|
Post by nickrr on Nov 9, 2012 14:11:54 GMT 1
If the downward trend dramatically increases then something new is happening. Surely this is not a difficult concept to grasp?
I'm disputing the veracity of the graphs you gave because they are fraudulent. They deliberately stop just before a rapid decline in sea ice occurs
Nevertheless minimum sea ice extent is a good proxy for sea ice coverage and it quite clearly shows a significant decline in recent years.
We don't need observations beyond the satellite period to observe the current rapid decline. It's in the link I gave earlier.
No doubt you would counter with the "it's changed in the past argument", which of course it has but is irrelevant. We know what's causing the current decline in sea ice with a high degree of certainty - rising atmospheric CO2.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 9, 2012 15:19:03 GMT 1
The research was conducted in 2003 and 2001 respectively. There was no "deliberate stop" before the Arctic sea ice decline . The graphs clearly show the period from the beginning of the Satellite observation 1979 to 2000. It is in light blue.
Try again!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 9, 2012 15:27:02 GMT 1
Not necessarily something "new" at all, unless you expect all trends to be straight lines! Could be just the "usual" things but in a slightly different arrangement. Neither has there been a dramatic increase in the rate of annual average ice decline since 2000 as this graph shows. Here is the data for the month of September that so beguiles you alarmists. Perhaps you have noticed that more than a third of the graph is missing (y axis starts at 3 rather than zero unlike the graph above which shows the full extent of the y scale). Here is a more accurate graph. You would no doubt prefer this presentation of the data for the maximum alarmist effect, nickrr? And here is a graph nicely showing the difference between the March extend the September extent.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Nov 11, 2012 17:47:05 GMT 1
So why are you wasting our time with data that's out of date and therefore irrelevant?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Nov 11, 2012 17:51:35 GMT 1
Except that the data says different. We have a perfectly good explanation why the ice loss has increased - the arctic is warming and the evidence shows that this is largely due to increased CO2 emissions.
Keep going. I'm interested to see your next desperate attempt to deny the bleeding obvious.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 11, 2012 18:09:59 GMT 1
Except that the data says different. We have a perfectly good explanation why the ice loss has increased - the arctic is warming and the evidence shows that this is largely due to increased CO2 emissions. What evidence shows that? We have a greater than average ice melt in the Arctic because of higher than normal ocean currents and warmer than usual wind currents, due to a northerly kink in the gulf stream over the past two summers. The ocean currents are warmer than usual because the oceans have been steadily warming for 40 years, and the recently turned PDO has produced a rapid heat transfer from deep ocean to the Arctic atmospehere. Where is the evidence that this warming has anything to do with CO2? If there was such evidence the IPCC would present it, wouldn't they, rather than merely inputting it as a presumption into the computer models they rely on. And if it is "largely due to increased CO2 emissions", why haven't surface temperatures warmed for over 15 years, and why is the lower troposphere, where the greenhouse effect should according to the theory be at the most intense, cooling rather than warming? And why isn't this causal connection that you find so bleeding obvious occurring in the Antarctic?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Nov 13, 2012 22:59:22 GMT 1
Wikipedia provides a decent summary together with references to source data: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_ArcticNow, where are the links to show that anyone in the scientific community shares your opinion as to the causes of Arctic ice loss?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Nov 13, 2012 23:06:56 GMT 1
Because the Antarctic is different to the Arctic. For a start it's mostly land rather than sea and the ice is many times thicker. Here's a link explaining some of this: www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htmThis is all well known and as predicted. I'm surprised that you weren't aware of this?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 14, 2012 12:34:51 GMT 1
This post is specially for nickrr since he is so hot on the need for dialogue with sceptics. Maybe the Netherlands is less polarised politically and climatologically than the UK? Andew Montford at Bishop Hill reports this development Climate Dialogue Nov 14, 2012
Climate Dialogue is a new project run by the Dutch Met Office, the KNMI. It aims to be:
a platform for discussions between (climate) scientists on important climate topics that are of interest to both fellow scientists and the general public. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views that scientists have on these issues.
Interestingly, the project has prominent sceptic science writer Marcel Crok on board. Having a critic of the mainstream on board suggests strongly that this is a genuine attempt to communicate. If it works out then it's going to be a bit embarrassing for all those climate "communication" projects we have been having in the UK.
I'm sure we all wish the project well. www.climatedialogue.org/
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Nov 14, 2012 14:17:11 GMT 1
A sceptic is someone who in principle can be persuaded by the facts but is currently doubtful. Fair enough (although I would question the judgement of anyone who has serious doubts about AGW because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in it's favour).
What I dislike are deniers who will never be persuaded however much evidence there is. This is because their beliefs are based not on what the facts show but on what they want the facts to show.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 14, 2012 14:45:45 GMT 1
The only reference supporting your claim is to this study: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/full/ngeo338.htmlThe "evidence" has been predetermined, therefore - presumtions about how CO2 produces increased warming have been fed into the computer climate models that have, obviously, produced the conclusion. Do you deny this? What I was asking you was: where is the empirical evidence that CO2 has produced the increased temperatures which have led to recent Arctic melting? Your claim was that this was "bleeding obvious": the arctic is warming and the evidence shows that this is largely due to increased CO2 emissions.What evidence? Not a climate model prediction produded by computers that have already been programmed with the presumption - evidence, please. It's not an "opinion". It's accepted scientific fact, derived from empirical observation. And also fed into the computer models. That PDO and other cyclic circulation patterns produce correlated temperature differences in global ocean circulation patterns, and these are coupled with atmospheric circulation systems, producing correlated winds, which are primarily responsible for the majority of ice-cap melting, is all completely orthodox. The only question is whether these universally agreed mechanisms are adequate to explain the recent melting extreme observed this summer, or whether some other causative factor is also responsible. And, if so, what that other factor might be. Now, additional CO2 in the atmosphere it certainly is not. Unless you believe that CO2, being a gas, naturally floats to the top of the world, rather than the bottom?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 14, 2012 14:50:29 GMT 1
Because the Antarctic is different to the Arctic. For a start it's mostly land rather than sea and the ice is many times thicker. Here's a link explaining some of this: www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htmThis is all well known and as predicted. I'm surprised that you weren't aware of this? I am aware of it, though it has not to my knowledge ever been predicted: on the contrary. What I'm not aware of is how a globally distributed increase in an atmospheric gas can melt ice in the North but have no or the opposite effect in the South. None of this "it's land and very thick" prevarication used to be mentioned ten or twenty years ago, when Antartctic ice was regularly proclaimed to be getting thinner and thinner, and we were shown great ice mountains sloughing off into the South Atlantic because of global warming. Then it was paraded as evidence. Now the Antarctic ice cap is getting larger and larger, it no longer counts.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 14, 2012 14:55:43 GMT 1
A sceptic is someone who in principle can be persuaded by the facts but is currently doubtful. Fair enough (although I would question the judgement of anyone who has serious doubts about AGW because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in it's favour). You keep trotting out this claim, even though the IPCC has with every report to admit there is no such definitive eviodence. I keep asking you: what evidence? Well - what is the evidence?! That's what us sceptics ask for. What "facts"? What are they? Not computer models, which have already been falsified - empirical observations, please. And thoroughly tested and corroborated demonstrable causative links between those observations and the greenhouse gas theory. If you could provide such "facts" there would no longer be an argument, would there? But you can't - the real world is simply not cooperating.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 14, 2012 15:14:04 GMT 1
You see, Nick, it's not just that the AGW lobby seem unable to present any "facts" to demonstrate their hysterical prognostications, which have for 15 years at least failed to materialise. Nor that they so desperately contravene the canons of scientific integrity in doing their best to conceal and onfuscate facts that do not support their case. It's that logically their argument is so full of holes.
For example: We know from both theory and empirical observation that increased global temperatures directly lead to increased atmospheric CO2 content. Do we not? CO2 rises shortly after increased temperatures in the historical record, and the mechanism for this correlation is well understood and observed. Right? Now, you would agree I would hope that there is nowhere near such strong confirmation for the AGW claim that increased CO2 leads to increased global temperature. That's the theory, right? The only evidence for it is not in the historical record, and it's not ever been empirically confirmed. All we have is a short-term correlation stretching back a little more than a century - with a couple of inconvenient glitches where the correlation for some reason breaks down. Right?
But if the theory is correct, and this correlation is in fact a causative link, then logically there's a big problem, isn't there? Increased temp leads to increased CO2. Increased CO2 also turns out to lead to increased temp. Well - what on earth has ever stopped this vicious circle? Why hasn't the Earth boiled away millenia ago? Something must intervene to break this nightmare scenario, something a lot more powerful than CO2 in the atmosphere. Right? So what is that thing? And if it's role in regulating the earth's temperature is so overwhelmingly influential - why isn't it that thing, rather than the evidently more feeble influence of CO2, that has been causing the recent warming? And may just as plausibly be responsible for the current cooling?
The simple CO2 - temperature model just doesn't make sense. There's a big piece missing in the theory, on the evidence alone, but crucially on the whole reasoning of the theory. We know the Earth hasn't frazzled away - we know life is flourishing, the oceans are flowing, the climate is merrily changing as it's always done, providentially maintained at a seemingly ideal temperature for all its busy little creatures to carry on surviving. How? Given this theoretical deathtrap represented by the logic of the AGW theory, and the empirical fact of the known CO2-temperature causative link?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 14, 2012 16:38:36 GMT 1
Note the plural - polar regions, nickrr, in Mr Sonde's quotation.
Now that it is clear Antarctica is not playing ball re "polar amplification" the purveyors of climate apocalypse have largely dumped that other polar region and jeer at us contrarians for still wanting an explanation for its continuing icy status. (I don't care what you call us, nickrr - the worse the better in fact!). Ho ho ho, what idiots, we are with our sceptical scruples!
Turns out Antarctica is just TOO COLD to melt! Well, well, well! Who'd'a thunk it. Slight spanner in the AGW works. Perhaps it's time to go back to the drawing board, nickrr, instead of ignoring the inconsistent evidence that keeps accruing - like "hide the decline" aka "the divergence problem" between Treemometers and real thermometers or the sea level that refused to "accelerate" as per alarmist predictions.
When I went to visit the Scott Polar institute a couple of months back, Director Prof Julian Dowdeswell stated he thought the most important internal variable regarding Arctic melt was the wind, as Mr Sonde has suggested, too. Apart from that (and other intervening variables like ocean currents and el Ninos) the independent variable is the sun, stupid, as per usual!
A couple of weeks ago I went to a Leeds University talk by Jonathan Porritt (climate polemicist), Andy Gouldson (economist) and Andrew Shepherd (Glaciologist). The latter was the only once who talked any sense. He admitted sea levels could go up or down. No-one knows, basically, because we are just scratching the surface of understanding climate.
A little more humility would not go amiss from CO2 cultists, like you, nickrr.
|
|