdrop of relatively low solar activity & relatively high levels of volcanic activity. So, in fact, your comparisons are totally odious. -
Marcus at 17:30 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
According to NASA's Earth Observatory, warming in Antarctica is closer to +0.1 degrees *per year* between 1981 & 2007, which amounts to around +2.6 degrees of warming. I'd call that *very* rapid. -
muoncounter at 17:27 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 In the Arctic, its more like >0.8 degrees in 30 years.
0.3 degrees per decade is a Northern Hemisphere norm these days. See the Northern hemisphere warming thread.
-
Marcus at 17:27 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1. In statistical circles, 30 years of data *is* considered sufficient to arrive at a reasonable *average* state of affairs. Remember that ice loss isn't just below this average, its more than 2 standard deviations below this average. That makes this ice loss *incredibly* unusual & ongoing. Oh, but its not anecdotal evidence from an article in a newspaper, so how could you *possibly* be accurate? Seriously, this kind of nonsense might work with your mates over at Watts Up With That, but we have a slightly higher standard of *evidence* here. -
Marcus at 17:23 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"observed" in what way? I tend to only trust the satellite data on this. Typical straw-man argument-exactly what I expect from a card-carrying denialist. We only have 30-odd years of satellite data but-in spite of its greater accuracy-it does *not* invalidate the decades of direct observation & measurement that occurred in the decades prior to satellite. You just deny the evidence in front of your own eyes, & use the old canard of "30-years is insufficient" argument to cover yourself-because you know there is no real come-back if you refuse to accept other valid data. Yet funny how you denialists will rant, rave & scream that "global warming has stopped" if even a *single* year-or even a single *month* is colder than expected. "3 or 4 tenths of degree warming in 30 years is the most rapid warming ever observed" Try closer to almost +0.5 degrees of warming in a 30 year period (over 0.16 degrees per decade), which is actually around 3 times faster than the warming we saw in the first half of the 20th century-you know, when solar activity was rising rapidly. This warming we've seen lately has occurred against the backdrop of falling solar activity, & higher than normal volcanic activity (especially over 1990-2010). It's about 10 times as fast as the warming believed to have occurred during the MWP (which saw a total of +0.6 degrees of warming over a span of SIX HUNDRED YEARS). So yep, the fastest warming ever recorded, & without the usual causes to explain even a slower rate of warming. -
RW1 at 17:16 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter (RE: 121) "Did you read the overview?" Yes I did. -
RW1 at 17:12 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus (RE: 119), "It is when the previous 100 years of observed ice extent show no significant change." "observed" in what way? I tend to only trust the satellite data on this. "Funny that this sudden change just "happens" to coincide with the period of most rapid warming ever observed." 3 or 4 tenths of degree warming in 30 years is the most rapid warming ever observed? -
muoncounter at 17:00 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1, No, that's what I came up as a quick analogy to your nonsensical notion that anyone expects the Antarctic continent to melt. An analogy is not a technical answer. Did you read the overview? It poses at least two answers to your 'question.' "if I'm to believe that complex of a series of factors is likely causing the Antarctic sea ice to grow ... why should I not believe that an equally numerous and complex series of factors ... is what's causing the Artic sea ice to melt?" So now we are supposed to have two 'complex series of factors'; one causing melting, the other freezing. Each unexplained, undocumented and apparently unknowable. Science marches on, I suppose. What you choose to believe is your own lookout. But perhaps the reasons lie in the fact that the oceanographic, atmospheric and physiographic settings of the Arctic and Antarctic are completely different? One has much less ozone than the other? One is in the hemisphere with most of the sources of CO2, the other isn't? One is land completely surrounded by open water, the other is water surrounded by land? -
RW1 at 17:00 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter (RE:RE: 116), "Actually, the Antarctic Sea Ice trend is currently negative:" The trend is nearly even or slightly positive. The past year is slightly below the average. "With a long-term decline in evidence:" Does that look like reliable data to you with all those straight lines for such long periods?Moderator Response: [DB] If you had even bothered to peruse the link I gave you for your edification you would have found an answer to your "straight lines" question, among others. That indicates you're not even trying to learn, but obfuscate. -
Marcus at 16:57 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"I'm simply saying 30 years isn't enough data to know whether the downward trend is anything unusual". It is when the previous 100 years of observed ice extent show no significant change. Funny that this sudden change just "happens" to coincide with the period of most rapid warming ever observed. -
RW1 at 16:43 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter (RE: 117), Seriously, if I'm to believe that complex of a series of factors is likely causing the Antarctic sea ice to grow inspite of 'global warming', why should I not believe that an equally numerous and complex series of factors, and not primarily 'global warming, is what's causing the Artic sea ice to melt? (*BTW, I don't doubt the reasons for the Antarctic increasing sea ice extent are numerous and complex, nor do I doubt that many of the listed mechanisms could very well be playing a role.). -
muoncounter at 16:18 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1, See An overview of Antarctic ice. No one is expecting the continent to melt; the attic of your house may be on fire, but the food in your basement freezer will still be cold. -
angusmac at 16:06 PM on 20 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Moderator, I thought that my point was obvious - when you use AR4 Figure 6.10c you get a pronounced MWP, which is similar to the recent warming period. I am not sure what you mean when you state "if you hide the incline". I have hidden nothing. I just removed instrumental data to compare proxy records with proxy records, i.e., I compare "apples with apples".Moderator Response: [DB] First you remove the most accurate temperature record we have. Second you compare an event specific to the Northern Hemisphere from hundreds of years ago and pronounce it "similar" to the modern rise in temperature (which is not restricted to just the Northern Hemisphere) - which you no longer show. Hence my statement about your hiding the incline and thus my question about your point. Read this post to gain some insights into the MWP. And third, the temperature rise since 1980 or so is largely attributed to the rise in greenhouse gases, principally CO2, which are sourced to our burning of fossil fuels. Since this option (anthropogenic CO2) was not available during the MWP, you are comparing apples to non-apples. -
RW1 at 15:59 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter (RE: 112), "See this thread for Antarctic ice mass loss. Answers to your question here, here and here. Really, these aren't that hard to find on your own, if you would just look." I know all this. None of it answers my question. I'm talking about the Antarctic sea ice increasing trend. Even if the Antarctic land mass is losing ice, the continent is never going to melt, unless you wait a few 10s or 100s of millions of years for it to move from it's current location.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Actually, the Antarctic Sea Ice trend is currently negative:
With a long-term decline in evidence:
Further reading here. -
TOP at 15:55 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom @83 You don't get the same outgoing radiation over water that you do over land (terrestrial). Last I checked, the Arctic was an ocean. CO2 or no CO2, you will get the same result if the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice. Solar radiation places it's energy deep in the water and it stays there until it escapes mainly by evaporation. Land is much better at converting insolation into outgoing IR. When interpreting the graph you present it is important to remember that the total longwave energy leaving must be reduced by the cosine of the latitude. Your graph is in units of power per unit area. It has to be integrrate over the area of the planet at each latitude. So a strip of the planet 1 degree wide at the equator receives and emits 40% more energy that a strip at 45 degrees. At 60 degrees it is 100% greater. In addition, if the polar region is snow covered with a high albedo the re-radiated energy is going to be shorter wavelengths up to UV. If the polar region is ice-free there simply isn't going to be a lot of longwave because the energy is deposited in the water and stays there. And 32 F water is not going to emit longwave like 80F water at the equator. So any effects of CO2 will be minimal compared to areas south of 45 degrees. -
RW1 at 15:50 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom (RE: 41), "Of course, the figure you quoted is that derived from models which are underestimating the extent of sea ice loss in the arctic. Based on observation, the net forcing for the ice and snow loss to date is 0.62 w/m^2, and we have not yet experienced a full degree of global warming. That suggests the total effect could result in 7 to 10% additional warming, or up to an additional degree centigrade by the end of the century." I see, to the extent that models are underestimating observed Arctic sea ice melting, the models are likely wrong. To the extent that the models are overestimating warming, the models are still likely correct? That aside, how about we split the difference? Let's say each 1 degree C of warming will result in about +0.4 W/m^ from Arctic ice loss. That still leaves you way short. You need +16.6 W/m^2 at the surface for a 3 C rise. Assuming 2xCO2 gives you 1 C or about 5.6 W/m^2, where is the additional 11 W/m^2 coming from? Don't forget that the Antarctic sea ice is remaining stable or even increasing a little in recent years, and the albedo is remaining fairly stable or has even increased a little. In short, where is all the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the warming - specifically the 3 C rise? -
SteveS at 15:41 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @110: It's #9 on the list of most used skeptic arguments (the chart on the left). Maybe you should check there. -
muoncounter at 15:41 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: See this thread for Antarctic ice mass loss. Answers to your question here, here and here. Really, these aren't that hard to find on your own, if you would just look. -
Tom Curtis at 15:37 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Norman @104, PIP2 does not disagree with PIOMAS, rather an analysis of PIP2 based on pixel counts purports to disagree with PIOMAS. In fact, however, it does not (whatever the text says). Consider the graph of October 1 ice extents by ice depth based on the pixel count:
Consider the comparison of 1st Oct, 2007 with 1st Oct, 2010. The first thing to notice is that the total extent of sea ice that is 3 meters thick or thicker is greater in 2007 than in 2010. What is more, nearly half that ice is over 4 meters thick, and a quarter over 4.5 meters thick in 2007, while in 2010 only a third of the equivalent ice (and one ninth of the total) is over 4 meters thick, and virtually none is over 4.5 meters thick. Consequently, even though 2011 has a greater extent of 2 to 2.5 meter ice, we would expect on the PIP2 data for 2010 to have less ice.
The author creates an opposite impression by concentrating initially on the Dec 31st data, while ignoring the strong rebound in the PIOMAS data to that date.
The author thinks he can make a more telling analysis than this with his graph of volumes. However, that graph is based first on pixel counts on a plane projection of the pole, which underestimates the area of the thickest ice relative to the thinest, and the more so the greater the ice extent.
He also, of necessity assumes that the contours mark sharp steps in ice thickness. He assumes that, for example, a change from a blue to a green shading is a change from (at minimum) 2 to 2.5 meters of ice thickness, where as it may have been a change from 2.45 to 2.52 meters thickness. The necessary approximation in this process means his method is to crude for any but the coarsest comparison. You should read his graphs as having error bars of plus or minus 50%, and allowing for that possible error, PIOMAS falls well within the range of his calculations.
Of course, there is a directly measured product for ice volume available, that produced by Icesat:
PIOMAS has been compared to it, and performs well:
As you can see, when compared to measured data, PIOMAS, if anything, over estimates ice volume.
So I guess it all depends on how you want to verify your data - actual observations, or pixel counts and pub coaster arithmetic.
-
Marcus at 15:32 PM on 20 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Are these the high impact journals skeptics cannot get published in?" Ah, when all else fails, fall back on the old conspiracy theory-that high impact journals refuse to publish the work of skeptics. You deride so-called conspiracy theorists in other areas (like the JFK assassination & the 9/11 Troofers), yet you use *all* of their tactics to push your arguments. The fact is that *good* science has to meet very high, objective standards to get published in high impact journals. Even relatively medium-impact, ISI-listed journals still hold to very high standards. We leave the low-standard Junk Science to journals like E&E & Cato, which have an avowed goal of promoting AGW skepticism. Not exactly the best source of unbiased information. -
RW1 at 15:28 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
No one has answered my question: If 'global warming' is causing the Artic sea ice to melt, why isn't the Antarctic sea ice decreasing as well? Why has it even expanded in recent years? -
muoncounter at 15:24 PM on 20 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Alex, "you're all understandably exasperated with this," Your Atlas cite should indeed have been the end of this train wreck. I'm curious: After the last few comments, do you have any further thoughts on the loss of credibility aspect of your comment here? -
Marcus at 15:21 PM on 20 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"I've spoken to the publisher, two editors of the journal and six authors who all confirmed that E&E is peer-reviewed. It is amazing to see what lengths you will go to misrepresent a journal you do not like. Are there scholarly peer-reviewed journals not listed by the ISI? What is considered the gold standard is subjective." Again with your selective skepticism, PT. Have you asked anyone from *outside* of E&E whether or not their peer-review standards are up to accepted standards? No, you merely rely on those who edit the journal & a mere handful of authors who've been published there (indeed, probably the only "authors" who've even bother submitting to E&E)-none of whom are going to tell you otherwise. The fact remains that there are very few-if any-reputable scientists that will try & get their work published outside of ISI listed journals, because all of the scientific community recognize that only journals with the highest standard of peer-review will get accepted. E&E still hasn't made the cut, & only a mere handful of scientists actually submit work for publication within it-in itself a damning indictment-as is the fact that no E&E papers seem to ever get cited in papers published outside of E&E (talk about "confirmation bias"). Your pathetic attempts to claim that standards in science are merely "subjective" continues to reveal nothing more than your complete *ignorance* of science. Which is why everything you say here about science is complete & utter garbage. Take it from someone who actually *works* in the scientific community, & who knows junk science when he sees it-& the "work" of Beck & MacLean definitely fit that bill, no matter how "subjective" a standard you apply. "Incorrect, the existence of a criticism does not mean a paper is debunked." Seriously, Poptech, your reading skills are *abysmal*. I said, not merely criticized, but utterly *debunked*-i.e. "proven to be factually incorrect." Beck's & MacLean's work have both been *proven* to be factually incorrect, but you've still left them on your list-just because they support your supposed skepticism. -
RW1 at 15:14 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus, "My point, RW1, is that you're refusing to be skeptical of a newspaper article, which sounds to be entirely based on anecdotal evidence, & covers just a *single year*-whilst being hugely skeptical of mountains of data covering several *decades*-more than enough to smooth out year to year variability. Indeed, current ice extent is lower than the average plus *two standard deviations*-so very much outside of natural variability for the last 10 years. That's not skepticism, that is *denial* of the *facts*." You're misunderstanding the context and implications of that quote I posted. I make no claim that it proves anything - only that it's suggestive of large variability in the Arctic. I'm not denying any facts either, and I'm well aware of the record as it is. I'm simply saying 30 years isn't enough data to know whether the downward trend is anything unusual, or more importantly if it's even the result of global warming, let alone CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming. -
Jue1234 at 15:14 PM on 20 February 2011Models are unreliable
Thanks KR and Tom, I'll look at your links -
RW1 at 15:02 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom (RE: 103), You're first chart in post 55 didn't give quantifications of the insolation, which is why it was unclear to me. The one on Wikipedia does. I wrongly assumed the brightest color was the equivalent of maximum insolation (or 1366 W/m^2). So I'm conceding that my point about reduced insolation as you get closer and closer to the poles was/is incorrect. -
RW1 at 14:48 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom (RE: 103), It is, however, transparently obvious that the chart includes the effects of angles of incidence for if it did not it would not show zero insolation during winter at the poles." Angle relative to what? The spherical shape of the Earth or the angle of the tilt? Regardless, I guess since the solar constant is about 1366 W/m^2 and the maximum in the chart is only about 550 W/m^2, that would indicate that angle incidence is factored in. -
muoncounter at 14:46 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Norman, A picture is worth a thousand words; a video must be worth a thousand pictures. Here's a link to an ice reconstruction video (originally posted here), which shows the age of the ice in color. Old ice (orange and red) is thicker than new ice (blue). And there's a lot less old ice. Riddle me this: What mechanism would produce one year old ice that is thicker than older ice? What mechanism would produce thickening ice at the same time as ice extent is so rapidly decreasing? -
peter prewett at 14:37 PM on 20 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Will the melting of the Tundra make a contribution to sea level rise?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Directly (melt water raising sea levels), maybe a bit (haven't seen any papers quantifying that. But a Wiki search finds that permafrost accounts for 0.022% of total water). Indirectly, absolutely (see this paper - nice discussion of it by Romm over at Climate Progress). -
Marcus at 14:34 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
My point, RW1, is that you're refusing to be skeptical of a newspaper article, which sounds to be entirely based on anecdotal evidence, & covers just a *single year*-whilst being hugely skeptical of mountains of data covering several *decades*-more than enough to smooth out year to year variability. Indeed, current ice extent is lower than the average plus *two standard deviations*-so very much outside of natural variability for the last 10 years. That's not skepticism, that is *denial* of the *facts*. -
WheelsOC at 14:32 PM on 20 February 2011Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
If "homeopathy" were the mechanism, then those who didn't smoke would be the ones getting the strongest protection from tobacco's medicinal properties. That's how homeopathy works, you dilute the substance in water and it gets stronger as the solution gets weaker, until the recommended level of dilution is such that there's probably no trace of the original ingredients in the water at all. -
Norman at 14:27 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#58 Tom Curtis You posted the PIOMAS graph for arctic ice volume that shows a steep decline in recent years. I was researching this a bit. You do realize that this graph is based upon some calculations and not based on empirical measurements of ice volume? From their site: "PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating observations. For the Ice Volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates. Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The Pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries." It seems another version disagrees with this one. PIP2 from the Navy show a totally different view of arctic ice volume. Two models for Arctic ice volume, which one is correct or are either of them right?. -
Tom Curtis at 14:25 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @100, the formulae can be found here along with a variant version of the chart using different units. It is, however, transparently obvious that the chart includes the effects of angles of incidence for if it did not it would not show zero insolation during winter at the poles. As this discussion has degenerated to the point where your sole argument is to simply disbelieve any contrary data, I see no real point in continuing it. -
muoncounter at 14:21 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: The 1922 ice extent low can be seen in the Walsh data graph. That was above 10 million sq km; the low extent last year was 4.8 million sq km. How do you think your seals felt about that? -
Tom Curtis at 14:16 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @97, from further up the thread. -
RW1 at 14:14 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom (RE: 96), "That means they do include the effect of angle of incidence on insolation," I don't think so. How would it account for this? Perhaps I'm wrong, but can you point me to a source that verifies this? I understand that they do not include the effect of clouds. -
Tom Curtis at 14:11 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @84. Yes, the pole is only shown to have more insolation than the arctic circle for about three weeks on that chart. But it is also shown to have at least the same insolation for 2 months as the the arctic circle receives for only a month and a half; and the same for over three months as the arctic circle recieves over the same interval. For three months of the year, the pole receives either as much or more insolation on any given day as any point on the arctic circle. Those three months are the period of maximum insolation, and also the time of minimum albedo. Over the rest of the year the a point on the periphery of the arctic circle recieves more insolation, but total daily insolation during that period is half or less what it is in summer. -
muoncounter at 14:10 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: "the past 3 years I referenced ... I simply pointed out a contradiction to that claim." Three years does not a contradiction make; there is always noise in these data. If 3 years of data is all you have to point to, I'd suggest finding another position on the issue. "I'm not familiar with the Walsh historic time series" Whether you accept the Walsh data or not is irrelevant, except that you're attempting to create the perfect block: 'There are only 30 years of satellite data. 30 years is not enough data. Repeat.' Look at the PIOMASS graph. Can you objectively describe those curves as anything but concave down? That would mean the rate of change of ice mass is accelerating in the negative direction. -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:08 PM on 20 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "Rob, do you support that none of these numbers 954,000, 850,000, 189,553 or 17,761 represent the number of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly or implicitly endorse "anthropogenic global warming"?" The exercise here was merely to show people that they can't just look at one number, such as 31,000 scientists or 850 papers, and think that tells them anything at all. They have to put the number in context. Whether 987K is correct or 17k is correct, I don't really care. Any of these denominators still makes your number very small. And don't say "this has not been established" again for the 300th time. It's utterly foolish to entertain for even 2 seconds that 850 papers represents a significant portion of climate research. And that's my last word in this thread. I'm done. -
RW1 at 14:05 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rick G (RE: 78), "The Antarctic ice cap is on a land mass with an average elevation 7500 ft surrounded by ocean. Conversely, the Arctic is surrounded by land masses and is sea ice at sea level. Why would you expect them to be following the same trend?" I know. I'm mainly referring to the ice extent over the sea, which has not decreased and has even increased slightly, especially in recent years. If 'global warming' is causing the Artic sea ice to melt, why isn't it doing the same in the Antarctic? -
Tom Curtis at 14:03 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 85 & 89, from this question it becomes evident that you are not even reading the points you are trying to rebut. To answer your question, they show TOA insolation. That means they do include the effect of angle of incidence on insolation, along with the effect of seasons. They do not include the effect of clouds. This is also true of the second graph @55. In contrast, the third graph @55 and the graph @83 show insolation at the surface, and hence include the average effect of clouds. They show between 10% and 20% variation between 60 degrees north and the poles, ie, the same degree of variation over 30 degrees that in mid-latitudes you would expect over ten. @88, you can believe what you want. However, I did not simply rebut your limited source of information. I looked up further information based upon multiple annual reports of sea ice extent, not just for one year, but for every year between 1750 and 2002. That information showed that 1922 had a low sea ice extent for its time, but only an average sea ice extent for the later half of the 20th century, and a higher sea ice extent than every year to date in the 21st Century. That you choose to ignore that information is very telling. @87, you have got to be kidding. The report Robb found contains every point yours made, and was printed in the fall of 1922, ie, after the minimum sea ice extent of 1922. You simply do not like the confirmation that it was only one ship, and at only one location that ice free water was found to 81.5 degrees north. -
RW1 at 13:59 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus, "This is what I love about these so-called "skeptics"-they stubbornly retain a "skeptic" stance, in the face of *mountains* of data & observations, yet said "skepticism" evaporates in the face of a *single* newspaper that relies solely on *anecdotal* evidence." The point of the story is it's simply consistent with large Artic variability nearly 90 years ago. However, it's hardly the basis for my skepticism.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html tag. -
RW1 at 13:54 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter, "Unfortunately, this situation is very serious indeed. So, yes, rest assured, I am serious about this issue." Sorry, I don't understand you then. I'm not claiming the past 3 years I referenced represents any indication of any coming trend or any trend at all for that matter. You claimed that the downward trend was 'accelerating'. I simply pointed out a contradiction to that claim. As far as the first graph in that post, I'm not familiar with the Walsh historic time series, nor what method was used to get the data, though I think I can safely assuming isn't anywhere near as accurate as satellite measurements. -
Rob Honeycutt at 13:48 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1..."I don't think those articles are the source of what I posted." According to Anthony Watts it is. -
Marcus at 13:48 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"I think the 'story' speaks for itself though." This is what I love about these so-called "skeptics"-they stubbornly retain a "skeptic" stance, in the face of *mountains* of data & observations, yet said "skepticism" evaporates in the face of a *single* newspaper that relies solely on *anecdotal* evidence. Come on RW1, where's your skepticism now? That sounds more like *denial* where I'm from. -
RW1 at 13:45 PM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom (RE: 77), You do understand that the average insolation hitting the top of the atmosphere is not the same as the average insolation hitting the surface (even assuming clear sky conditions), right?
Prev 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 Next
