Rules: Read Me!
Admin: sue943
Legal / Conditions of Use

Page 9 of 11 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 >
Topic Options
#822458 - Tue Sep 11 2012 06:24 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I think this is a first. Having posted the study showing the US temperature estimates had been around double the actual figures once the adjustments had been painstakingly removed and found to be consistently high (while supposed to be filtering out the heating effects of urban heat islands), the NOAA, the US official meterological institution, has done their own measurements using 114 brand new rural stations which are all identical so there's no need to adjust anything but take their direct readings. They can now confirm the outside critique was correct, as the previous readings were reduced by 2.1F

Not only was this found to be the case once adjustments and local variations had been eliminated at source rather than post-processed, but conceded this probably applies worldwide seeing as the surface measurements are all done the same way.

Somehow the recent warming appears to have vanished, the 2.1F reduction means there has been pretty much none at all. I wonder how the press will justify not reporting this seeing as it is the most official data they will ever receive?

Independent measurements confirm heat bias
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#824141 - Sun Sep 16 2012 03:01 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
They're still at it

US temperatures, before and after

The US not only has the most weather stations in the world, but if these methods represent standard practise, I can reliably say 'There is no global warming', and if not can still for the US which covers many more readings than elsewhere. This is not standard scientific routine, quite the opposite.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#825319 - Thu Sep 20 2012 04:30 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I've seen various references to how the hockey stick diagram was built, making sure what started as flat temperatures over the recent centuries sloped up at the top, and now have a complete summary. When we are accused of cherry picking, in fact the only reason this argument exists is Michael Mann selected about 5% of Siberian tree ring sets which showed what he was looking for, and cobbled them into the data so they skewed the results in the way he needed. It goes on to explain how the enquiries didn't even have much of the data available, and stacked the juries with interested parties not normally permitted under British law (or any other).

Here's the complete picture, bearing in mind spaces had been completed by the methods discussed in their hacked emails, which under a police examination would have been part of the forensic enquiry, and always required as part of the greater public interest if being used for making public policy as this has been.

----------------------------------------
The hockey stick graph at the center of this dispute was based heavily upon data taken from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Created by Mann and his colleagues, it supposedly proved that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years until the 20th century, and then suddenly rocketed off the charts (attributing this to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions). That image was featured to support urgency of a cap on carbon dioxide through the Kyoto Protocol which was being pushed at the time by Al Gore and the United Nations. It prominently and repeatedly appeared in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.

QED

Here it is

The funny thing is the majority of rebuttals I have when I post these articles is about the publication and author of them rather than the material itself. That is telling in itself. I have never actually heard of Forbes besides in the lyrics of a recent record so have no idea or interest in who they are, who funds them and who reads them. Only the two paragraphs I have added matter as they are independent of any messenger.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#826377 - Mon Sep 24 2012 04:36 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I recently read a magazine who claimed the temperature rise from 1850 was 1.4C, double the accepted amount. I didn't bother to try and follow it up as all it did was demonstrate how utterly simple it is to basically provide your personal figures with no or little question. But I was curious to know where the figure was possibly obtained in error, and discovered why the IPCC estimates for temperatures in 2100 were so high yet the 2010 figures were way below expected in 1990. They doubled the sensitivity equation in 1990, kept the graph based on it, and means the actual temperatures are double what they should be, which would peak around 3C and trough near zero. The mid point which is by far the likeliest as the wider the error bar the less likely the result would then be around 1.5C rise at current CO2 increases around 5-600ppm, which are within the area where the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. That was from their own report which the reporters clearly haven't read as besides the obvious benefits of more food and fewer deaths from cold (more people always die of cold than heat within normal ranges) extreme weather events can never be attributed to global warming as the connection can't be judged well enough.

The certainty the politicians and media provide is not official. They all unanimously quote IPCC reports as no one else is authorised to provide official data. There is plenty more, most of which claims their connection between CO2 and a rising temperature is not proven or important, but they are not part of what the IPCC is using, so go largely unnoticed outside the skeptical community online, although by independent and equally qualified and equipped scientists. None of the adjustments discovered previously have ever been challenged at an official level, just dismissed as the actions of an anti-science hit squad, despite being found by professional statisticians. In fact there is no official channel to question the data, if someone important enough takes the material to the source the best they get is an internal enquiry, the one on the hacked emails didn't even present the papers in question so there was actually no enquiry at all since the doctored material hadn't been taken to it.

This does not happen in many other areas of science, and if such uncertainty was present in accounts people would be prosecuted, and architecture people would risk dying in dangerous buildings. These errors are far greater than any either made in business or engineering, since the tolerances required for building houses or bridges are so small anything outside would probably wreck the careers of anyone caught doing so, but when it's just weather reports it seems the boundaries are far wider and more liberal.

Even I can understand these sums!
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#827133 - Wed Sep 26 2012 09:31 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
It is utterly pointless if you are going to try and alter data to get the results you want as it is still impossible to remove every trace of the same data before you did so. So yet again, a pre-Hansen/Mann graph appears showing before he made the hockey stick the temperature had actually dropped between 1940 and 1970.

Whatever has happened since they made the graph in the early 90s, unlike the sets above where they took flat raw data and made them erect (the temperature Viagra effect) this has gone a step further, equalled only by the IPCC's removal of the similar graph in 1995 where they happily displayed the widely accepted medieval warm period, by actually having to ignore (and hope no one noticed it) the actual data know for the period already. This beats anything they've been found to do by a country mile.

Get out of this one?

On the general point, when you do not just get caught making dubious adjustments (eg raising temperatures when allowing for urban heat islands) but rewriting existing accepted climate history, how can anyone retain confidence in anything else they say? The reason I say this is very simple. A PhD statistician can easily explain their way out of adjustments with terms you and I have never heard of and would need an equal level of study to understand. But simply using a different set of temperatures for a period already written is something a five year old could understand and question. From a constitutional point of view it means when such items are exposed and nothing happens that he must be working for those who would otherwise enforce the rules. If not then why does it conclude with a handful of interested parties discussing it on the internet while James Hansen continues to run the US climate research at its head. Surely if it is questionable at the very highest level it must reflect everywhere lower down?

This is definitely not a scientific point or question but a simple logical one everyone is able to see. Can anyone think of a single explanation for this and the loss of the MWP in the identical way by his own employers? As above, so below. As commented at the end of the piece:

"The real crime here is the silence from so many others in the “climate science community”"


Edited by satguru (Wed Sep 26 2012 09:35 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#829762 - Fri Oct 05 2012 09:48 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Very odd, first the medieval warm period vanishes, and now despite removing it, the very same diagram has surfaced and while it still shows the hockey stick and shrunken MWP, it also goes back 10,000 years and reveals a climatic optimum where the temperature 4-8000 years ago was actually about 0.5C above the present. No floods, disasters or other events expected by Al Gore materialised, history confirms business as usual with wine grapes in Britain and healthy crops across the temperate zones.

If history shows thousands of years of living with higher temperatures then what is the need to work out what it might be like, and why do they keep saying it's never been as warm as it is now, just because their usual diagram stops in year 0 and has flattened out the middle and raised the end (as the IPCC changed their original diagram in 1991 replacing it with one which had been photoshopped) they just use the useful bit but the rest of it which has been conveniently discarded remains for all to see here:

Full timeframe

So why do the IPCC say 'hottest year ever' whenever the current short sample period peaks, and show concern about even the (unknown) melting ice etc from even today's levels? I say unknown as world ice is stubbornly refusing to reduce despite the incredibly well publicised recent Arctic melt, probably known about in the rain forests of Central America and furthest flung Pacific islands, yet the fact the same event was evenly balanced by a record high Antarctic ice level is no doubt news to every single person reading it here. That's called spin to you and me.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#830698 - Wed Oct 10 2012 11:49 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Wow, anti-science? Me?

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

Margaret Mead 1974

1974 conference report
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#830885 - Thu Oct 11 2012 11:17 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
It's a busy week for sure!

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present the evidence to you from 2010 and 2012. When the temperature rises what does ice do? Even as a lawyer I would say I and you as well are qualified to know it melts. As they said in 2010:

"The latest evidence is from the US Geological Survey, which said its research is the first to document that every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating from 1947 to 2009, with the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990."

Antarctic ice is melting

Yet two years later the Antarctic ice (over 90% of total) is at record levels, and the same people (as they mainly work together and share their material and send it to the UN), and this was their response to the photo of, well, an ice cap:

"The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say."

Changed the rules

----------------
See the trick? When the ice was melting (we have been warming up for hundreds of years, long before fossil fuels were burnt in volume) it was 'man made' when they wanted it to be, but after over 10 years of flat temperatures and the ice dares to stop melting and begins to freeze again, the explanation is identical then unless there has been a vast breakthrough in climate science in the intervening two years it appears that the conclusion has actually been decided before and regardless of the events. Can there be any other possibility?


Edited by satguru (Thu Oct 11 2012 11:20 AM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#831688 - Mon Oct 15 2012 10:18 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
A week after being released on the internet, the Daily Mail was the first (and only?) paper to release the official temperature record showing a 16 year wavy line starting and finishing in exactly the same place. Many people knew about it online of course but we are a small bunch and not enough to make a difference. But the biggest event of all was Phil Jones, one of the heads of the department who issued them, who openly admitted they do not know the influences of oceanic and solar cycles.

I and many more have been claiming this for years, he has now admitted it (along with the implication the models are trashed, as it was about 0.5C below the lowest estimate) so why is it even an issue as any warming we did have (in 20 year cycles on average with cooling between them) is at least as likely to have been natural anyway regardless of how it was presented.

How does such an admission go over the heads of apparently all politicians, who are the only ones empowered to inflict policies on us even when their main contributor has just admitted they are based on virtually no understanding at all. You don't get that in any other profession.

article

If this is what it took to get them to admit their genuine failings then the temperature itself was secondary as it cast doubt on all their other claims totally- Dr Jones was not speaking for himself, the quote was

"Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun."

Would you continue to accept anything else they have said after that, and if so why?
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#834713 - Sat Oct 27 2012 06:41 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I feel like a storyteller here. Once upon a time a bunch of scientists got together, and between them made a potion of figures and measurements which when put together made a hockey stick. The trouble was when anyone tried to use it it changed shape and wouldn't work, but no one else could replace it and everyone was forced to try and use it even though it never seemed to be stable enough to work.

Many years later, although one of his tricks was required to create it, by casting a spell over hundreds of tree rings to make all but a few disappear and use them to both raise the tip of the hockey stick, and then vanish in a tangle of lines when it started heading the wrong way, Keith Briffa saw the angry clouds of fate heading his way, threatening to rain on his chips and make his hockey stick so soggy it could melt away. To quickly get out of the path he and two colleagues went back to the spell and took out all the funny incantations, such as 'abracadabra and alakazam, make these rings for Michael Mann' or 'by the powers of Greyskull make these threes into sevens' and the like, leaving only the boring stuff like 'one and one is two, two and two is four' etc, which is deadly dull but impossible to question.

And then they concluded the trick was only an illusion and should not be relied on. He is probably going to be awarded a halo for this redeeming action, and had they not been part of the same illusion a Nobel Prize. I may even send him a Christmas card myself now.

Changed their minds, changed the climate

Here be the summary:

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.


Michael Mann, the official owner of the hockey stick, has yet to answer the revised decision, although it is only but hours old. My bet is he isn't going to though, and for the double no one's going to ask him. Not even Keith, he's already off the hook.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#837345 - Wed Nov 07 2012 06:03 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The frightening almost religious trust I've raised in scientists here is not just about abdicating our own judgement to others, but utterly unfounded.

Oddly enough the slight rise in sea level rate has coincided with the introduction of satellite measurements, on top of temperature rises when most land stations were removed and replaced in 1979. Cause or effect one may wonder. The latest analysis from NASA has discovered the entire satellite data since the beginning of taking sea level measurements may well have been measuring the wrong points, causing a potential doubling in figures. This means (and corresponds with the negligible rise in temperature) the rise has not increased in rate but is steady at well under 8 inches a century, no more than the 1900s.

Besides the implications for all the predictions in sea level rises made in the last 30 years which have unanimously been hundreds of times higher than present, on the large picture then how can we trust any of their old data when they keep discovering the old methods were inadequate? Can you imagine your annual taxes being messed around with like that? Except they are, as ours include a large portion of climate tax, which wouldn't exist had they not overestimated a growing number of figures way above the likely reality. Once these corrections are made the new sea level graphs are going to drop. How will the politicians react to that once it's clear they aren't doing anything new for hundreds of years after all? (nothing)

Error after error after error etc
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#950499 - Tue Nov 20 2012 01:04 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The significance of climate stories is only as good as the people reading them, and the media have clearly dismissed many as it doesn't fit with their agenda. Therefore earlier this year yet another long term study of proxy data (tree rings in this case) for the last 2000 years claims the past temperature estimates were far too low and we are indeed in a cooling trend, at least in Europe. Regardless of the rest of the world there is so much uncertainty in the area governments have no place making policies on it while it is.

Tree rings show Europe is cooling

Meanwhile, after five years, it turns out that another major temperature diagram had to be adjusted after errors were found, again showing the 1930s were the warmest overall, but for reasons unknown to me they are still using the old diagrams today despite everyone knowing they were way out. That is sheer negligence, or worse.

"1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century. This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards."

Errors corrected

So again, errors have been picked up which shift the entire foundations of the argument, which is bad enough, but again, they are still using the old diagrams today.

Can you see a pattern forming?
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#953207 - Sun Dec 02 2012 06:07 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Generally it's best to take the evidence here as a whole, but every now and then a leading diagram tends to overshadow all the lesser data, and here is one of the best I've come across. Solar cycles/temperature. The fit is incredible. Unlike the one with CO2.

Far more pressing is why aren't the world aware of it, this was found 11 years ago?

Yes, it's really the sun.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#953999 - Thu Dec 06 2012 12:31 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
After a summer of absolute media overload, the Grace satellite has just refined its findings and found the loss of Arctic ice to be many times less than previously thought, as the spurious data was so great it took them this long to filter it out. The loss is now within the error margin, ie negligible. Which is logical going by the lack of warming for over 15 years now.

New science

" While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line."

I'm sure both the IPCC and media will take this on board and change their approaches accordingly </sarc>
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#955299 - Thu Dec 13 2012 11:12 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The 1998 el nino temperature peak is very familiar to any climate investigators, and recently (as it takes a while for the new material to filter through) it has been overtaken by the one in 2010. I was surprised as these have only recently begun arriving, but only in half the diagrams.

There are two world temperature measurements, the absolute (around 14C) and relative (anomaly). Both are the same. You have some sites displaying both with the peak at 2010, while an equal number is still in 1998.

Imagine a hospital measuring the temperatures of the patients, and having two different diagrams. Which one would be the right one for the doctor to treat? I don't know the answer, any more than I do for the world's temperature.

I've gone to the trouble of saving it here, I could do with another final long term temperature diagram to complete the set but so far none go beyond 2010, but the short term ones all do so quite clear regardless.

Here it is.

I will add in my conclusions having read a partial explanation since posting it. The general reason was the data had been reassessed and added new Arctic measurements taken since the 1998 peak which shoved the angle downwards. That as may be, but what does that tell you on the meaning of this alteration? The only available conclusion is they had been using incorrect data for some years and treated it as correct. This is not an isolated example, I have pages of them saved, and many posted here. Extend the scenario to other professions. A team of engineers are building a massive bridge across a river taking traffic and trains, and depending how they did it the measurements for weight tolerances and the like varied greatly. Would you even walk across it, let alone drive, if you'd seen the data they used before they built it?

Until the climate, which other field could use such widely differing figures, which then were 'revised' from time to time, one by one dismissing the medieval warm period (it's still in every book written before it was removed), 1938 and then 1998 as the peaks, and if a shop gives you the wrong change by accident the error will tend to zero over time, but every single alteration I have has been upwards. That means every error and new finding meant their figures were reading too high then, including believe it or not the adjustment for urban heat islands where most current weather stations are located.

If you (like quite a number here have been or are) were doing a science degree, and offered three different sets of data depending what you used to measure them you know what would happen. If you were qualified and produced similar variations in the lab you also know exactly what would happen. If you did it in a lab and also advised governments to collect money on the basis of it you only need to look at Enron and will see what happened to them for doing what is today called 'carbon trading' and is compulsory in the EU and Australia. You don't need a science degree, a degree, or a single exam pass to get this (just like jury members who decide if someone loses their liberty), just eyes and ears and a mind to process what they see and hear. How can a single field function using such blatantly inadequate and worse material, and both collect the praise of most of the world and be relied on to make world policy via the UN?


Edited by satguru (Thu Dec 13 2012 09:05 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#956351 - Wed Dec 19 2012 12:51 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
One thing about writing things down with dates means is I can refer to claims I made earlier and then refer to new results which suprise surprise appear to confirm they were accurate.

Oddly despite the complexity of the underlying equations, like the machine code used for websites we all use happily, the final results are primary school level. CO2 rose 50% from 260-400ppm, and the temperature (minus natural causes) rose 0.8C.

Therefore with no unknown new influences we have observed the increase of half a doubling to imply a doubling will be no more than 1.6C (minus natural causes).

And now the IPCC drafts seem to have worked it out as well.

IPCC reviewer explains the figures

Of course it's a year before the actual final effort by then which is likely to have been altered the same way the temperature figures were to make them rise in the 80s (see recent post), but it won't change the existing relationship and look less and less credible if they do try and introduce an unsupported mystery cause of a greater rise for the remaining 50%, especially since their end point is 2100 which none of us can be alive to know either way.

Have the facts finally overtaken the politics?
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#957631 - Thu Dec 27 2012 01:17 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
queproblema Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Sep 25 2006
Posts: 868
Loc: Kenny Lake Alaska USA     
In a twist to the debate over global warming, melting Arctic sea ice is making it easier to transport the fossil fuels that produce the planet-warming gases, which appear to be causing it to thaw in the first place.

Arctic sea ice melted to a record low in September, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, when ice covered just 24 percent of the Arctic Ocean, compared with at least twice that amount three decades ago.

The link includes an image of the newly opened Northern Sea Route.

The author of the article has been promoted to the Washington, D.C. bureau, but is from Alaska.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/12/26/2734944/economic-wave-may-course-through.html#storylink=cpy

Top
#957731 - Thu Dec 27 2012 10:37 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: queproblema]
mountaingoat Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Fri Jun 22 2007
Posts: 388
Loc: Blue Mountains NSW Australia
National Snow and Ice Data Center. Another conspiratorial science organisation eh Satguru. Did a scientist steal your lunch money or what?

Top
#957738 - Thu Dec 27 2012 10:51 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mountaingoat]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Yes, they did actually, our fuel and energy are among the most expensive in the world due to said scientists, as they quite openly and happily drive government policy.

The Arctic melts however are thoroughly misleading, one, because they are cyclic and have shipping records going back hundreds of years showing they do it every few decades and then freeze again as long as records are kept, and secondly like temperatures the full records only go back to 1979 when there were satellites to view it all from above.

This is the clearest diagram I can find covering that era. But it doesn't make good news material so you won't see that sort of thing blasted around the papers. Had they shown you this instead (the recent melt will not make much of a dent come the spring when the winter freeze is added) I don't think it would have caught your attention.

Satellite ice 1979-2010

Full history

It's essential to know these basics before trying to use local and short term incidents to try and claim something unusual is happening. Especially as in order to melt (not locally but worldwide, which it isn't) it needs to be driven by temperature, which has not done so for at least 15 years. How can the ice melt if the average temperature hasn't risen sufficiently for it to do so?

20th century history

Long term history

"Numerous sites have been surveyed along the length of the Northwest Passage. The eastern and western approaches have become reliably ice-free in summer under historical climatic conditions, whereas in the central part summer sea ice has been persistent. The radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains indicate that the whales were able to range along the length of the Passage during two intervals (centered on 9000 years ago and 1000 years ago) and that they were able to access the central part from the east about 4000 years ago. During the first of these intervals (9000 before present) ice cores indicate that summer temperatures were about 3°C warmer than mid 20th Century. Therefore, a warming of 3°C exceeds the opening threshold. Medieval Warm Period temperatures were probably about 1°C warmer than mid-20th Century, which is likely close to threshold conditions for an opening of the passage."


Edited by satguru (Fri Dec 28 2012 09:14 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#957969 - Sat Dec 29 2012 01:37 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
queproblema Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Sep 25 2006
Posts: 868
Loc: Kenny Lake Alaska USA     
How can the ice melt if the average temperature hasn't risen sufficiently for it to do so?

That's a really good question. The Arctic sea ice has melted, according to your information, more than it had for 4000 years.

(The eastern and western approaches have become reliably ice-free in summer under historical climatic conditions, whereas in the central part summer sea ice has been persistent. The radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains indicate that the whales were able to range along the length of the Passage during two intervals (centered on 9000 years ago and 1000 years ago) and that they were able to access the central part from the east about 4000 years ago.)

Top
#958017 - Sat Dec 29 2012 10:12 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: queproblema]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The 1930s had a greater passage free though so can't quite work that out, and it showed 1C higher in the 1500s. I do wonder how much interpretation is subjective if not trained (on both sides, including me, I am not a scientist), but the point stands that even 4000 years ago man was spread worldwide, it was around 3C higher, there was very little Arctic ice, and people continued their lives as always. So regardless of the historic details which are patchy at best, the one thing history does tell us is mankind didn't appear to suffer any bad effects 3C above today's average temperature. I'd say that was pretty good news.

The Arctic ice issue is tremendously complex- the biggest clue being that it's completely different from the Antarctic as nearly all sea ice. Half of the melts are not due to temperature but weather conditions, mainly wind. The storms break up the ice and warm water rises to the top causing melting of the remainder. This detailed analysis covers the 20th century onwards and shows the measurements were so patchy before satellites you can only use local direct reports reliably as there was no universal direct figure, and extrapolate from them.

Arctic ice reports

"Arctic Ice Changes in past 3 years due to 'shifting winds' - 2009 - Oceanographer and Arctic researcher Jane Eert said “dramatic [Arctic ice] changes in the past three years are the result of shifting winds.” “Enormous amounts of ice have 'been exported from the Arctic,' driven by winds that are shifting,”

A series of similar studies follows all saying it was mainly from the wind, not the temperature, which is entirely logical following the lack of any increase in temperature.


Edited by satguru (Sat Dec 29 2012 01:18 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#958062 - Sat Dec 29 2012 01:55 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
queproblema Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Sep 25 2006
Posts: 868
Loc: Kenny Lake Alaska USA     
I am also an amateur.

Your life would be vastly different if the temperature rises another 2 degrees; you would have to relocate, and that would be far more complicated than picking up your spear, rolling up your tent and finding a happier hunting ground.

The average temperatures during the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago were only 5 degrees C. cooler than now, according to a textbook I'm studying. (See Q #12 on this quiz.)

All the major coastal cities would flood. We would have a building boom farther inland if we were able to build new port cities to receive raw materials.

See this article by the BBC.

Also, the graphs in this one, which demonstrates a common fallacy of skeptics: looking at too short a record. Ironically, the top photo does exactly the same thing, showing glacial retreat since 1992 without acknowledging the Athabasca Glacier has been in retreat for 125 years.

Here's the best available Arctic temperature data, and the best Arctic sea ice data.

How much human actions influence all this is very much open to debate, but the facts of higher temperatures and less sea ice are clear.

Top
#958066 - Sat Dec 29 2012 02:20 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: queproblema]
queproblema Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Sep 25 2006
Posts: 868
Loc: Kenny Lake Alaska USA     
Hi, Satguru,

Hoping not to sound (or be!) pedantic, I'm going to make a recommendation. You seem to be sincerely interested in this subject, but mostly quote from skeptic sites. I suggest studying the most neutral sources possible. My rule of thumb is that if the person's career depends on proving or disproving AWG, he will not be as reliable as someone who is just after the facts. While I recognize the ideal of dispassionate research is never fully achieved since all researchers are human, those who are attempting to prove a point rather than investigate the facts have a huge bias.

In a brief correspondence with Michael E. Mann (a few short emails) it was obvious he is willing to exaggerate some claims. But Anthony Watts is hardly unbiased, either, and he has a position to defend.

I find the "conversion" story of Richard Muller quite convincing. Here it is in the BBC.


Edited by queproblema (Sat Dec 29 2012 03:19 PM)

Top
#958103 - Sat Dec 29 2012 06:36 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: queproblema]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I read the lot actually, and like a jury member have seen the holes in the case for the prosecution. Of course the defendant (you and me here) is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution are not allowed to play the same tricks as the defence as one penalises an innocent person while the other may just get them off either way.

To qualify my point, I was fascinated by the original stories in the 90s, and just thought it was a scientific curiosity with no special significance, but interested enough to follow. A few years later the original numbers I'd seen had shrunk, I thought at that point that normally when a scare story peters out the press move on to something else, but they didn't. Come the internet as well as a few newspapers and other sources I started checking up the claims on the large and small scale and found the same sort of problems you find when interviewing an unreliable witness. Changes in evidence, contradictions, all the things which alert the judge to a possible dismissal (I'm the son of a judge so only too familiar). Using scientific principles, you can't have a case which can't be proved, repeated or observed. The warming Mann is speaking of as well as the entire UN is in 2050-2100. That is not observable. It can never be and no experiment should even be attempted without a conclusion.

I won't list the individual data here (I have a site for that which is now up to the draft material on my summary) and most is on this thread already, but a slightly warmer (as in today) climate is within parameters we always experience, the only weird thing is the high CO2. Take that away and look again. The temperature has risen slightly over around a 30 year period up to around 2000 which is also related to a 60 year cycle where you have a regular 30 years warming and cooling. At least we don't have to wait till we're 90 plus to see this likely cooling phase complete in around 20 years, but it's a third completed already and fits past graphs.

As for the evidence you speak of I have sorted it into three main categories to be simple.

1) Induction- local and short term phenomena like the Arctic melt, glacier melts, hot summers, extreme weather events etc, which alone indicate nothing, as we are told when we dare to mention freezing winters which are quite rightly called weather.

2) Errors and adjustments- I am collecting these religiously, many posted here, and examples such as the 30 billion tons of ice coming off the Himalayan glaciers every year, which turned out to be made up, is only one of many like it but easily the worst. Then the pre and post adjustments. Ramping up recent temperatures or dropping the old ones to make the current look high are the usual, and then going back and 'fixing' ones they'd used for years when they found ways to fill the gaps in the old ones. Where else in science does that happen?

3) Predictions- climate models are the lion's share of the climate studies, most set 20-100 years ahead, meaning people will forget them a month, year or decade ahead and will only occasionally be called to task when one is so widely used the present can be held against it and seen to be wrong. Like the UN predictions made in the 90s for 2010. Anyone with a BSc can make them, and no one with any qualification on earth can get them right, the further ahead outside a linear system the wider the error compared to the range. Where the error margin (it widens like a funnel) becomes wider than the range then they are meant to stop at or before that point, but they keep on.

Shaky foundations form no buildings. Everything else they claim based on this trio of inadequacy collapses as it is raised. The very fact the temperatures haven't risen steadily as all models claimed is a poor start. The sea level can't swing wildly like temperature unless we're leaving an ice age, and that is almost linear again with a reasonably likely range of a few inches this century already, exactly the same as the last one. Unfortunately it's impossible to keep trying to find material to support a theory when everything before it has failed to reach the mark.

The only issue everyone agrees is in question is whether doubling CO2 (we're half way there) will add more than the lab measurement of 1C or something will make it rise more by releasing major amounts of water vapour. Unlike the 2050 onward predictions we have a result already, the temperature rise for a 50% rise is 0.8-0.4C (actual less natural), meaning even if it was all from CO2 which no one is claiming, it couldn't surpass far beyond 1C, and 2C is the UN's figure where the benefits (it lists the same ones as I always did, like increased food production and fewer deaths) may be outweighed by the problems (despite it being 3C higher 4000 years ago, and around 1C in 1500). The UN IPCC had that figure on their graph and it vanished around 2000, which doesn't make it go away, it just either means they don't want it, or they were so wrong for decades of measurements none are reliable enough to use ever again. How can we have confidence in that?
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#958776 - Tue Jan 01 2013 09:50 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6503
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Although this diagram was published over a year ago no one knows about it. A few more will now.

Temperature vs CO2 from 1960, red line (temperature) is followed by the black line (CO2), around 6 months after it changes. The claim from numerous scientists that CO2 rises after temperature, meaning the slight variations warm the sea which gives off more CO2, is both logical and observable, and corroborated by the equally unknown Ibuki satellite which found the least populated areas gave off CO2 and vice versa. All this points to the current rise in CO2 being entirely natural, as if not then it would rise and then the temperature would, and the satellite findings would not have shown nearly all highly populated areas absorbing CO2 overall.

Put these together and I can't see how the rest stands up. Neither are fabricated, adjusted or otherwise unreliable, and why haven't the scientists included these findings into the latest announcements? I have had a sneak preview of the latest IPCC report, and can say the draft does appear to defuse pretty much everything from the previous four, and even if altered for the final work the draft has been saved by many people and will need even more explaining if the original statements differ greatly as they can't both be right.

CO2 follows temperature

I have just found another diagram which shows the Arctic temperature following the geomagnetic field (no, I have no idea what it is), but would explain the recent decline in ice, plus only half of sea ice loss is from temperature while the rest is weather related, mainly wind. It's from the cdiac, the US CO2 monitors so definitely genuine, just found the study here.

Original research here


Edited by satguru (Wed Jan 02 2013 05:11 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
Page 9 of 11 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 >

Moderator:  bloomsby