# Summer Arctic Ice



## jack97 (May 6, 2014)

I know some of has been following Bastardi during the winter for his storm forecast however I have been following his blog and other stuff....

Here's an interesting piece of news... arctic ice coverage may be on the rise. This was the same trend last year, if so, the long warming trend will be gone and the cold trend will be upon us. We may get another winter like the one we just had. Yeah! bring on that polar vortex. 

Beware its political... Bastardi thinks AGW is nothing but garbage science and a power grab, so this piece is in a "conservative" site. 

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/25340


----------



## Puck it (May 6, 2014)

FYI.  Take what you want from this slanted view also.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment/8736743/


----------



## jack97 (May 6, 2014)

Puck it said:


> FYI.  Take what you want from this slanted view also.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment/8736743/




yep, nice piece of propaganda. Anytime they cite the 97% by Cook is great pr, that paper will go down in history as one of the greatest forms of propaganda.



btw... back to the op which was about arctic melt, here's another write up from Epstein, former boston area met. 

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/weather_wisdom/2014/05/how_is_the_arctic_and_antarcti.html


----------



## Edd (May 9, 2014)

Not the biggest fan of Vice on HBO but I watched this the other day and the footage is terrifying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpEPyhqjRGg


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 16, 2014)

jack97 said:


> yep, nice piece of propaganda. Anytime they cite the 97% by Cook is great pr, that paper will go down in history as one of the greatest forms of propaganda.



Speaking of propaganda.  

 News of another intentional scientific suppression of a researcher's work (again) refuting man-made Global Warming breaking today.

This times it's even got a bit of cattiness to it, as the researcher used to be a proponent of man-made Global Warming but no longer believes the hypothesis.

[h=1]_Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for  publication in respected journal_[/h]





> Prof  Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much  less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.  If  he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon  dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on  climate than green activists would have us believe. The  research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of  the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the  global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases  in the atmosphere were allowed to double. The  paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse  gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September,  and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying  uncertainty’.




​http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html


----------



## jack97 (May 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Speaking of propaganda.
> 
> News of another intentional scientific suppression of a researcher's work (again) refuting man-made Global Warming breaking today.
> 
> ...





yep, he's been in the field since 1975 and was involved with the UN/IPCC process. imo, he's doing what any top notch scientist would do. If the observations does not match the hypothesis, you question the hypothesis.  some of these so call top climate scientist do not even question correlation implies causality, so it does not surprise me that he is getting booted off the island.


btw, speaking of observations, here's the page that Bastardi and Epstein referenced about sea ice. If some of the so called leading climatologist are concern about the rate of temperature rise (before the 17-18 year plateau) the sea index will show the arctic sea ice rate of melt is on the decline. Antarctic sea index is on the rise. I recalled some hand waving explanation that the antarctic sea ice has nothing to do with AGW but that given by a scientist/UN official who had everything to gain by promoting AGW. 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 19, 2014)

Here we go again


----------



## Puck it (May 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Here we go again



For what?  The discussion or the artic ice shrinking.


----------



## jack97 (May 19, 2014)

or the antarctic ice expanding

or we can tie this with the great lake ice coverage

or we can tied this in with the endless winter discussion


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 20, 2014)

Puck it said:


> For what?  The discussion or the artic ice shrinking.



All the uber techie talk


----------



## Edd (May 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> or the antarctic ice expanding



Story posted today appears to state the opposite. Who's right?

http://dailydigestnews.com/2014/05/...now-losing-159-billion-tons-of-ice-each-year/



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Cannonball (May 20, 2014)

Edd said:


> Story posted today appears to state the opposite. Who's right?
> 
> http://dailydigestnews.com/2014/05/...now-losing-159-billion-tons-of-ice-each-year/



Both.  Antarctic land ice volume is declining big time (the article you posted).  Antarctic sea ice area has been expanding.  They aren't mutually exclusive. For example, as the land ice melts and drains fresh water into the sea, it refreezes along the cold edges, expanding the areal extent.


----------



## Edd (May 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Both.  Antarctic land ice volume is declining big time (the article you posted).  Antarctic sea ice area has been expanding.  They aren't mutually exclusive. For example, as the land ice melts and drains fresh water into the sea, it refreezes along the cold edges, expanding the areal extent.



So if huge amounts of land ice are falling into the sea, wouldn't the result be displacement causing higher sea levels? Visualizing it, the water is displaced regardless of any refreezing. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Cannonball (May 20, 2014)

Edd said:


> So if huge amounts of land ice are falling into the sea, wouldn't the result be displacement causing higher sea levels? Visualizing it, the water is displaced regardless of any refreezing.



Aye.


----------



## jack97 (May 20, 2014)

Edd said:


> So if huge amounts of land ice are falling into the sea, wouldn't the result be displacement causing higher sea levels? Visualizing it, the water is displaced regardless of any refreezing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone




Yep, in the antarctic, the sea ice is expanding and the volume over the land mass is shrinking. What interesting to  Bastardi and Epstein is the rate of change at both poles. That will be the signal that the cooling trend is here. 

Btw, climate and sea levels have been changing even before man's industrial age. In Miami, they use a stone quarry several miles inland that has fossils of an ancient corral reef. There are archaeologist studying ancient civilizations in India that once thrive but was forced to migrate due to changes in sea level. This has happen before and it will happen again.... what makes us immune to it now?



btw.... i love the way they use gigatonne of volume loss and then say .45mm/yr rise in water level. when the ice age happens this will be the least of our concerns.


----------



## Rowsdower (May 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Yep, in the antarctic, the sea ice is expanding and the volume over the land mass is shrinking. What interesting to  Bastardi and Epstein is the rate of change at both poles. That will be the signal that the cooling trend is here.
> 
> Btw, climate and sea levels have been changing even before man's industrial age. In Miami, they use a stone quarry several miles inland that has fossils of an ancient corral reef. There are archaeologist studying ancient civilizations in India that once thrive but was forced to migrate due to changes in sea level. This has happen before and it will happen again.... what makes us immune to it now?
> 
> ...



It's the rate of change that is significantly faster than normal.


----------



## fbrissette (May 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Yep, in the antarctic, the sea ice is expanding and the volume over the land mass is shrinking.



And how do you reconcile the net loss of volume and accelerating rate to your statement that warming has stopped ?



jack97 said:


> Btw, climate and sea levels have been changing even before man's industrial age. In Miami, they use a stone quarry several miles inland that has fossils of an ancient corral reef. There are archaeologist studying ancient civilizations in India that once thrive but was forced to migrate due to changes in sea level.



And the rocks on top of Mount Everest were once under water.  What's your point ?




jack97 said:


> btw.... i love the way they use gigatonne of volume loss and then say .45mm/yr rise in water level. when the ice age happens this will be the least of our concerns.



And what units should they use ?    10^13 onces ?   In science, it is common practice to use units that don't require exponents.   .45mm/yr at an increasing rate may translate to 10-20 cm in the next 100 years (and several meters in the centuries following), to which you have to have all other ice losses and thermal expansion.  Not so insignificant anymore.


----------



## jack97 (May 20, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> It's the rate of change that is significantly faster than normal.



umm... that rate of change happens at various points in the temp plots before the sixties/seventies. and yes there have been pauses before that as well.


----------



## jack97 (May 20, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> And how do you reconcile the net loss of volume and accelerating rate to your statement that warming has stopped ?


there could be other factors such as the delay time from the warming trend, wind differences and the sinking of land mass due to all the weight from the glaciers. Our great lakes is still rebounding from the last ice age we had...

btw... CryoSat-2 is a radar altimeter which measures height. Not sure how its measure volume and I would like to hear confirmation the satellite has a stable orbit. The RSS is on decaying orbit which may led to erroneous reading. 




fbrissette said:


> And the rocks on top of Mount Everest were once under water. What's your point ?



haha.... using another wild @ss hyperbole. My point is sea levels has always changed... even at periods where men had thriving ancient civilizations. What makes you think we are so special that we must keep the seas level at the comforts level we have grown use to. 




fbrissette said:


> And what units should they use ?    10^13 onces ?   In science, it is common practice to use units that don't require exponents.   .45mm/yr at an increasing rate may translate to 10-20 cm in the next 100 years (and several meters in the centuries following), to which you have to have all other ice losses and thermal expansion.  Not so insignificant anymore.




what's the big deal about using the number they quote .45mm/yr. Things will change in a 100 years, the IPCC's GCMs has so much fudge factors that their outputs are essentially guesses and totally missed the mark when compared to observed data.


----------



## twinplanx (May 20, 2014)

I don't get why skiers would argue against climate change. You don't actually believe man has NOT adversely affected the planet, do you? Why not, er on the side of caution? Good planets are hard to find. 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## jack97 (May 20, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> I don't get why skiers would argue against climate change. You don't actually believe man has NOT adversely affected the planet, do you? Why not, er on the side of caution? Good planets are hard to find.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



i think most are confuse about this issue because of there own self interest or arrogance..... my op was about climate change or the potential cold period that would benefit both skiers and riders. However, my real argument is the AGW proponents have distorted science from its true core and made this into an agenda driven mockery. As I stated, any scientist that thinks correlation implies causality is a third rate scientist or got a degree from a soft science program. 

All the money spent on this back and forth could have been spent on good research. Even yet, the demonizing co2 thru the epa will stifle our economy. 

btw, here's another piece of reconstruction, authors reconstructed sea level rise from 1800s till present, graph shows a steady line. Its thru a paywall so you have to read the abstract. If co2 influence was present, that line would have increased more so for the past thirty years, but it has not. You will never see this in the IPCC since it is not in their best interest to endorse this. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750


----------



## dlague (May 20, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> I don't get why skiers would argue against climate change. You don't actually believe man has NOT adversely affected the planet, do you? Why not, er on the side of caution? Good planets are hard to find.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



Unfortunately there are so many contradicting articles and political stances then there is the money grab from both sides of the issue that it makes people unsure.  When you have Al Gore telling people to change yet he has 5 Suburbans, a huge house and is flying everywhere - how can you trust that.  Musicians backing global warming  arguments yet hold concerts that have people driving all over, use products that are petroleum based and they too live lavishly with no citing back. I just don't get it!


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## steamboat1 (May 20, 2014)




----------



## Rowsdower (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> umm... that rate of change happens at various points in the temp plots before the sixties/seventies. and yes there have been pauses before that as well.



You meant to say the rate of change is variable, you just couldn't find the words. 

It's true, that rate is variable, but the current rate of change is dependent on variables being impacted by human activity.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> It's true, that rate is variable, but the current rate of change is dependent on variables being impacted by human activity.



Temp have stayed flat for 17 to 18 years if you did a backward regression (meaning start the observations now and go back in years. Trend is same for most reading;  for surface temps and the two satellite temps. 

IMO satellite temps is most telling since the troposphere hotspot is non existence. BTW, that would have convince all scientist the greenhouse gas theory was valid, a hotspot at this point but it's still not there.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> View attachment 12661





wtf? this means the medieval period used fossil fuel as well?


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

another wtf...... an AGW skeptic rapper from europe. That's like a scene from a Tarantino film.


----------



## Puck it (May 21, 2014)

Aren't we suppose be to underwater all ready per Al Gore?


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Aren't we suppose be to underwater all ready per Al Gore?



Who knows.  Al Gore isn't a scientist and I don't think I've heard anything about him since ~2006, except that GW deniers like to bring his name up all the time and use him as a primary source of info about climate science.


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Who knows.  Al Gore isn't a scientist and I don't think I've heard anything about him since ~2006, except that GW deniers like to bring his name up all the time and use him as a primary source of info about climate science.



He's building the Internet 2.0


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> View attachment 12661



Wow !  I had never seen that one. This is a terribly misleading graph.  This is NOT a graph about global temperatures but about idealized trends.  This is a very creative use of a time-varying collapsing/expanding vertical scale and absolute BS.

Big surprise, Cliff Harris is not a climatologist and appears to be a bible wacko.


----------



## Puck it (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Who knows. Al Gore isn't a scientist and I don't think I've heard anything about him since ~2006, except that GW deniers like to bring his name up all the time and use him as a primary source of info about climate science.



Comic relief


----------



## dlague (May 21, 2014)

Well this thread has led me to look into historical warming and cooling trends and based on prehistoric data the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the current ice caps are still from that time.  Based on historical patterns we will go into another ice age in about 1500 years.

The biggest factor for generating CO2 - volcanoes.

Volcanic eruptions may have contributed to the inception and/or the end of ice age periods. At times during the paleoclimate, carbon dioxide levels were two or three times greater than today. Volcanoes and movements in continental plates contributed to high amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not sure how we will stop that!  Yes we generate lots of co2 and methane however, there are many other natural events that can generate much much more than humans can.

On another note, I was also reading about Solar and orbital impacts on climate.  We currently are in the middle of a solar cycle where higher levels of solar radiation are being recorded - this alone has an impact on the ozone layer and increasing temperatures a few degrees.

The increase of incident solar UV during solar maximum conditions leads to increased generation of stratospheric ozone in the mid-to-upper stratosphere, which ultimately results in greater ozone in the tropical lower stratosphere. This helps warm that region via both short- and long-wave absorption. In response to this more stable vertical profile for tropical tropospheric processes, tropical convection preferentially shifts off the equator, favoring monsoonal effects during Northern Hemisphere summer and on the annual average. 

The point here is that blaming everything on the human population is too simple and the issue at hand with global warming or cooling for that matter is seriously out of our control and just fuels the debate as fodder.  Can we be better - yes!  Will we be better - who really knows.  For all of the gains we have made India and China have surpassed three fold!

Needed to throw a chart in!


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> The point here is that blaming everything on the human population is too simple



Absolutely!! And if you ever find someone who does that, smack them upside the head.  

But just because you can't prevent lightning from striking doesn't mean you should stick your finger in the socket.  We need to be cognizant of ALL the things going on, and address the things we can influence.


----------



## Puck it (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Absolutely!! And if you ever find someone who does that, smack them upside the head.
> 
> But just because you can't prevent lightning from striking doesn't mean you should stick your finger in the socket. We need to be cognizant of ALL the things going on, and address the things we can influence.


 Bingo, I have always said that we should not be dumping crap into the enivronment but let's not destroy people's lively hood too. We need to continue modelling and see what the it tells us. Plotting of data can be very misleading with even just changing scales. We got tricked by some at work at a couple of weeks ago by plotting the vertical scale on the natural log. We all said that the data looked good until someone notice the y scale. Just an example.


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Bingo,  I have always said that we should be dumping crap into the enivronment but let's not destroy people's lively hood too.  We need to continue modelling and see what the it tells us.  Plotting of data can be very misleading with even just changing scales.  We got tricked by some at work at a couple of weeks ago by plotting the vertical scale on the natural log.  We all said that the data looked good until someone notice the y scale. Just an example.



Might need Scotty to help translate this.    I presume you mean we should not be dumping crap into the environment?


----------



## Puck it (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Might need Scotty to help translate this. I presume you mean we should not be dumping crap into the environment?



Oops.  I was eating lunch and typing.  Fingers do not work as fast as brain.


----------



## dlague (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Might need Scotty to help translate this.    I presume you mean we should not be dumping crap into the environment?



Good catch - I read right over than and filled in the blank.


----------



## Puck it (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> Good catch - I read right over than and filled in the blank.




Not only is he my proofreader, he is my mountain sherpa.


----------



## dlague (May 21, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Not only is he my proofreader, he is my mountain sherpa.



Well both of you as well as others might be for me since I just got the season pass!


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> Based on historical patterns we will go into another ice age in about 1500 years.
> 
> The biggest factor for generating CO2 - volcanoes.
> 
> ...



All of the above have been studies in great details by scientists more knowledgeable than any of us on that board.  And by an overwhelming majority, they all say that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.

Graphs:  Do note that CO2 concentration has now reached 400ppm.   It puts things into a different perspective when you add ALL of the relevant data doesn't it ?  The above graph shows CO2 evolution until pre-industrial age (1800).


----------



## dlague (May 21, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> All of the above have been studies in great details by scientists more knowledgeable than any of us on that board.  And by an overwhelming majority, they all say that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.
> 
> Graphs:  Do note that CO2 concentration has now reached 400ppm.   It puts things into a different perspective when you add ALL of the relevant data doesn't it ?  The above graph shows CO2 evolution until pre-industrial age (1800).



The point being that the Earth has warmed before - there just weren't any people around who think they can prevent it!  It will eventually cool again.  There are lots of natural events that will have there own impact.

So I guess we should resort back to the 1800's (sarcasm)!  We all know that we are creatures of comfort, adventure and entertainment, so I do not seeing us slowing down any time soon!


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> The point being that the Earth has warmed before - there just weren't any people around who think they can prevent it!



You're right, we (mostly) can't prevent warming from the causes that have created it in the past.  But we can prevent it from at happening at our own hand.  I can't prevent the fact that I'm going to die some day, but that doens't mean I'm inclined to accelerate by smoking 3 packs a day.



dlague said:


> We all know that we are creatures of comfort, adventure and entertainment, so I do not seeing us slowing down any time soon!



That was the mentality of previous generations as the dumped crap into our waterways. Now we are paying through the nose to clean it up.  Can't we learn from history?  Or are you cool with passing the next problems on to your kids to deal with?


----------



## twinplanx (May 21, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Bingo, I have always said that we should not be dumping crap into the enivronment but let's not destroy people's lively hood too. .



Seriously? If some makes there "lively hood" by destroying the environment, I say FUCK THEM! I do not wish to share my planet with such people. I don't care if there broke & can't drive there fat kids to the bus stop in there giant SUVs... 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## dlague (May 21, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> Seriously? If some makes there "lively hood" by destroying the environment, I say FUCK THEM! I do not wish to share my planet with such people. I don't care if there broke & can't drive there fat kids to the bus stop in there giant SUVs...
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk





> If some makes there "lively hood" by destroying the environment, I say FUCK THEM!



You made this out to be a fat and broke person issue. 

I think we should cancel all concerts, close all theaters, stop attending professional sports, shut down ski areas, people should not be able to travel, recreational power boating banned, we should live close to our relatives, etc.  My the economy would come tumbling down!  I am being sarcastic of course, but livelihoods are affected by everything we do!  Next time you are skiing say that to a liftie!


----------



## twinplanx (May 21, 2014)

^right, cause thats what I meant.  Eye roll

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> The point being that the Earth has warmed before -



At the rate at which we are changing our environment (and this includes a lot of things in addition to climate change), the fact that the earth has warmed before may soon be irrelevant.  With exploding demographics and pollution, we are presently conducting a real-time experiment on earth's resilience.   Never before have changes occurred so rapidly besides large asteroid impacts.  We cannot control natural changes but the rate of change is slow and gives plenty of time for adaptation.  However, we can control the fast pace human-induced change, and this can be done without 'wrecking the economy'.  Will it cost money ?  Yes.   But we managed to do it for water and wastewater treatment, for hazardous waste, air pollution and CFC's, and improving our standard of living at the same time.   Should we lose sleep over it ?  No.   But the longer we wait to act, the more complex and the more expensive it will be.   



dlague said:


> So I guess we should resort back to the 1800's (sarcasm)!  We all know that we are creatures of comfort, adventure and entertainment, so I do not seeing us slowing down any time soon!



We can keep and improve our standard of living and live in a sustainable planet.  Nobody wants to go back to the 1800's.   But first we have to admit that our current ways are not sustainable.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> At the rate at which we are changing our environment (and this includes a lot of things in addition to climate change), the fact that the earth has warmed before may soon be irrelevant.  With exploding demographics and pollution, we are presently conducting a real-time experiment on earth's resilience.   Never before have changes occurred so rapidly besides large asteroid impacts.  We cannot control natural changes but the rate of change is slow and gives plenty of time for adaptation.  However, we can control the fast pace human-induced change, and this can be done without 'wrecking the economy'.  Will it cost money ?  Yes.   But we managed to do it for water and wastewater treatment, for hazardous waste, air pollution and CFC's, and improving our standard of living at the same time.   Should we lose sleep over it ?  No.   But the longer we wait to act, the more complex and the more expensive it will be.



Where is the cause that co2 has increased temps in the last 18 years? It has remain flat! Where is the cause that co2 has accelerated sea level rise since the 1800s? seas level rates have been constant!

In the US, congress will debate if we should appropriate 600 billions dollars where some would go to the UN for more climate studies. I would rather we use that for real research on alternate fuel and perhaps world education to keep things our the pants.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> All of the above have been studies in great details by scientists more knowledgeable than any of us on that board.  And by an overwhelming majority, they all say that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.




haha... that opinion is  from the IPCC and Cook's paper. Both are flaw since they polled like minds, the  questions and the review process had a significant bias. 

More scientist are starting to take into account natural causes for the warming. The only ones clinging to the AGW are the ones who wants to use their flaw models because they have a vested interest in it. 





fbrissette said:


> Graphs: Do note that CO2 concentration has now reached 400ppm. It puts things into a different perspective when you add ALL of the relevant data doesn't it ? *The above graph shows CO2 evolution until pre-industrial age (1800)*.



yes it does.....it possible we can tolerate more co2  and man could have lived in an environment with more co2 than this arbitrary number of 400 ppm. US submariners live in prolong conditions where the co2 levels are no more than 7000 ppm, I trust that these are safe levels because essentially they have the finger on the trigger to make mankind very unpleasant. I have seen similar reports and study that NASA astronauts breathe in the same levels. 

Like other measurements; temps and sea level rate, the Mauna Loa co2 rates have not significant increased in the past 20 to 30 years.


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> More scientist are starting to take into account natural causes for the warming.



?????????   Natural causes of warming have been taken into account since the very beginning of climate change research, way way before the IPCC even existed.  In the 5th assessment report there are roughly 150 pages of text with dozens of references devoted to natural causes. 



jack97 said:


> US submariners live in prolong conditions where the co2 levels are no more than 7000 ppm



WTH has this got to do with AGW ?  1000 ppm CO2 is normal in office spaces and well tolerated.  I doubt your 7000 ppm figure very much if at atmospheric pressure.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> ?????????   Natural causes of warming have been taken into account since the very beginning of climate change research, way way before the IPCC even existed.  In the 5th assessment report there are roughly 150 pages of text with dozens of references devoted to natural causes.
> 
> 
> .



taken into the context that co2 is not the driver nor the dominate cause for AGW. Observations is proof this now.  

There are more papers that are exploring natural causes. Even Trenberth is wondering if the ocean has eaten his global warmth.  




fbrissette said:


> WTH has this got to do with AGW ? 1000 ppm CO2 is normal in office spaces and well tolerated. I doubt your 7000 ppm figure very much if at atmospheric pressure.



AGW alarmist are concern that we exceeded 400 ppm and all life as we know will change for the worst. That number was the last tipping point number by these alarmist.

I recalled then congresswoman Boxer ranted and raving having to breathing 1000 ppm when she was prolly the main cause of it.


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> it possible we can tolerate more co2  and man could have lived in an environment with more co2 than this arbitrary number of 400 ppm. US submariners live in prolong conditions where the co2 levels are no more than 7000 ppm, I trust that these are safe levels because essentially they have the finger on the trigger to make mankind very unpleasant.



 People enjoy  105 degree hottubs too.  WTF does that have to do with climate?


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> People enjoy  105 degree hottubs too.  WTF does that have to do with climate?


 
magic 400 ppm came up. that's has been another tipping number. that's the reason for the fAck.


----------



## dlague (May 21, 2014)

The problem is - no one can predict with any accuracy which natural causes will have significant impact. A few good volcanos can be devastating!


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> magic 400 ppm came up. that's has been another tipping number. that's the reason for the fAck.



Wow


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Wow




haha... best you got?


----------



## Cannonball (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> The problem is - no one can predict with any accuracy which natural causes will have significant impact. A few good volcanos can be devastating!
> 
> 
> i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone



Actually we can predict with great accuracy which natural causes can have a significant impact.  Including the fact that that a few good volcanos can be devastating.   We can also predict which human causes can have a significant impact. That whole picture is exactly the point.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

dlague said:


> The problem is - no one can predict with any accuracy which natural causes will have significant impact. A few good volcanos can be devastating!
> 
> 
> i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone



yep, there are natural cycle we still don't know with any accuracy. In addition, the current GCM mainly consider greenhouse gases where  some natural cycles such as el/la nino are fudge factors. they can run stochastic sims to account for the variability in the cycle but in the end it's still a guess.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Actually we can predict with great accuracy which natural causes can have a significant impact.  Including the fact that that a few good volcanos can be devastating.   We can also predict which human causes can have a significant impact. That whole picture is exactly the point.



if that's the case, how come the model predictions are still off target and have not predicted the pause? Even the modelers themselves are saying the simulation's confidence levels will fall off 90% if the pause last longer than 20 yrs.


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> yep, there are natural cycle we still don't know with any accuracy. In addition, the current GCM mainly consider greenhouse gases where  some natural cycles such as el/la nino are fudge factors. they can run stochastic sims to account for the variability in the cycle but in the end it's still a guess.



I am officially impressed !   It takes special skill to get so many things wrong in so little space.


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> taken into the context that co2 is not the driver nor the dominate cause for AGW. Observations is proof this now.



Only in your world where the rules of science don't apply.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Only in your world where the rules of science don't apply.



Following profs believes the observation do not support AGW nor does co2 drive the warming

 Lizden, emeritous prof, MIT
Curry, Dep chair, Georgia Tech 
Christy, director climate research, UAH

all three were active in the IPPC, two of them were lead authors but all got out when it was about politics and not about science. I can name more and I can go on about cook's 97% propaganda as well. but that would mean we would be using up more carbon to banter around this topic.


----------



## jack97 (May 21, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> I am officially impressed !   It takes special skill to get so many things wrong in so little space.




haha... go read the modeler's transcript from the APS when they did a Q&A about the current state of the art with GCMs. that's assuming you willing to read other works and go beyond your sacred IPCC bible.


----------



## fbrissette (May 21, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha... go read the modeler's transcript from the APS when they did a Q&A about the current state of the art with GCMs. that's assuming you willing to read other works and go beyond your sacred IPCC bible.



IPCC bible....  Those are your words.  Believe it or not,  I have not read the fifth report, and I have barely touched the fourth.  I read journal papers.  If you keep track of the scientific literature, there is no need to read the IPCC reports.  It is a very detailed literature review of the most important papers in the field and as such it is outstanding for people not well versed in the field.   Perfect for 4th year undergraduate students and graduate students.  IPCC reports were never meant for scientists to begin with.  No scientist thinks it is a bible.   The bible lovers are mostly on your team.

Modeler's transcript from the APS...   GO READ THE SCIENCE !!!  IN THE JOURNAL PAPERS !!! - here's a few regarding your el-nino statement.  If you stick with the internet, you're left with false/fake/miselading stuff, or you're behind by quite a few years.  Still not perfect, but worlds away from your 'fudging' comment.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-013-3153-5#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-013-0452-4#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1171-5
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

And since I feel generous with my time, do note that GCMs are gone.   They're now ESMs.


----------



## jack97 (May 22, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> IPCC bible....  Those are your words.  Believe it or not,  I have not read the fifth report, and I have barely touched the fourth.  I read journal papers.  If you keep track of the scientific literature, there is no need to read the IPCC reports.  It is a very detailed literature review of the most important papers in the field and as such it is outstanding for people not well versed in the field.   Perfect for 4th year undergraduate students and graduate students.  IPCC reports were never meant for scientists to begin with.  No scientist thinks it is a bible.   The bible lovers are mostly on your team.
> 
> Modeler's transcript from the APS...   GO READ THE SCIENCE !!!  IN THE JOURNAL PAPERS !!! - here's a few regarding your el-nino statement.  If you stick with the internet, you're left with false/fake/miselading stuff, or you're behind by quite a few years.  Still not perfect, but worlds away from your 'fudging' comment.



So what? Its still using ensemble runs with different base models and feeding in new measured data. Even the strength of the upcoming El Nino is still an unknown and in debate. 

If the underlying assumptions are flawed, hence the Q&A workshop from the American Physic Society (APS) then no matter how simulation runs you do... its still garbage out. They have still missed the mark when it comes to predicting observed temps at land and air. And missed the mark for sea level rates. 




fbrissette said:


> And since I feel generous with my time, do note that GCMs are gone. They're now ESMs.



haha.... thank you for your generous and pompousness time. Calling them different names still do not make them accurate.


----------



## jack97 (May 22, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> ......Still not perfect, but worlds away from your 'fudging' comment.




BTW... I work in a field where fudge factors are considered best guesses at the time. We call them that because it's a desire to ultimately get the unknowns out. Sometimes doable sometimes not. IMO, that's one philosophical differences between a hard science and a soft science discipline.


----------



## jack97 (May 22, 2014)

dlague said:


> Well this thread has led me to look into historical warming and cooling trends and based on prehistoric data the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the current ice caps are still from that time.  Based on historical patterns we will go into another ice age in about 1500 years.
> 
> The biggest factor for generating CO2 - volcanoes.
> 
> ...



In terms of co2 look to the ocean as well. Sorry the paper is dry and full of formulas that is non compressible but its part of some recent works and follows up from past paper. 

http://imars.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf



On 7/1/2014, a new satellite OCO-2 will launch. This will show a geographic distribution of the co2 sources and sinks. And hopefully shed insight to the climate processes.


----------



## Cannonball (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> In terms of co2 look to the ocean as well. Sorry the paper is dry and full of formulas that is non compressible but its part of some recent works and follows up from past paper.
> 
> http://imars.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf



Absolutely.  The oceans are critical to the whole discussion. Oceans have become a net sink of CO2 (and temperature).  Their buffering capacity is pretty enormous and oceanic change is much slower than atmospheric.  So the fact that oceanic impacts are being observed is really telling.


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Absolutely.  The oceans are critical to the whole discussion. Oceans have become a net sink of CO2 (and temperature).  Their buffering capacity is pretty enormous and oceanic change is much slower than atmospheric.  So the fact that oceanic impacts are being observed is really telling.



There has been studies which indicates the oceans act as a co2 source.... yes, source. As you may know or not know, that group of scientist has there own models (with underlying assumptions). A paper was published that showed during pre industrial ocean, it acted as a source. It implies the influx and eflux were not estimated properly. This is still model runs and a hypothesis, the co2 monitoring satellite soon to be launch will give better insight if this hypothesis is true.


----------



## Cannonball (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> There has been studies which indicates the oceans act as a co2 source.... yes, source. As you may know or not know, that group of scientist has there own models (with underlying assumptions). A paper was published that showed during pre industrial ocean, it acted as a source. This is still model runs and a hypothesis, the co2 monitoring satellite soon to be launch will give better insight if this hypothesis is true.



Yes, exactly.  The pre-industrial oceans were a source of CO2 to the atmosphere.  As industrial derived CO2 flooded the atmosphere the concentration gradient switched and the oceans have become a sink.


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Yes, exactly.  The pre-industrial oceans were a source of CO2 to the atmosphere.*  As industrial derived CO2 flooded the atmosphere the concentration gradient switched and the oceans have become a sink.*



That's one hypothesis, the other is that they are still acting as sources. Satellite data will soon show which is the case.


----------



## Cannonball (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> That's one hypothesis, the other is that they are still acting as sources.



I am not a physical or chemical oceanographer (I assume you aren't either).  But while getting my Masters degree in Coastal and Ocean Sciences I did take a lot of Physical and Chemical Oceanography classes.  And I've been working the field for almost 20 years.  That might be why I was able to understand the paper you cited while you found it "_non compressible" _(whatever that means).  CO2 fluxes across ocean surfaces are very well studied.  Studies like the one you linked to have done a very good job of showing those fluxes at local, regional, and global scales.  None of them suggest that the global oceans are a present day net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Studies like the one you linked to have done a very good job of showing those fluxes at local, regional, and global scales.  None of them suggest that the global oceans are a present day net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.




Some recent paper do suggest that they still are sources. As you said, we are not expert in this field. Instead of saying "he said/she said" we will get better insight in the coming months. knock on wood this launch will be successful than the first try at it.


----------



## Cannonball (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Some recent paper do suggest that they still are sources.



Name one.


----------



## fbrissette (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Some recent paper do suggest that they still are sources. As you said, we are not expert in this field. Instead of saying "he said/she said" we will get better insight in the coming months. knock on wood this launch will be successful than the first try at it.



No paper exists that show that the oceans are a net source of CO2.   There is no (like none, zero, zilch) debate about the fact that the ocean is currently a sink.  And by sink I mean 50% of all the human CO2 emissions.   We don't need a satellite to know that.  OCO is about spatial variability of sources and sinks and better measurements, especially over land.  It is NOT about whether or not the ocean is a sink.

You seem unable or unwilling to read and understand any scientific work.  You don't need to be a chemical oceanographer to understand the carbon cycle.  A basic science background and willingness to learn is sufficient.

BTW, GCMs and ESMs are NOT the same thing.  The difference is linked to this very discussion.


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

authors believe the processes in the ocean's carbon cycle did not stay constant in the past and will not be in the future. So it may still act as sources in certain regions, net effect globally, a source

http://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~marina/PUBLI/subdu_revised_2.pdf


studied along the Northern CA coast
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/4419/2013/bg-10-4419-2013.html



and finally this, two references are cited. 
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/42887/1/12-0214_A1b.pdf


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> We don't need a satellite to know that.  OCO is about spatial variability of sources and sinks and better measurements, especially over land.  It is NOT about whether or not the ocean is a sink.
> 
> You seem unable or unwilling to read and understand any scientific work.  You don't need to be a chemical oceanographer to understand the carbon cycle.  A basic science background and willingness to learn is sufficient.




Getting data that correlates to a hypothesis is really the essence of science. The more data the better and getting it in a different manner would just make the hypothesis stronger.  The problem with doing science thru modeling is that the assumptions for the model is based on a hypothesis to begin with and that may be wrong so its becomes a spinning wheel of getting nowhere. 

When things don't match you don't throw out the data, you look for other sources of data and if it still doesn't match, you throw out the hypothesis.


----------



## Cannonball (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> authors believe the processes in the ocean's carbon cycle did not stay constant in the past and will not be in the future. So it may still act as sources in certain regions, net effect globally, a source
> 
> http://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~marina/PUBLI/subdu_revised_2.pdf
> 
> ...



From the introduction of the 1st article you posted:
"The ocean is a major component of the global carbon cycle, emitting over 330 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, or about 10 times that emitted fossil fuel combustion and all other human 
activities [1, 2]. *The ocean reabsorbs a comparable amount of CO2 each year, along with ~25% of the CO2 emitted *
*by these human activities*. The nature and geographic distribution of the processes controlling these ocean CO2 
fluxes are still poorly constrained by observations. A better understanding of these processes is essential to predict 
how *this important CO2 sink* may evolve as the climate changes. 

The 2nd article is about local, coastal processes related to upwelling.  This is very much like the article you posted earlier today.  Very sound science about small-scale processes and their role global ocean process.  Specifically their role in relation to the global oceans as a net sink for CO2

3rd article is very clear and consistent about the basic understanding of present day global oceans as a carbon sink.

I seriously don't understand your approach here.  You have posted at least 4 scientific articles today that show very sound science which completely debunk your argument. I can't tell if you just can't comprehend them or if you are building up to something.


----------



## fbrissette (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> authors believe the processes in the ocean's carbon cycle did not stay constant in the past and will not be in the future. So it may still act as sources in certain regions, net effect globally, a source



Of course the ocean's role has varied in time.  It interacts with the atmosphere !  (try Henry's law)  We are having a discussion about oceans being a net sink.  Throwing a paper on coastal upwelling means you're either arguing with bad faith or have no idea what you are talking about.  I repeat - there is no debate as to whether or not the oceans are a net sink - No debate whatsoever.   

Think about this - the oceans are getting more acidic all over the world.  Why is that ?


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> 3rd article is very clear and consistent about the basic understanding of present day global oceans as a carbon sink.
> 
> I seriously don't understand your approach here.  You have posted at least 4 scientific articles today that show very sound science which completely debunk your argument. I can't tell if you just can't comprehend them or if you are building up to something.




Last article states the ocean emits 10 ten times more co2 than man made fossil fuels. And yes I read that it sinks, 25% of human activities. It's still a co2 source, just less. But taken another way, that leads credibility to the energy balance argument. Taken another way, its forces us to re-examine the energy balance argument. These are estimates and they do not take into account various feedbacks in the climate process. 

It's about the science and understanding. Here's where I stand so far until the data changes;
1. AGW is still a flawed hypothesis b/c of the temp pause and no troposphere hotspot
2. The extra co2 is another issue and that's where the co2 sequestration will give us a better understanding.


----------



## Cannonball (May 23, 2014)

jack97 said:


> It's about the science and understanding.



Which you clearly have neither of.  

Have a good weekend dude.  Hopefully whatever you are doing for fun is more in your wheel house than this discussion.


----------



## jack97 (May 23, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Which you clearly have neither of.
> 
> Have a good weekend dude.  Hopefully whatever you are doing for fun is more in your wheel house than this discussion.



I'm having lots of fun,  I'm still chuckling over how you completely missed the message Dr. Christy gave in his interview about climate science and the polar bears.


----------



## dlague (May 23, 2014)

My 2 cents there always is a lot of volcanic activity under water!  A times more than other times!  When many of the island chains were created activity was massive.  Obviously still happening!  If non oceanic volcanic activity produced co2 at levels higher than humans is it possible under water activity does the same?

Not debating it really just throwing that out there! 


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## jack97 (May 24, 2014)

dlague said:


> My 2 cents there always is a lot of *volcanic activity under water*!  A times more than other times!  When many of the island chains were created activity was massive.  Obviously still happening!  If non oceanic volcanic activity produced co2 at levels higher than humans is it possible under water activity does the same?



Could be, in general a lot of the ocean's influences are hypotheses and more monitoring will support them or not. Some scientist believes there are even ocean cycles beyond a millennium. The point is, it's need to be understood. The science isn't settled when data does not support a hypothesis. 




dlague said:


> *Not debating it really just throwing that out there!*



exactly! it should be about debating, not derogatory and snide remarks. Linzden has retired from MIT, he's been working in this field since 1964 and has seen it all, more so than Bengtsson, the later who resigned due to the politicization within this field. Linzden now works for CATO, a republican think tank, he has been asked to study the progress of science in general. From his remarks, back then contrarian views were not blacked ball out as long as it had merit and it was ok to bring in ideas..... could turn out to be wrong or right.  Unfortunately that has changed.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

Prediction for the summer arctic sea ice extent is still on track to be larger than normal (what ever the new normal is). Here's the recent plot of Nothern Hem sea ice anomaly. If this holds, we may be at the start of the cold period, or what Bastardi thinks as the AMO transitioning in. We may be in line for another cold winter.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

Another interesting tidbit about the arctic ice.... this spring, polar bears were struggling to eat because there's too much ice. just as Christy and other true scientist surmise. I say surmise b/c there's not enough data to track them. 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-spring-ice-0



oh my.... we have to stop global warming because its causing too much ice and making the polar bears awfully skinny.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Prediction for the summer arctic sea ice extent is still on track to be *larger than normal *(what ever the new normal is). Here's the recent plot of Nothern Hem sea ice anomaly. If this holds, we may be at the start of the cold period, or what Bastardi thinks as the AMO transitioning in. We may be in line for another cold winter.
> 
> 
> View attachment 12709



Are you for real?  As anyone can see by looking at the chart you posted:  It is on track to be well below average (though not as below average as it has been recently).  This is about as basic as it gets.  You are either misreading or misleading.  I hope it's the first but suspect it's the second.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Are you for real?  As anyone can see by looking at the chart you posted:  It is on track to be well below average (though not as below average as it has been recently).  This is about as basic as it gets.  You are either misreading or misleading.  I hope it's the first but suspect it's the second.



haha... you caught me cannonbull. I did that just for you & fbrissettes, i did mention the "new normal". Anyways, the chart shows a slow down on the ice melt. 

great for us skiers and riders.... maybe not so much for those damn sensitive polar bears.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

dlague said:


> a lot of volcanic activity under water! A times more than other times!



Cool gif below of the sea surface temps, some of those warm temps seem to originate from known fault areas. btw, that vortex which showed up between south american and Africa is right on top of a fault line.


----------



## Cannonball (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha... you caught me cannonbull. I did that just for you & fbrissettes, i did mention the "new normal".



Ugh, so I was right. You were being intentionally misleading instead of innocently misreading.  That's pretty scary.   Malevolence is a whole lot worse than ignorance as a character trait.  Unfortunately it's consistent with the propaganda you've been posting and it's original sources.  You're just a little more transparent about it.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Ugh, so I was right. *You were being intentionally misleading instead of innocently misreading*.  That's pretty scary*.   Malevolence is a whole lot worse than ignorance as a character trait*.  Unfortunately it's consistent with the propaganda you've been posting and it's original sources.  You're just a little more transparent about it.



hmm.... seems kind of arrogant to pass judgement on others but that's the nature of the beast.


Here's the "normal" I was talking about, the trend line the AGW folks have been using for their "alarmist" theme. The latest prediction would be above this line.









BTW, where or what is the propaganda? I posted charts from  NOAA, blogs from Epstien/Bastardi and oceans as co2 sources. The later you said were ok.


----------



## dlague (May 26, 2014)

Well I plead a certain level of ignorance but do not buy into the Global Warming hysteria. 


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 26, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Are you for real?* As anyone can see by looking at the chart you posted:  It is on track to be well below average (though not as below average as it has been recently).  This is about as basic as it gets.* You are either misreading or misleading.  I hope it's the first but suspect it's the second.




Truthfully, what's _"as basic as it gets" _is to probably not revamp entire economies and impose incredibly disruptive laws that will negatively impact GDP and impose restrictions on human behavior by trumpeting a data set that is younger than Ashton Kutcher.

This is the most ridiculous part of the "sea ice battle", regardless of which side wields it.  The 'Ns' is this debate are so low it's completely moronic.  

This whole "debate" started because the Global Warming alarmists wanted to scare people by screaming, *"LOWEST ICE ON RECORD!!!!!*", but of course while screaming so in the media they NEVER inform the reader/viewer that the data literally only goes back to 1979.  They don't want you to know that little, rather crucial, tid-bit.

Well......live by the hysteria, die by the hysteria.  Because now the "skeptics" (I friggin' hate that term) are seizing upon the, *"MOST ICE ON RECORD!!!!"* for the antarctic.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 26, 2014)

The other 10,000lb elephant in the closet is that, while yes, the flat-lining to increasing ice in the diagram is still a negative regression line when considered en toto, the static ice to increasing sea ice represents almost a DECADE of data.  

This should NOT be occurring according to the Global Warming hypothesis in light of dramatically increasing CO2 thats rise is BEYOND even the Global Warming scientists dire predictions.  

It's just another wrong AGM prediction from the _"there is no debate"_ about the science, crowd.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> hmm.... seems kind of arrogant to pass judgement on others but that's the nature of the beast.
> 
> 
> Here's the "normal" I was talking about, the trend line the AGW folks have been using for their "alarmist" theme. The latest prediction would be above this line.




I am not following you.  In your search of a global conspiracy, don't you realize that your two graphs are of the same data.  The first one shows monthly sea ice extent anomaly, while the one above only shows data for the month of September (minimum extent).  The latter is a subset of the first one which clearly shows (you can also see it on the first one) that although there appears to be a plateau in the former, the minimum sea ice extent (september) is still on a steep decrease.  It does not even show 2012 which was an all time low.

And you CANNOT PREDICT today, where September 2014 will be on this graph.  Seasonal forecasts do NOT work, even in the Arctic (unless you define 'work' as barely better than random).


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> I am not following you.  In your search of a global conspiracy, *don't you realize that your two graphs are of the same data. * The first one shows monthly sea ice extent anomaly, while the one above only shows data for the month of September (minimum extent).  The latter is a subset of the first one which clearly shows (you can also see it on the first one) that although there appears to be a plateau in the former, the minimum sea ice extent (september) is still on a steep decrease.  It does not even show 2012 which was an all time low.




Had to do that for you other alarmist bud, the last one had the trend line and as I said.....its the new normal what ever that may be. 



fbrissette said:


> And you CANNOT PREDICT today, where September 2014 will be on this graph. Seasonal forecasts do NOT work, even in the Arctic (unless you define 'work' as barely better than random).



And b/c I am generous with my time as well (lol that reeks with so much arrogance) , NOAA has been forecasting using a new model. And if you want to play word games... its different from the GCM models that IPCC used in all alarmist report.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> This should NOT be occurring according to the Global Warming hypothesis in light of dramatically increasing CO2 thats rise is BEYOND even the Global Warming scientists dire predictions.



Wrong.




BenedictGomez said:


> It's just another wrong AGM prediction from the _"there is no debate"_ about the science, crowd.



Wrong again.  If you cared to read the literature you would see that there are tons of debates going on, i.e.:

- failure of RCMs to fulfill their potential over GCM;
- reasons explaining the pateau in temperatures;
- sources and sinks of CO2;
- impact of warming on plants and animals;
- global and regional uncertainties;
- role of natural variability;
- stationarity of GCM postprocessing  techniques for impact studies:
- etc... you could fill a few pages easily.

And I am talking about real debates between scientists in journal papers (the very same people supposedly part of a global conspiracy to defraud the people)

However, despite all of the above, when considering the entire body of evidence, there is no debate about the global picture which is that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> NOAA has been forecasting using a new model. And if you want to play word games... its different from the GCM models that IPCC used in all alarmist report.



Let me repeat myself:  Seasonal forecasts DO NOT WORK at the present time.  Don't be fooled by the fact that all agencies do it nonetheless (there are justifications for the exercise however, but not operational at this point).

Seasonal forecasts can be shown to be statistically better (but barely) than climatology for a few areas where weather is linked to strong ocean circulation indices.  The Arctic is not one of those regions.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



where did all that warming go for the past 18 years? did the ocean flip that switch and turn into sinks? Or is it hiding in the deep ocean waiting to come up. Sounds like pseudo science or stuff you see in the sci fi channel.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Truthfully, what's _"as basic as it gets" _is to probably not revamp entire economies and impose incredibly disruptive laws that will negatively impact GDP and impose restrictions on human behavior



While some climate change alarmists (Al Gore for example), go way overboard with potential impacts, you are guilty of the same hyperbole with respect to what it would mean to face the problem in a rational way.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Let me repeat myself:  Seasonal forecasts DO NOT WORK at the present time.  Don't be fooled by the fact that all agencies do it nonetheless (there are justifications for the exercise however, but not operational at this point).




haha..... pot tell kettle not to trust one model but to trust another. But that's why I showed the observed data, even Bastardi is saying it's been online since 2011 and it needs to show some level of accuracy.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> where did all that warming go for the past 18 years? did the ocean flip that switch and turn into sinks? Or is it hiding in the deep ocean waiting to come up. Sounds like pseudo science or stuff you see in the sci fi channel.



Don't you think it has not puzzled scientists ?  Do you think they're all idiots praying in front of the IPCC bible ?   There has been quite a bit a literature and data analysis and the role of the ocean is emerging as the real culprit.  

Stop focusing on the sole data of global surface temperature and look at the big picture.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha..... pot tell kettle not to trust one model but to trust another.



You CANNOT compare a weather model to a climate model, no matter how similar they are.  It is actually severely more difficult to predict the weather in two weeks (and likely beyond the theoretical physically possible limit) that it is to predict the climate in 40 years.




jack97 said:


> But that's why I showed the observed data, even Bastardi is saying it's been online since 2011 and it needs to show some level of accuracy.



It seems you can only cite 4 or 5 people, including Bastardi who is a nobody.  Nobody cares what Bastardi think with the exception of your kind that will buy into anything that fits your preconceived ideas, without any critical evaluation whatsoever.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

dlague said:


> Well I plead a certain level of ignorance but do not buy into the Global Warming hysteria.



Contrarily to Jack97, at least you are admitting to your ignorance.

I do not buy the global warming hysteria either.  But I definitely buy global warming.  If you were to read the science, you will find that the hysteria is pretty much absent in there too.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Don't you think it has not puzzled scientists ?  Do you think they're all idiots praying in front of the IPCC bible ?   There has been quite a bit a literature and data analysis and the role of the *ocean is emerging as the real culprit*.
> 
> Stop focusing on the sole data of global surface temperature and look at the big picture.




yes.... so if it's the ocean, how did man cause this? maybe we are eating too much sushi?


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You CANNOT compare a weather model to a climate model, no matter how similar they are. It is actually severely more difficult to predict the weather in two weeks (and likely beyond the theoretical physically possible limit) that it is to predict the climate in 40 years.
> 
> It seems you can only cite 4 or 5 people, including *Bastardi who is a nobody.* Nobody cares what Bastardi think with the exception of your kind that will buy into anything that fits your preconceived ideas, without any critical evaluation whatsoever.



Like you're a somebody who has authoritative knowledge? Sounds even more arrogant than cannonball. 

And as I said before, even Bastardi links to the observed plots to verify.... so are you going to say the plots are not to be trusted as well b/c you don't approve them?


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Contrarily to Jack97, at least you are admitting to your ignorance.
> 
> I do not buy the global warming hysteria either.  But I definitely buy global warming.  If you were to read the science, you will find that the hysteria is pretty much absent in there too.



What about the cook's 97% paper you told me to read? That's full of hysteria and reeks of ignorance by those who cite it and references it.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> yes.... so if it's the ocean, how did man cause this? maybe we are eating too much sushi?



????  

The ocean is taking more heat than predicted by the models.  That's all.  And before you jump on the second part of the sentence, climate scientists know first hand that their models are not perfect.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> What about the cook's 97% paper you told me to read? That's full of hysteria and reeks of ignorance by those who cite it and references it.




Show me examples of hysteria in the paper.  I don't see it.   Feel free to point the methodological problems and why it should not have been published.  Where did the referees fail ?


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> ????
> 
> The ocean is taking more heat than predicted by the models.  That's all.  And before you jump on the second part of the sentence, climate scientists know first hand that their models are not perfect.



That's Trenberth's hypothesis.... he has to prove it to be different than the natural cycles we have experienced.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> And as I said before, even Bastardi links to the observed plots to verify.... so are you going to say the plots are not to be trusted as well b/c you don't approve them?



I have discussed the plots earlier. I have no problems with the data. Your interpretation of them is what I have a problem with.




jack97 said:


> Like you're a somebody who has authoritative knowledge? Sounds even more arrogant than cannonball.



You don't need to be a climate scientist to have adequate knowledge.  But you first need to read the scientific literature (not the interpretation made by others with an agenda), understand it, and be able to critically evaluate it before you can be someone with authoritative knowledge (which is clearly not your case).   I have never flashed my credentials in the past few months but here's a glimpse:   I am not a climate scientist but I work with several good ones, I have been conducting research in the field of climate change for the best part of the past 15 years,  I have published dozens of peer-reviewed papers cited by hundreds of others, including the latest IPCC report (WGII). For a ski forum, I will say that my credentials to discuss this topic are above average.  

Why do I do it ?  Because it entertains me (especially when stuck in a boring hotel like tonight) and to be honest I find your views and thought process fascinating.   Kinda like watching Duck dynasty or Swamp people.  So far removed from my reality.

Cannonball arrogant ?  Nahhh,  Just impatient.    It's easy to become impatient with you.  You are relentless.


----------



## fbrissette (May 26, 2014)

jack97 said:


> That's Trenberth's hypothesis.... he has to prove it to be different than the natural cycles we have experienced.



It's not Trenberth's hypothesis anymore than that of many others.   For every climate scientist that's a bit outspoken on the public place, you will find hundreds that shy away from the limelight.   Saying it's Trenberth's hypothesis underlines the fact that you don't read the scientific literature.  This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?)  and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Show me examples of hysteria in the paper.  I don't see it.   Feel free to point the methodological problems and why it should not have been published.  Where did the referees fail ?



The paper is a consensus of the people screening them. Cook operates a dubious web site called "SkepticalScience", a pro AWG site.  He along with his cohorts, they are either mentioned on the front page or on the back with acknowledgment performed the screen. IIRC, the only one who has any expertise in climate science is some one name debbi, she works at Michigan State and has a strong interest in ocean chemistry. Cook himself has a PHD in Psychology. As far I can tell,  a Finnish computer scientist with a BA did the most reviews/screen that decided which papers were pro AGW or not. 

Scientists have complained that there screened papers was unduly represented in this "consensus" paper. In addition, there have been attempts to get more background on other screeners to determine there expertise in this field. However, the university is not allowing this due to privacy concerns. The university and cook's position has to come in question since most well regarded technical journals would list the credential of the contributors.

Seems like a tarantino scene.... the 97% consensus determined by a Finnish guitar loving computer scientist.


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> It's not Trenberth's hypothesis anymore than that of many others.   For every climate scientist that's a bit outspoken on the public place, you will find hundreds that shy away from the limelight.   Saying it's Trenberth's hypothesis underlines the fact that you don't read the scientific literature.  This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?)  and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.




ok, maybe so, but trenberth's writes and talks about this all the time. 



fbrissette said:


> This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?) and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.



Maybe the (man cause) heat didn't go into the ocean.....


----------



## jack97 (May 26, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Why do I do it ?  Because it entertains me (especially when stuck in a boring hotel like tonight) and to be honest I find your views and thought process fascinating.   Kinda like watching Duck dynasty or Swamp people.  So far removed from my reality.



SO how different are they from Curry, Christy and Lindzen?


----------



## jack97 (May 27, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> It's not Trenberth's hypothesis anymore than that of many others.   For every climate scientist that's a bit outspoken on the public place, you will find hundreds that shy away from the limelight.   Saying it's Trenberth's hypothesis underlines the fact that you don't read the scientific literature.  This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (*I mean where else can the heat go ?*)  and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.




Spoken like a third rate scientist.... making a hypothesis like this, saying man did this and without support of a reasonable guess for a cause. I've tune out from this hypothesis since is it sound like a kid gives a statement "just because".


----------



## jack97 (May 27, 2014)

Kind of related.... ice still in the great lakes. I'm somewhat surprised the media outlets did not pick up on this since it would be *unprecedented* that ice has stay around for this long. In addition, the bugs have not been out, perhaps some should be put in the endanger species list.

Lake Superior Ice


----------



## jack97 (May 29, 2014)

International media news outlet finally getting the story right about the Antarctic ice sheet melt. Summary from the  scientific papers states that this process was happening 20,000 years ago due to the ice being on top of a unstable land water boundary.

Antarctic Ice melt


Fascinating how the US media is herding sheeple as well.


----------



## Not Sure (Jun 29, 2014)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/


----------



## fbrissette (Jul 1, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...May-was-the-hottest-month-ever-for-Earth.html


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2014)

Some fodder for a sleepy Monday.


----------



## fbrissette (Jul 7, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Some fodder for a sleepy Monday.




Shows that you can pick and choose your data to show whatever you want.  Only when taking all of the available data does a clear picture emerge.  And for that clear picture to emerge, you also need a good understanding of the natural climate variability, which you clearly don't, otherwise you would not have shown those graphs to begin with.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Shows that you can pick and choose your data to show whatever you want. Only when taking all of the available data does a clear picture emerge. And for that clear picture to emerge, you also need a good understanding of the natural climate variability, which you clearly don't, otherwise you would not have shown those graphs to begin with.



Fodder worked!!!!!


----------



## jack97 (Jul 8, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Shows that you can pick and choose your data to show whatever you want.  *Only when taking all of the available data does a clear picture emerge.*



haha.... Duck Dynasty must be going thru its reruns so you must be trolling thru this stuff as well. 

The graphs shows the best available data during the satellite era. Surface based data going back to the late 1800 have biases which may not be reliable from a scientific point of view. Reconstruction of these data sets are estimates at best. 





fbrissette said:


> And for that clear picture to emerge, you also need a good understanding of the *natural climate variability, *which you clearly don't, otherwise you would not have shown those graphs to begin with.



By the way, you must still be on theory that the ocean ate the global warming. Or the ocean flipped the switched and became CO2 sinks which is causing this pause.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 10, 2014)




----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 10, 2014)

Hopefully we get some of that Vortex.  While the weather today is quite pleasant, the last week or so in New England has sucked.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 10, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Hopefully we get some of that Vortex.  While the weather today is quite pleasant, the last week or so in New England has sucked.



I rather the vortex hits us during winter. I usually plan to work my tail off during the summer then I can take days off to ski later in the year. At least it's lowering my used of the AC and saving money that way.

BTW, weird summer... iirc, some of the tenure professors going back to the mid-late 90s made this prediction. We would be experiencing a cooling period around mid 2010 to 2020. Gonna be great winters if it comes true.


----------



## Edd (Jul 12, 2014)

Couple of funny posts in the comments section on this article that is saying New England will feel like Florida down the line. 

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1...t-will-reach-new-england-in-a-few-decades.htm


----------



## jack97 (Jul 12, 2014)

yep the comments are funny, so is the article. Speaking of a good chuckle, I've seen past articles back in the mid 2000 that the arctic sea ice would be gone but its making a come back.


----------



## dlague (Jul 14, 2014)

I have been going to Cape Cod for 14 years now for the week on July 4th and some years have been hot as hell and other years down right cool.  Last year was a hot as hell year and this year was a comfortable year - even cool at times.  I do not buy the hot like Miami in Boston - maybe for a few days during a heat wave or something - but we get that now and we had that 20 years ago!


----------



## jack97 (Aug 31, 2014)

*'Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed'*

Guess Al Gore is wrong.....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 31, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Guess Al Gore is wrong.....



He has a lot of company.  

The creepiest thing about this issue is the, _"it's such a pity"_ global catastrophe doesn't appear imminent attitude often expressed by many who 100% believe in man-made Global Warming.  As if any good climate news like this should be treated as the worst possible news of all.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 1, 2014)

This type of climate news stops the gravy train. Which is bad for scientists trying to get research grants and this is the most important item for tenure. What has happened in this field is job security is not given to those that have brought enlightenment to a difficult problem but to those who can promote the problem. Research grants is an important metric for school administrators as well parents and students who have a choice in enrolling in these schools. Saying that AWG due to GHG will rear its ugly head again for our grandchildren is in line with the tactic of keeping the funds coming in. 

As for the (non scientist) sheeple .... they get what they deserve.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 1, 2014)

Al Gore... seriously...   You guys are not doing yourself any favour when you use Al Gore to try to make a point.

BG: all of the scientists I know that deal with climate change are going to be happy if is happens slower than expected.

Jack 97: Please don't talk about acedemia and job security, something you clearly know nothing about first hand.

To your stupid graph above I'll counter with this since you have shown incapable of discussing real science:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html


----------



## jack97 (Sep 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Al Gore... seriously...   You guys are not doing yourself any favour when you use Al Gore to try to make a point.
> 
> BG: all of the scientists I know that deal with climate change are going to be happy if is happens slower than expected.
> 
> ...




What about these graphs? I see a lot of pauses in the temperature anomaly, NH sea ice anomaly and ocean heat content. 


























The only place where AGW is occurring is in the computer models, the only way to stop this warming is to stop the simulations.


----------



## Edd (Sep 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Guess Al Gore is wrong.....



Looks a lot like a tabloid. I'm assuming it isn't but...someone really nailed the look.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 1, 2014)

^^^

It probably is a tabloid but the data is from CryoSat a European satellite imaging that infers/measures ice thickness. It's been operational for three to four years. Here's another snapshot for Oct,  its clear that ice thickness and extent has been growing since 2010.






Why it's depicted in tabloid manner is telling, I blame the media for polarizing this issue. Where by the liberal media has been lapping it up on any hint of AGW and this is usually from modeling studies by professor pursuing tenure and research grants. Unfortunately, the group of tenure prof who dispute AGW do not get the same press coverage from these news outlets. Balanced journalism has jumped the shark many years ago.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> BG: *all of the scientists I know* that deal with climate change are going to be happy if is happens slower than expected.



I'm not talking in absolutes.  Not "everyone", but there is definitely an almost "anger" or aggravated state among many people in that crowd when you get enormously positive data that runs counter to the sky-is-falling, for which they should be happy, not mad.


----------



## Edd (Sep 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm not talking in absolutes.  Not "everyone", but there is definitely an almost "anger" or aggravated state among many people in that crowd when you get enormously positive data that runs counter to the sky-is-falling, for which they should be happy, not mad.



Can you provide an example of this anger? I haven't seen one, that I can recall.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> What about these graphs? I see a lot of pauses in the temperature anomaly, NH sea ice anomaly and ocean heat content.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IMHO these graphs all show a clear warming trend, but I'm sure you'll disagree... There is a lot of natural variability in there of course.  That's why climate is defined as a 30-year average by the WMO.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> It probably is a tabloid but the data is from CryoSat a European satellite imaging that infers/measures ice thickness. It's been operational for three to four years. Here's another snapshot for Oct,  its clear that ice thickness and extent has been growing since 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Were talking climate here like in 30-year average !   4 years don't make a trend.

And stop it with the tenure thing.  You will not find any leading climate scientist (or any leading scientist for a matter of fact) that is not tenured.

Funding cuts in climate science mostly affect PhDs, PDFs and some of the research staff.  Tenure is actually not that difficult to get in most universities. And certainly not difficult enough that scientists would resort to academic fraud (as you seem to imply) to get it.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

jack97 said:


> What about these graphs? I see a lot of pauses in the temperature anomaly, NH sea ice anomaly and ocean heat content.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





fbrissette said:


> IMHO these graphs all show a clear warming trend, but I'm sure you'll disagree... There is a lot of natural variability in there of course.  That's why climate is defined as a 30-year average by the WMO.



Yep the graphs do show a warming trend but it does show a pause (aka hiatus) a true scientist would always question various hypothesis and consider why the pause occurs given the monotonically increasing trend of man made CO2 emission....

Given the pause with OHC anomaly, the heat hiding in the ocean has been re considered by some of the prominent oceanographers in the field such as Wunsch. BTW, please bring up Tung's latest paper with the heat at 0 -2000m.... we can debate that as well.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Were talking climate here like in 30-year average !   4 years don't make a trend.



Yep again, ice thickness measurements are limited to determine a trend. However it shows the doom and gloom predictions of no more ice cap made by climate scientists back in 2007 is wrong. I'm sure you can find these past predictions in the Guardian, a tabloid for the greenies.




fbrissette said:


> And stop it with the tenure thing. You will not find any leading climate scientist (or any leading scientist for a matter of fact) that is not tenured.
> 
> Funding cuts in climate science mostly affect PhDs, PDFs and some of the research staff. Tenure is actually not that difficult to get in most universities. And certainly not difficult enough that scientists would resort to academic fraud (as you seem to imply) to get it.



I'm talking about the two levels of job security in this field. Tenure and securing research funds. And yes, tenure is a easily obtainable when the school can support it however when there are less classes to teach or when the funds dries up that's where tenure is difficult. I have personally seen young associate professors go through this cycle. 

Fund cuts not only effects the research, it effects the administrators and other colleges that need this aid. IIRC, only 40-50% of government funded research goes to the actual research and the other goes to this overhead. That's why most universities will promote or give tenure to scientist that can secure the funds.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

Edd said:


> Can you provide an example of this anger? I haven't seen one, that I can recall.




Below is a vid not about anger but about how corrupt or misguided this field has become, 3 min sound bites from Lindzen, a chaired prof from MIT. This guy has seen it all since the 1960s.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 2, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Yep the graphs do show a warming trend but* it does show a pause* (aka hiatus)* a true scientist would always question various hypothesis and consider why the pause occurs given the monotonically increasing trend of man made CO2* emission....



I reject both the commonly used terms, "pause" and "hiatus".

The very use of the terms "pause" and "hiatus" is both simultaneously arrogant & mindbogglingly unscientific.

The terms were coined by the man-made Global Warming crew and both denote that they are 100% infallibly correct in their theory, and that the reason they're "currently wrong" is only a brief blip, even though they cant friggin' explain it to any satisfaction.   Our theory isn't wrong, it's just that we've "paused" in being correct, but we'll be right again in X number of years, that much is 100% certain.  Oh, by the way, please keep the donations and grant dollars coming in until we can show you we're "right" again.

The most amusing bit to me is that not only should there not be a "pause" in Global Warming if their theory was correct, but given CO2 has increased even MORE than they estimated, the earth _should _currently be even warmer than they originally predicted.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I reject both the commonly used terms, "pause" and "hiatus".
> 
> The very use of the terms "pause" and "hiatus" is both simultaneously arrogant & mindbogglingly unscientific.
> 
> ...



Your rant above really outlines your ignorance and pre-conceived ideas about the whole topic.  I will only coment on the last bit (which I put in bold above) and which you keep repeating.  All climate models (and I mean ALL) show 'pauses' and 'hiatus' of up to 20 years in ALL continuous 100-year run climate change.  That is because in the short term (<20 years), natural variability is stronger than the climate change signal.  If you take the ensemble mean (the mean of all models) like the IPCC does (and which is a mistake IMO), you are left with ONLY the climate change signal since the natural variability of decoupled model will averaged out.   

Natural variability is why climate is defined as a 30-year average !!!  

To expect temperatures to increase in a linear fashion is dumb and stupid and testify to a lack of understanding of the role of natural variability.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 2, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Your rant above really outlines your ignorance and pre-conceived ideas about the whole topic.  I will only coment on the last bit (which I put in bold above) and which you keep repeating.  All climate models (and I mean ALL) show 'pauses' and 'hiatus' of up to 20 years in ALL continuous 100-year run climate change.  That is because in the short term (<20 years), natural variability is stronger than the climate change signal.  If you take the ensemble mean (the mean of all models) like the IPCC does (and which is a mistake IMO), you are left with ONLY the climate change signal since the natural variability of decoupled model will averaged out.
> 
> *Natural variability is why climate is defined as a 30-year average !!!  *
> 
> To expect temperatures to increase in a linear fashion is dumb and stupid and testify to a lack of understanding of the role of natural variability.



I would partially agree with you (minus the assumed arrogance) until the bolded.  Thirty-years is an absolutely absurd micro-flash in time even for minor variability.  Almost as moronic as boasting of "all-time record low ice levels", regarding records which have only been kept for 35 years on a 4,500,000,000 year old planet.    Though if you do subscribe to a "30 year" average, you'd better hope for a warming change relatively soon - or, well.... then it will be "40 years" I guess, if not, maybe "50 years".  And I'm sure you're aware the "pause" is approaching 20 years in your _"up to"_ statement?   Regardless, it doesn't matter, the man-created Global Warming crowd will just move the goalposts and seek to explain-away why their hypothesis isn't working.  They can never be wrong, they just need more "time" to be correct.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I would partially agree with you (minus the assumed arrogance) until the bolded.  Thirty-years is an absolutely absurd micro-flash in time even for minor variability.  Almost as moronic as boasting of "all-time record low ice levels", regarding records which have only been kept for 35 years on a 4,500,000,000 year old planet.    Though if you do subscribe to a "30 year" average, you'd better hope for a warming change relatively soon - or, well.... then it will be "40 years" I guess, if not, maybe "50 years".  And I'm sure you're aware the "pause" is approaching 20 years in your _"up to"_ statement?   Regardless, it doesn't matter, the man-created Global Warming crowd will just move the goalposts and seek to explain-away why their hypothesis isn't working.  They can never be wrong, they just need more "time" to be correct.



The 30-year average is the accepted definition set by the WMO and has been so for a very long time (prior to the climate change debate).  It is somewhat arbitrary (although there are compelling reasons for such a choice) and it will not change in the near future.

Natural variability is normally defined with respect to the above definition of climate and makes a lot of sense for many reasons, and has been set before the climate change debate.  

Natural variability does indeed occur on time scales much longer than 30 years (e.g. the main 26000 years Milankovitch cycle). However, changes due to such cycles would be undetectable over a 20-year period.

A 20-year 'pause' (that we are indeed approaching) would be on the long-end.  Anything longer would be more difficult to explain in terms of natural variability, as seen in our short historical record and as simulated by climate models.

Science-wise, I think the 'pause' has been beneficial since it has forced scientists to look much harder at the climate system.

As a water-resources engineer, I strongly believe that adaptation to natural variability would be a lot more useful than to climate change.  Yet, for every natural variability study, you'll find 50 studies on climate change.  Climate change research is sexier, that much I am willing to admit.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> A 20-year 'pause' (that we are indeed approaching) would be on the long-end.  Anything longer would be more difficult to explain in terms of natural variability, as seen in our short historical record and as simulated by climate models.




Latest paper published in a peer reviewed journal in statistics shows pauses for the following temperature anomaly data sets;

RSS (troposhere) 26 years
UAH (troposhere) 16 years
HADCRUT4 (surface) 19 years

if one is interested in the statistic method, here's the author's web page which links it to the paper. 

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html



Perhaps its time to move the goal post (again).


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I reject both the commonly used terms, "pause" and "hiatus".
> 
> The very use of the terms "pause" and "hiatus" is both simultaneously arrogant & mindbogglingly unscientific.
> 
> ...



haha.... the pause may be a peak. Any top rate scientist has to consider that possibility given the lack of evidence that CO2 has caused the temp increase.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 2, 2014)

jack97 said:


> Latest paper published in a peer reviewed journal in statistics shows pauses for the following temperature anomaly data sets;
> 
> RSS (troposhere) 26 years
> UAH (troposhere) 16 years
> ...



Your failure to continuously misunderstand journal papers never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Your failure to continuously misunderstand journal papers never ceases to amaze me.




ok... showing your arrogance again, so explain my misunderstanding. 


the cut and paste of his link is here... where is it that I mis understood?

*I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used. R Code to generate the graphs, tables and results is here. 


*


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 2, 2014)

jack97 said:


> ok... showing your arrogance again, so explain my misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> the cut and paste of his link is here... where is it that I mis understood?
> ...



Look, seriously, it would take a fairly long message to outline everything that is wrong with the paper you are citing, and honestly, I'm not sure you have the tools nor the will to acknowledge these explanations.   So I'm not gonna go into science and I will simply comment on the paper:

The so called 'peer reviewed' paper you are citing was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, a journal published by a group called Scientific Research Publishing.  Sounds good so far ?   

It is an open access journal from a well know 'predatory publisher'.   You are likely not familiar with this so go read a little on the topic.  I'm giving you wikipedia references but you'll find ample references with a google search. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

What this means is that you pay and your paper will be published within 1 week (online) without any peer-review.  Publishing such a paper is now pretty much considered a credibility suicide.  

The truth is that unless you're well-versed in the process of writing/reviewing science papers, it has become very difficult to separate good journals from bad ones.  And the journal above is not even bad, it is a scam.  This has been good for a while to boost publication records but the scam is now widely known and granting agencies now specifically ask to indicate open access journal on academic CVs for this exact reason.  This widespread scam (we're talking tens of thousands of journals) is pretty much killing the few existing legit open-access journals. 

For you to cite this paper simply indicates that you are unable to separate good journal from bad ones.  And while there are exceptions, good science is almost always published in good journals.   

If this is 'important' work, why was it published in a fraudulent journal ?


----------



## jack97 (Sep 2, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Look, seriously, it would take a fairly long message to outline everything that is wrong with the paper you are citing, and honestly, I'm not sure you have the tools nor the will to acknowledge these explanations.   So I'm not gonna go into science and I will simply comment on the paper:
> 
> The so called 'peer reviewed' paper you are citing was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, a journal published by a group called Scientific Research Publishing.  Sounds good so far ?
> 
> ...



Other non open journals are corrupt themselves with their review process. There's a fake review system which corrupts the publishing process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/



McKitrick's papers will time tested as done with the traditional process. His code and method is free for all to scrutinized. Can't say the same for some climate research paper cited in non open journals.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 5, 2014)

latest report from environmental public works committee, US senate minority. It has claims by the doom and gloom alarmist where they are debunked by observations and experiments. Claims and debunked material has been mostly generated by testimony given to congress and are referenced given that they are on the record. 

Some good laughs about some acceleration of temps, how our children will never seen snow again and how sea levels will swamp our society. And those poor polar bears with no sea ice to walk on. 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=3f33b3c9-a28b-4f6c-a663-50c7d02fda24


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 5, 2014)

jack97 said:


> latest report from environmental public works committee, US senate minority. It has claims by the doom and gloom alarmist where they are debunked by observations and experiments. Claims and debunked material has been mostly generated by testimony given to congress and are referenced given that they are on the record.
> 
> Some good laughs about some acceleration of temps, how our children will never seen snow again and how sea levels will swamp our society. And those poor polar bears with no sea ice to walk on.
> 
> http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=3f33b3c9-a28b-4f6c-a663-50c7d02fda24




This report is idiotic and on par with many of Al Gore idiotic claims.  

Can't you see that ???


----------



## jack97 (Sep 6, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> This report is idiotic and on par with many of Al Gore idiotic claims.
> 
> Can't you see that ???



Care to expand on the ad hominem remark?  What part of the senate minority report is as idiotic as the many Al Gore claims?


----------

