Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Keepitsimple

Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice - what to make of it?

Recommended Posts

Who pressed the pause button?

BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of the data set adjustments ever yielded a lower amount of warming? Or maybe another way of asking is why would this data be so accidentally biased towards a colder number, and is anyone seriously looking at the numbers that might already be too high? The satellite record doesn't seem to show the same kind of warming, is it also biased towards colder temperatures? Why would this keep happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. What to make of a warming plateau?

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

I trust neither of us will receive (further) moderator warning messages and suspension threats about "jacking this thread"... about "being off-topic". What to do... what to do - such a quandary!

in any case Shady, you said "NO warming"... a reduced rate of warming (if you accept that has actually occurred to any significant degree) is not NO warming.

Who pressed the pause button?

BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being

that's odd Shady... you selectively quoted from your own reference link. Your own linked reference speaks to the very example I put forward earlier in this thread in regards to Cowtan/Way where I stated:

as an aside, in the past I've shown details related to the affect of limited station readings from areas of the earth warming the most (the Arctic, parts of Africa)... keyed to work of Cowtan/Way dataset/reconstruction (re: infilled by kriging the HadCRUT4 land and ocean ensembles). A mainstream media article that speaks to their initial work... pause? What pause?

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated

of course Shady, your preferred quote extract from your linked article aligns with something many times discussed through an assortment of past MLW threads... threads and related posts you've actively participated in ("pause" related threads you've started, in fact). And that thing discussed many times over, that thing you're well aware of, that thing you're now once again bringing forward... you know, cherry-picked trend start dates that align with the 97-98 ENSO event... one of the more anomalous warming events ever! This following graphic's presentation is intended to highlight what cherry-picking is all about: (note to moderator: this is a graphic I have housed in my personal bookmarked history - you've pointedly asked to ensure all graphics are properly sourced... the source of the original graphed data is noted as being from the WoodForTrees site that allows conversant users to interactively graph temperature related data from an assortment of the more profiled temperature datasets. However, I have no source for whoever created the comparative animated shifting trendlines... I've searched and can't find the original and suspect it is 'housed' within the storage confines of either Blogger or Woodpress (like Blogger's blogspot.com which can't be searched directly). The point of the graphic is simply one to compare trend results from different selected start points)

DrpnDUD.gif

the well-known SkepticalScience blog is a source for a somewhat like presentation image - "the Escalator", as below:

Escalator500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of the data set adjustments ever yielded a lower amount of warming? Or maybe another way of asking is why would this data be so accidentally biased towards a colder number, and is anyone seriously looking at the numbers that might already be too high?

homogenization (adjustments) aren't simply arbitrary changes; as I've viewed, for example, past adjustments made by NOAA/NCDC to USCN have all been put forward for scientific scrutiny through formal peer-review publications. I expect (if not already), these latest profiled changes will be presented in kind.

overall, the effect of adjustments has been nominal to the overall long-term trends within the data. Much organizational and individual focused analysis has been done to present the results and impact of raw versus homogenized data. A good example can be found from material presented by the Bonn University scientist, Victor Venema, from one of his various blogs... in this case, from his blog 'Variable Variability':

Just the facts, homogenization adjustments reduce global warming ... the graphics presented within this article, as below, are themselves sourced from the scientist 'Zeke Hausfather' (a member of the Berkeley Earth 'BEST' project/team):

land%2Braw%2Badj.png

ocean%2Braw%2Badj.png

land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust neither of us will receive (further) moderator warning messages and suspension threats about "jacking this thread"... about "being off-topic". What to do... what to do - such a quandary!

in any case Shady, you said "NO warming"... a reduced rate of warming (if you accept that has actually occurred to any significant degree) is not NO warming.

that's odd Shady... you selectively quoted from your own reference link. Your own linked reference speaks to the very example I put forward earlier in this thread in regards to Cowtan/Way where I stated:

as an aside, in the past I've shown details related to the affect of limited station readings from areas of the earth warming the most (the Arctic, parts of Africa)... keyed to work of Cowtan/Way dataset/reconstruction (re: infilled by kriging the HadCRUT4 land and ocean ensembles). A mainstream media article that speaks to their initial work... pause? What pause?

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated

of course Shady, your preferred quote extract from your linked article aligns with something many times discussed through an assortment of past MLW threads... threads and related posts you've actively participated in ("pause" related threads you've started, in fact). And that thing discussed many times over, that thing you're well aware of, that thing you're now once again bringing forward... you know, cherry-picked trend start dates that align with the 97-98 ENSO event... one of the more anomalous warming events ever! This following graphic's presentation is intended to highlight what cherry-picking is all about: (note to moderator: this is a graphic I have housed in my personal bookmarked history - you've pointedly asked to ensure all graphics are properly sourced... the source of the original graphed data is noted as being from the WoodForTrees site that allows conversant users to interactively graph temperature related data from an assortment of the more profiled temperature datasets. However, I have no source for whoever created the comparative animated shifting trendlines... I've searched and can't find the original and suspect it is 'housed' within the storage confines of either Blogger or Woodpress (like Blogger's blogspot.com which can't be searched directly). The point of the graphic is simply one to compare trend results from different selected start points)

DrpnDUD.gif

the well-known SkepticalScience blog is a source for a somewhat like presentation image - "the Escalator", as below:

Escalator500.gif

So if warming has happened at twice the rate, what happened to your previous explanation of oceans absorbing the warming? So your excuse as to why there was a pause, or a lower rate of warming wasn't really true then right? You just kinda pulled that out of your butt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming, the theory that predicts nothing, but explains everything! :lol:

They got an explaination for any scenario! Even if they have to retract it months later. But the science is settled!

Edited by Shady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good example why there should be weight classes in this forum. It's sad watching some people try to debate out of their league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if warming has happened at twice the rate, what happened to your previous explanation of oceans absorbing the warming? So your excuse as to why there was a pause, or a lower rate of warming wasn't really true then right? You just kinda pulled that out of your butt?

uhhh... does 'twice the rate' (post 97) say anything about a comparison of that 'doubled rate' in relation to the rate from, say... '1970-to-1996'? That linked article referencing the Cowtan/Way reconstruction speaks to the methodology to present more accurate/complete assessments of the earth that are warming the most... where station monitoring is limited, like in the remote Arctic or areas within Africa, etc.. - effectively improving global coverage and presenting a more accurate assessment of global surface temperature increases.

I don't believe I've ever directly used the word 'pause'... typically referring to it as the "so-called" pause; rather, I chose to speak to the related time period in terms of a reduced rate of warming relative to the earlier 70-80 decades. But yes, scientists have done extensive research to attempt to account for the reduced rate of warming... and with proper global station coverage (relative to the Arctic, in particular) the observed temperature is now recognized as greater than previously presented. Of course, there still is a need to understand why the rate is less than prior decades. In that regard, the oceans were/are an obvious target... given the oceans absorb more than 90% of all warming. I've most certainly never presented the oceans as a singular causal tie to that reduced rate. I have presented the oceans as a partial causal tie of research relative to 'deeper ocean warming', to the influence of a cooler Pacific Ocean, to the impact of the Atlantic Ocean AMOC oscillation, etc.. And, of course, there are other possible candidates of influence on a reduced rate of warming... like a non-typical number of more cooler La Nina events during the period in question, like the increased effect of cooling aerosols relative to the most significant increased Chinese industrialization, a greater amount of aerosol related cooling relative to greater volcanic activity during the period in question, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This summer has been quite .. cool, compared to summers of recent past. Climate change or natural cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This summer has been quite .. cool, compared to summers of recent past. Climate change or natural cycle?

Or the fact that it's spring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhh... does 'twice the rate' (post 97) say anything about a comparison of that 'doubled rate' in relation to the rate from, say... '1970-to-1996'? That linked article referencing the Cowtan/Way reconstruction speaks to the methodology to present more accurate/complete assessments of the earth that are warming the most... where station monitoring is limited, like in the remote Arctic or areas within Africa, etc.. - effectively improving global coverage and presenting a more accurate assessment of global surface temperature increases.

I don't believe I've ever directly used the word 'pause'... typically referring to it as the "so-called" pause; rather, I chose to speak to the related time period in terms of a reduced rate of warming relative to the earlier 70-80 decades. But yes, scientists have done extensive research to attempt to account for the reduced rate of warming... and with proper global station coverage (relative to the Arctic, in particular) the observed temperature is now recognized as greater than previously presented. Of course, there still is a need to understand why the rate is less than prior decades. In that regard, the oceans were/are an obvious target... given the oceans absorb more than 90% of all warming. I've most certainly never presented the oceans as a singular causal tie to that reduced rate. I have presented the oceans as a partial causal tie of research relative to 'deeper ocean warming', to the influence of a cooler Pacific Ocean, to the impact of the Atlantic Ocean AMOC oscillation, etc.. And, of course, there are other possible candidates of influence on a reduced rate of warming... like a non-typical number of more cooler La Nina events during the period in question, like the increased effect of cooling aerosols relative to the most significant increased Chinese industrialization, a greater amount of aerosol related cooling relative to greater volcanic activity during the period in question, etc..

So your oceans excuse was unnecessary right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your oceans excuse was unnecessary right?

your reading comprehension is as "astute" as ever! :lol: Read my post again... slowly... try real hard to understand it. The current rate of warming, albeit greater than previously understood and presented, is still less than the greatest warming rate that existed within the 70s. Your use of the word "excuse" is unnecessary, inflammatory and speaks to your denier mentality. Scientists look for causal ties to explain changes/differences/the unexpected; as I said, I never presented an interpretation that highlighted oceans as the only causal tie, for a reduced rate of warming; again, re-read my post (what you quoted but obviously didn't grasp).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Stop creating more thread drift.

The topic of this discussion is clearly spelled out in the opening post. If you insist upon diverting this thread, your posts will be taken down. If you do not like that, start a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Stop creating more thread drift.

You might not realize it, but Arctic sea ice is related to AGW discussions. It's a complicated topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Stop creating more thread drift.

The topic of this discussion is clearly spelled out in the opening post. If you insist upon diverting this thread, your posts will be taken down. If you do not like that, start a new thread.

How is discussing global warming in a thread on increasing/decreasing levels of sea ice thread drift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might not realize it, but Arctic sea ice is related to AGW discussions. It's a complicated topic.

Agreed 100%.......The excessive moderation (for what I don't know?) is in my opinion, detracting from an interesting topic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is discussing global warming in a thread on increasing/decreasing levels of sea ice thread drift?

The discussion was being re-directed elsewhere. We are only reminding folks to stay on topic.

The topic of discussion is not "INSERT MEMBER X HERE's interpretation of INSERT MEMBER Y THERE's OTHER argument in SOME OTHER THREAD WHEREVER peripherally related to this one." Making personal comments that do not further the topic de-rails threads away from those who want to stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion was being re-directed elsewhere. We are only reminding folks to stay on topic.

The topic of discussion is not "INSERT MEMBER X HERE's interpretation of INSERT MEMBER Y THERE's OTHER argument in SOME OTHER THREAD WHEREVER peripherally related to this one." Making personal comments that do not further the topic de-rails threads away from those who want to stay on topic.

so... would repeated posts (3), pointedly inquiring on the status of Canadian spending on "ice data monitoring/data collection & analysis" (while making a presumptuous comment on the magnitude of that spending)... would that be "off-topic" to this thread, would that be an attempt to "jack the thread"... would it be trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so... would repeated posts (3), pointedly inquiring on the status of Canadian spending on "ice data monitoring/data collection & analysis" (while making a presumptuous comment on the magnitude of that spending)... would that be "off-topic" to this thread, would that be an attempt to "jack the thread"... would it be trolling?

No.

However, repeatedly making a personal attack against a fellow member for asking a question is trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

However, repeatedly making a personal attack against a fellow member for asking a question is trolling.

so not trolling you say? As a point of clarification, what value add does that line of questioning the Canadian spending allotment (presumed on or otherwise) provide... particularly when its sole intent is to draw a comparative measure against the USA!, USA!, USA!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking to me???

so not trolling you say? As a point of clarification, what value add does that line of questioning the Canadian spending allotment (presumed on or otherwise) provide... particularly when its sole intent is to draw a comparative measure against the USA!, USA!, USA!?

Great question!

Do not ask me. Ask him!

See? It is as simple as that. If you can not figure something out on your own, just ask for a clarification!!!

Try it next time. If you do so politely, it just might work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the context of this thread's focus on sea-ice/ice-sheet melting... what's your point? All you've done is throw down a cut-&-paste quote and a link to a denier blog. Again, your point?

.

If you do not understand the point I'm making, then you are a true trooper in the front line alarmist militia!

Never questioning the data that you are trying to drive into everyone, and only labeling those whom doubt the credibility as "deniers".

Oh and by the way, do you have multiple independent source info? Or is it all NASA info? And from decades ago? How about centuries?

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, more research is needed to better understand the dynamics of sea ice at both poles. Accordingly, why won't Canada spend more money for the collection and analysis of at least Arctic sea ice ? (Since Canada claims to own the whole thing all the way to the North Pole.)

What gives ?

Actually I believe that lots of info is being collected around the world. Very useful info!!!

However, the Earth is at least several billions of years old. And the info is only accurately retroactive for 2-3 decades.

Not enough info to make an determination/diagnosis.

The fact that alarmists claim they know exactly what's going on (ailment and cure) with so little history of accurate global data really makes them "quacks" in the scientific community!

If you want to believe in "quacks", be my guest!

But as far as I'm concerned, most alarmists are just that, QUACKS!

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no warming? Support your statement please - citation request...

Why should he?

YOU are the one that is making the claim that the climate is warming due to CO2 created by humans!

Burden of proof is upon YOU!

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...