Antarctic Ice Discussion

[knocker]

I find it rather amusing that people keep banging on about it's happened before as if the authors of the latest paper, which engendered this discussion (for want of a better word) were inferring otherwise instead of the opposite. Classic Bulverism. The latest development in the Larsen C Ice Shelf is significant, apart from the obvious, because now we are in position to make detailed scientific studies of the complex mechanisms behind such events and thus advance our our understanding of the ice shelves and glaciers.

 

Because sceptics are so consumed with denying AGW they pollute every thread with their nonsensical one line soundbites and completely ignore the scientific paper in question. Primary school debating. No wait, that's completely unfair to the kids.

 

To sum up. Any ignoramus can sigh, attempt to look intelligent and then utter the immortal words, "but it's happened before", The trick is to know why and how it happens and to attempt to get a handle on that you need to read the paper.

Edited June 17, 2015 by knocker

[jonboy]

I find it rather amusing that people keep banging on about it's happened before as if the authors of the latest paper, which engendered this discussion (for want of a better word) were inferring otherwise instead of the opposite. Classic Bulverism. The latest development in the Larsen C Ice Shelf is significant, apart from the obvious, because now we are in position to make detailed scientific studies of the complex mechanisms behind such events and thus advance our our understanding of the ice shelves and glaciers.

 

Because sceptics are so consumed with denying AGW they pollute every thread with their nonsensical one line soundbites and completely ignore the scientific paper in question. Primary school debating. No wait, that's completely unfair to the kids.

 

To sum up. Any ignoramus can sigh, attempt to look intelligent and then utter the immortal words, "but it's happened before", The trick is to know why and how it happens and to attempt to get a handle on that you need to read the paper.

 

Well it certainly isn't down to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

[Gray-Wolf]

You do realise what you are denying here JB and just how low brow it has you appear? we're in a near closed system that has seen GHG forcings rise rapidly over the past 40 years and you try and insist that such changes do not have any relationship with the rapid deterioration of the Antarctic ice shelves over the same period?

 

We have seen the oceans gathering more heat than we have ever recorded over the same period whilst Arctic and Peninsula Antarctica shows air temps rise at over 3 times as fast as the rest of the globe.

 

Does none of the above indicate why the ocean is eating away at the base of the Ice shelves around the continent?

[Methuselah]

Well it certainly isn't down to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

So...what is it, then?

[jonboy]

So...what is it, then?

 

Why not for a change you explain how it is?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well it certainly isn't down to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

 

What would you consider viable evidence that CO2 increases are contributing?

[Methuselah]

Why not for a change you explain how it is?

Well, as y'all ought to know by now, I'm reasonably well satisfied with the GHG-based explanation; but, as you seem to be in a position of absolute certainty that my explanation is fundamentally flawed, I thought that, in all fairness, it's time to give you the opportunity to present your 'absolutely certain' alternative...

 

The floor is yours!

[Midlands Ice Age]

What would you consider viable evidence that CO2 increases are contributing?

 

For me..

 

Just a temperature graph after removal of all actual natural factors that shows a logarythmically increasing trend!

Should be very easy to do!

 

MIA

[BornFromTheVoid]

For me..

 

Just a temperature graph after removal of all actual natural factors that shows a logarythmically increasing trend!

Should be very easy to do!

 

MIA

 

Ocean or air? At what level? For where? For how long?

 

Why a "logarythmically" increasing trend?

[Methuselah]

For me..

 

Just a temperature graph after removal of all actual natural factors that shows a logarythmically increasing trend!

Should be very easy to do!

 

MIA

Off you go then...

Edited June 17, 2015 by Ed Stone

[Midlands Ice Age]

Ocean or air? At what level? For where? For how long?

 

Why a "logarythmically" increasing trend?

 

Stop delaying BFTV.

 

You choose.  I do not mind!

 

I assume that no-one  knows too much about the oceans (particularly as the most accurate method of assessing ocean temps it has just been ditched/ adjusted  by the NOAA) , so stick to just ordinary air temps.  

 

According to CO2 theories it  has a log warming effect?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

Stop delaying BFTV.

 

You choose.  I do not mind!

 

I assume that no-one  knows too much about the oceans (particularly as the most accurate method of assessing ocean temps it has just been ditched/ adjusted  by the NOAA) , so stick to just ordinary air temps.  

 

According to CO2 theories it  has a log warming effect?

But I thought that this was where you 'sceptics' show us what's really happening?

[Midlands Ice Age]

From Ed Stone:

Edited June 17, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

And what's that supposed to demonstrate? Where are your drivers; and what are they? If it ain't GHGs what're doing it it must be something else?

 

You cannot disprove one theory without presenting another?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Stop delaying BFTV.

 

You choose.  I do not mind!

 

I assume that no-one  knows too much about the oceans (particularly as the most accurate method of assessing ocean temps it has just been ditched/ adjusted  by the NOAA) , so stick to just ordinary air temps.  

 

According to CO2 theories it  has a log warming effect?

 

Asking relevant questions in order to better understand what you want is delaying...

 

We know plenty about the oceans. Just because a single data set has been updated to improve accuracy, doesn't mean it can simply be discarded, even if the denier websites say so!

I think you're referring to the fact that temperature increases are per doubling of CO2 (the extra 50ppm increase from 50-100ppm has the same effect on temperature as the 250ppm increase from 250-500pm). However, that effect is over much longer periods of time.

 

Still, I'll give your request a shot and await your prompt dismissal 

 

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010  (Full PDF)

 

Abstract:

 

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

 

 

 

From the papers conclusions:

 

This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation. It also emphasizes that LT temperature is affected by these factors much more strongly than surface temperature. Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal. The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades. The close agreement between all five adjusted data sets suggests that it is meaningful to average them in order to produce a composite record of planetary warming. Annual averages of the result are shown in figure 8. This is the true global warming signal.

[Midlands Ice Age]

And what's that supposed to demonstrate? Where are your drivers; and what are they? If it ain't GHGs what're doing it it must be something else?

 

You cannot disprove one theory without presenting another?

 

Who on gods earth told you that? All one has to do dispove a theory is prove it to be invalid! Another 'hot air' comment from you.

 

You climate people do invent strange non-scientific rules!

 

 

As for your drivers  they are the same as for BFTV's' post  below except mine show the total record of all the available data. His shows the just cherry picked adjusted data period from 1980 to 2010. Which you will note also shows as a maximum period of warming on my graph(!), without the need to apply doubtful adjustments to remove the 1998 El Nino in order to be able to show a continued warming effect to the end of the graph (only up to 2010).                Why does he not show the last 5 years?

 

I do not recall seeing 2008 and 2010 being hailed as the warmist years at the time by you guys on here. Perhaps you were all very shy at the time!    But it is strange what history can teach us all!

 

I'll help you though Ed  - My graph shows the rate of temperature change from 1860 to 2014. It shows the cyclical sine wave pattern to the bursts of warming, which no-one can explain currently. Could this be caused by CO2?. I don't think so. .Note it occured previously in 1940 (non CO2 enhanced warming period) and has so far in this cycle  mimicked its previous cycle very closely.

 

My method  is by simply looking at unadjusted data. Look at BFTV's graphs if you want a cherry picked period of adjusted data..   It should cause you to have a few reflections, but I don't hold out much hope,Particularly as  I know adjusted data always gives the correct result (for global warming to be CO2 produced that is) .   

 

MIA

Edited June 17, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

But you haven't, have you MIA...You've produced absolutely nothing, zilch, nada? 

 

So let's see it, my friend...Let us see it!

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

Asking relevant questions in order to better understand what you want is delaying...

 

We know plenty about the oceans. Just because a single data set has been updated to improve accuracy, doesn't mean it can simply be discarded, even if the denier websites say so!

I think you're referring to the fact that temperature increases are per doubling of CO2 (the extra 50ppm increase from 50-100ppm has the same effect on temperature as the 250ppm increase from 250-500pm). However, that effect is over much longer periods of time.

 

Still, I'll give your request a shot and await your prompt dismissal 

 

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010  (Full PDF)

 

Abstract:

 

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

 

 

 

From the papers conclusions:

 

This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation. It also emphasizes that LT temperature is affected by these factors much more strongly than surface temperature. Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal. The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades. The close agreement between all five adjusted data sets suggests that it is meaningful to average them in order to produce a composite record of planetary warming. Annual averages of the result are shown in figure 8. This is the true global warming signal.

 

 

BFTV...

Thanks for taking your time over your response.

You obviously didn't have much confidence in it yourself. 

 

Ok fine, during this period you have made a reasonable attempt. But  no prizes!

I had heard that a new dataset adjustment period was underway (espescially for Paris).

 

Two points -

 

1) Why did it stop in 2010-11? and why didn't you show any previous periods.? I have heard that it is because the trend (and by the way I thought you guys would only accept 30 year trend, not 1 year ones!), did not fit the 1940 - 60 period, and also that since 2010 there is a drop off. Can you prove it incorrect? Are you now going back to showing 1 year graphs for climate change?

 

2) My graph shows 30 year warming trends since the 1860 period  and is not using adjusted anything. It clearly shows cycles which are neither CO2 induced (though they may yet be modified), nor Solar Induced nor volcanic, nor ENSO produced. What can they be! 

 

At the moment these cycles are all being dumped/hidden in the CO2 bucket. What will happen when the bucket starts to overflow, and the aerosol forcing  effects,( I notice you havn't taken those into account), don't fit the nature of the cycles?. 

 

Apparently they (aerosol forcings that is) are now used  to cool the CO2 warming which the models are producing.. 

 

I notice that your chart produces a warming trend of about 0.55C since 1980. Thats about 0.17C per decade, still way behind what is required for us to have a major problem. And this when my graph shows all the background natural signals where helping?  

 

MIA

 

Anyway this is the Antartic thread, though you did challenge us to test you!, so can we get back to the original thread.

 . 

Edited June 17, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV...

Thanks for taking your time over your response.

You obviously didn't have much confidence in it yourself. 

 

Ok fine, during this period you have made a reasonable attempt. But  no prizes!

I had heard that a new dataset adjustment period was underway (espescially for Paris).

 

Two points -

 

1) Why did it stop in 2010-11? and why didn't you show any previous periods.? I have heard that it is because the trend (and by the way I thought you guys would only accept 30 year trend, not 1 year ones!), did not fit the 1940 - 60 period, and also that since 2010 there is a drop off. Can you prove it incorrect? Are you now going back to showing 1 year graphs for climate change?

 

2) My graph shows 30 year warming trends since the 1860 period  and is not using adjusted anything. It clearly shows cycles which are neither CO2 induced (though they may yet be modified), nor Solar Induced nor volcanic, nor ENSO produced. What can they be! 

 

At the moment these cycles are all being dumped/hidden in the CO2 bucket. What will happen when the bucket starts to overflow, and the aerosol forcing  effects,( I notice you havn't taken those into account), don't fit the nature of the cycles?. 

 

Apparently they (aerosol forcings that is) are now used  to cool the CO2 warming which the models are producing.. 

 

I notice that your chart produces a warming trend of about 0.55C since 1980. Thats about 0.17C per decade, still way behind what is required for us to have a major problem. And this when my graph shows all the background natural signals where helping?  

 

MIA

 

Anyway this is the Antartic thread, though you did challenge us to test you!, so can we get back to the original thread.

 . 

 

The paper was published in 2011 I think, they can't use data that doesn't exist yet. You had the chance to specify what time periods and where, but you considered that delaying.

 

You haven't shown any graphs or data, so I don't know what you're referring to.

[Midlands Ice Age]

From Ed Stone:

Off you go then...

 :

 

Edited June 18, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[stewfox]

In need we should be discussing the record ice levels in the Antarctica , the theory re wind seems to be a bit weak ??

 

"""Air circulation patterns were variable for the month. The Southern Annular Mode, a north-south movement of the westerly wind belt that circles Antarctica, was in a near neutral state for the month as a whole"".

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Edited June 18, 2015 by Paul
Removed quote from a removed post

[Paul]

A number of posts have been removed for obvious reasons, can we keep to the topic please. 

[Gray-Wolf]

In need we should be discussing the record ice levels in the Antarctica , the theory re wind seems to be a bit weak ??

 

"""Air circulation patterns were variable for the month. The Southern Annular Mode, a north-south movement of the westerly wind belt that circles Antarctica, was in a near neutral state for the month as a whole"".

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

And there was me thinking it was the the winds flowing off Antarctica that was pushing ice out into the southern ocean and not the circumpolar winds which tend to protect the cold over Antarctica? Well you live and learn..........

[Methuselah]

A number of posts have been removed for obvious reasons, can we keep to the topic please. 

And, as a result of that (   ) I offer my unconditional apology to Midlands Ice Age. Sorry mate! I have just finished putting my rattles back into my pram...

[Tasboy]

In need we should be discussing the record ice levels in the Antarctica , the theory re wind seems to be a bit weak ??

 

"""Air circulation patterns were variable for the month. The Southern Annular Mode, a north-south movement of the westerly wind belt that circles Antarctica, was in a near neutral state for the month as a whole"".

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

While SAM was close to neutral during May 2015 it has been continually positive since October 2014, and set a new positive record during those months (Feb 2015).

 

Today's sea-ice extent is just a snapshot of sea ice that has retreated and advanced over the previous few months. So it's not very accurate to say that "because the winds are low today then the sea ice should be close to average or below average".

 

Your mistake is fairly typical of someone who wants to make a quick judgement against science.

 

Besides, winds are just one variable (although an important one) that influences sea-ice variability and distribution.