Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
True, snow cover doesn't equal Winter length. But there is a correlation. About the same as late Spring snow cover.
Really? Snow cover in the middle of the winter has the same correlation with winter length as spring snow cover?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Yes, he has been more correct with that prediction if he actually said that but it really is more complicated than just comparing trends. He made the claim at a time that seems to have a higher than expected temperature.
Do you understand that the graph he shows is fake and is incorrect and that he is incorrect when he claims that he made a correct prediction of a cooling phase?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 08:28am PT
|
Do you have more definitive proof of shorter Winters.
I suppose that depends on where you look. Climate scientists predict harsher winters in some areas, harsher drought in others.
Just eyeballing the Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies of October, November and December, it seems there's been an increase in early snowfall. But this issue is secondary to overall global temps.
You're not looking in the western Norther Hemisphere, are you. In California, I used to prepare for winter snow before Thanksgiving, we usually had snow in late October, early Nov. The past few years, it's been bone dry at Christmas. No cross-country skiing for us! The drought in the western states is severe. You don't get that from "an increase in early snowfall," now do you?
So Sketch, where did you get the data that allows you to make the "increase in early snowfall" claim? From here, it looks like cherry-picked data.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
As most here recognize, the blog WUWT supplies many of the talking points that Sketch, Rick and other denialists rush to repeat, thinking they've got another zinger. They never do, but if all you read is political bloggers, then that's the "science" world you see.
For a more science-literate alternative it's worth checking out the shadow blog by Sou, called Hot Whopper. No one can keep up with the WUWT rate of posting but Sou does quite a job of skeptically noting (and archiving) WUWT gems. Also writes in a quite snarky style, which the material richly deserves. Sou includes many astonishing quotes from WUWT reader comments as well, so that culture looks more familiar when Sketch, Rick etc. bring it here.
For example, here is Sou's note on Anthony's recent temperature follies.
Lost for words
Today Anthony Watts is lost for words. So lost that when he found out that NCDC/NOAA had responded to a query from Politifact, he just posted the response "without comment" ( archived here). The response from NCDC was, unsurprisingly, that their algorithms are working as intended. You can read it in full in the archived WUWT article. It is just as Nick Stokes and others wrote.
Anthony peevishly wrote "The NCDC has not responded to me personally, I only got this by asking around." Yeah, you'd think that after Anthony's lunatic rantings at all and sundry and misrepresenting the NCDC they'd at least have paid him the courtesy of writing to him, the "bigger than Ben Hur" denier blogger, "personally"!
He stomped about for at least three hours trying to figure out how to get back at the NCDC/NOAA for ignoring him and his anti-science blog. "How could they do that?" He fumed. "I just put in a huge amount of effort telling my readers how bad and unscrupulous and wrong and positively evil the NOAA is and they ignore me."
The fact that it was Anthony who was so dreadfully wrong in almost everything he wrote about the US temperature record would have been beside the point. He wanted to stir up a hornets' nest, but the hornets flew off over his head. He wasn't worth even a little sting.
Anyway, check out Hot Whopper. Well worth reading as an antidote to the WUWT claims so often shopped here.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 08:31am PT
|
Sketch, why do you believe non-scientific blogs over true scientific findings?
BTW, that [Time for a little light humor.] was a funny vid ...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 09:04am PT
|
Oh joy. More personal attacks.
Really? Me thinks you are paranoid.
Thanks for the link to the NOAA article, put me in my place.
How can it be that snowfall in the NH is going up, but the entire western US is in severe three-year drought? Could it be that warmer air holds more moisture, which results in bigger storms? Notice too, from the same article, that NH sea ice is going down.
I'm thinking this is in alignment with what climate scientists have predicted.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Meanwhile, what about Arctic sea ice? You're probably all wondering.
Well, maybe you're not wondering. But for many Arctic scientists and a growing pool of citizen-scientists it is ice-watching time again. I've been involved with a meta-analysis of serious and less-serious attempts to predict the annual minimum sea ice extent over the past six years. With a new summer upon us, researchers are at it again, trying to guess where this one will go. Summer 2012 smashed previous records for minimum ice extent in the satellite era; summer 2013 stayed above that although still well below average.
Here's how it stacks up in today's NSIDC near-real-time data, which runs through yesterday. At 9.4 million km^2 the ice extent is in the bottom 4 for this date, about 200,000 higher than 2013 but 400,000 lower than 2013. Place your bets now if you want to -- as some people are doing.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Have any ideas of your own, sketch, or just another copy-paste talking point? What is happening with Antarctic sea ice right now? Is anybody studying it? What have they learned?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Sketch, can you answer this?
Do you understand that the graph he shows is fake and is incorrect and that he is incorrect when he claims that he made a correct prediction of a cooling phase?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Wow. That's an impressive rationalization.
Or maybe an understanding of the trends in that time interval.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
So, it was just another talking point. Why should anyone answer your "questions"?
Meanwhile another interesting Arctic ice development this week:
Whaling logbooks could hold key to retreating Arctic ice fronts
ICE fronts from the early 19th century were far more advanced around the Arctic than they are today, researchers analysing whalers’ log books from this time have discovered.
The findings have been revealed as part of the ARCdoc research project, led by the University of Sunderland, which analyses historical logbooks recorded by explorers, whalers and merchants during epic expeditions, between 1750 and 1850. The project aims to increase our scientific understanding of climate change in this environmentally important region. The logbooks include famous voyages such as Parry’s polar expedition in HMS Hecla and Sir John Franklin’s lost journey to navigate the Northwest Passage.
Some of the most significant data to emerge from the project has come from painstaking analysis of 60 log books belonging to whaling vessels, which contain descriptions of sea ice advancing and retreating every summer, all of which were recorded by whalers who ventured farther north than anyone else.
Phd Student Matthew Ayre has mapped what the ice was doing during that 100 year period, around the Davis Straits area, and at a time pre-dating the emergence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A comparison with satellite data from the last 30 years of this area shows the ice was far more advanced than it is today.
Dr Dennis Wheeler said: “Significantly this is the first time we have ever had direct observational information on the ice fronts in the North Atlantic and Davis Straits area before 1900. Until the introduction of satellite information from the 1970s, we didn’t know what the ice was doing. Well, now we know that it was more advanced, therefore the retreat of the ice in the last 30 years is part of a more recent and new pattern of climate change, so these log books contain absolutely vital climatologically information.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
The planet is losing sea ice extent.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Why is One Pole Colder Than the Other?
Antarctica (the South Pole) is land surrounded by oceans, while the Arctic (surrounding the North Pole) is an ocean almost completely surrounded by continents and Greenland.
The Arctic isn't quite as cold as Antarctica, and here are some reasons why:
A massive ice sheet covers almost all of the Antarctic continent. Although glaciers are common in the Arctic, Greenland has the only permanent ice sheet, but it's only about 1/8 the size of the Antarctic ice sheet.
As the Arctic Ocean surrounds the North Pole, the ice cover is sea ice that floats on the ocean (only about 10-20 feet / 3-6 meters thick), instead of that massive ice sheet (more than 2 miles / 3 kilometers thick in places).
The Arctic's thin ice cover has water, not land, under it. While the water is anything but warm (it's temperature is, naturally, above the freezing point - or else it would be ice), it is much, much warmer than the air above the ice - and some of this heat makes its way through the ice to the air.
The ice cap over the Arctic Ocean is always moving because of the winds above it and the ocean currents beneath it. This movement causes large cracks (called "leads") to open up - even in winter - and this allows ocean heat to escape into the air.
Land loses heat faster than water.
Antarctic has stronger winds than the Arctic.http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-poles.htm
Therefore: there is NO relevance to a theory that the Antarctic is either an indication or a predictive tool to negate overall global warming
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Yep, too bad for some future generations.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Thanks for your non-concern, Sketch.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Ahh yes TGT, you're onto the fact that global cooling is already underway. Soon feedbacks such as albedo change from increased cloudtop reflectivity and huge up ticks in global sea ice will quicken the pace of cooling as we slide into uncharted territory of reduced TSI in the prolonged mimima of solar cycle 24/25.
Where is The Chief? Well the undisputed master is testing the waters in the high country and riding his Ducati at light speed on highways and byways of the east side. Enjoying life to the fullest and with not a care in the world for the hopeless loons here he convincingly trounced.
As for my ingestion of substances, I'm only hooked on coffee and all the sawdust I can snort on my construction venture, pushing 60 and solo. Besides wanting to make up the 15k I'm overbudget on the well and excavation, I'm enjoying the process.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
How to lie with statistics, trick #92:
Well, like most of the tricks it is not actually "lying," just another way to fool the innumerate. You can lie with statistics just like you can lie with words (2 + 2 = 9) but that's not what is usually meant by this phrase.
So here's our trick #92, to fool the innumerate: cherry picking. That usually means: Picking out a subset of the available data because it gives the result that you want.
For example, RSS just updated their satellite-based lower-troposphere temperature series, through June 2014. Here's the full dataset, Jan 1979 to June 2014, showing its statistically significant upward trend of about 0.12 degrees C/decade, in the same ballpark as other global indexes (though Roy Spencer says that RSS has developed a cool bias).
But what if, for political reasons, we don't like that upward trend? We could fool the innumerate, perhaps even ourselves, by cherry picking a subset of the RSS record. For example, here is "this decade": 1/2010 through 6/2014 -- now we can show folks a statistically significant cooling trend!
If readers are numerate this won't fool them at all, for example it won't impress most scientists. Scientists tend to be skeptical, and think or even check things out for themselves. Some nonscientists share these traits.
But for the innumerate, trick #92 could work either way. Suppose we don't like the downward trend in the graph above, if we were equally dishonest we could counter that with an opposite cherry pick. Here is 1/2011 through 6/2014, presto! A statistically significant warming trend, again.
Not how it works in science, but pseudoscientists can go on cherry picking like this forever.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|