Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:17am PT
|
Oh no! Not you Werner, not now.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 08:38am PT
|
You asked about the underlying factors contributing to a single line... factors that were unnecessary for understanding the graph. You asked about one thing and then accused me on not knowing about something different.
Don't be coy Sketch. I asked specifically what was the cause of the increase in the Antarctic sea ice. Nothing about "underlying factors contributing to a single line" or any other such nonsense. My question was direct and straight forward.
There's this thing called cause and effect. The effect is what your graph showed--a year-over-year increase in the amount of sea ice. I asked if you knew the cause of that increase. Without knowing the cause, the fact that the sea ice as increasing a miniscule amount doesn't really have much meaning. It's just a bland fact.
It's like saying "We continue to break heat records." Without knowing why, it's just a bland fact. To make it worthwhile, we find the cause. And that is what this whole thread is about--what we have found to be the cause of the heat records.
You posted a graph, I assume in order to make a point. I asked, if you could make a point about your graph. You couldn't, so in essence you're posting a graph without having any point.
Don't blame me if you post stuff without knowing the meaning of what you're posting.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 08:46am PT
|
Yet the temps have remained steady for the past 15 or so years.
Yes, steadily being the hottest years on record.
The Chief said he does not think that 2014 will be in the top ten hottest years.
I suppose we'll see.
Localized short termed "weather/drought" events DO NOT constitute any viable reason for this claim Werner.
The Chief, you are right; "short termed weather/drought events" don't constitute climate (even though you continue to post up about the weather events). However, over years, the form a trend, and that trend can then be construed as //climate."
But you knew that--it's just that you pretend you don't.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:02am PT
|
I believe The Chief is right. A different manifestation of El Nino has been affecting the Western U.S.seaboard and parts of the north pacific for months now. The oceans are giving up built up energy from the late 20th century ( from increased portions of the solar spectrum that can actually penetrate the seas surface in contrast to IR which only affects the surface layer of ocean and atmosphere) that is giving up heat into a cooling lower troposhere. The moisture is bypassing the coast so far and dropping as abundant rains in the southwest. Anybody notice the drought is over in the southwest and Texas, New Mexico, Arizona are greened up nicely. Certainly not old Forty who never gets past jerking off over his computers keyboard while watching illegal porn and creating voluminous quantities of cartoons.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 09:07am PT
|
It's odd that you seem to think a 610,000 sq km increase over last year's record is minuscule.
It's an increase between 1 & 2%, year-over-year (according to the article). But go ahead, debate my semantics while you ignore the real point.
Standard fair from you.
Question: How much ice have we lost in the Arctic, year over year?
Allow me to help with your answer:
Whether or not 2014 will be a record low sea ice year is uncertain. 2012, which set a record for lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record, saw an incredible, rapid drop in sea ice beginning in the late summer, despite that year being cooler and cloudier than the previous record low year. 49 percent of the ice cap went missing that year, and sea ice extent dropped to an astounding 18 percent below the previous record year of 2007.
This is from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/30/giant-waves-found-in-arctic-ocean-could-be-accelerating-sea-ice-loss/
So, 1-2% vs. 49%; yeah, I called the first one "miniscule."
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:18am PT
|
Tell us what's gone on with global temps over the last 15 years
Most datasets (including UAH) show they have gone up.
Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:33am PT
|
Its amazing how reality can be distorted by the propaganda campaign of the commie socialist movement. The mouth peice known as Kelly ignores the fact that sea ice extent in the arctic has increased 60% since 2012 lows which were caused by unusually intense arctic cyclones in february and august of that year that pushed (not so much melted) the ice into compacted regions. Globally ice extent is up 350, 000 km2 over the satellite era mean. Enjoy the last hurrah as the enso condition of 2014-2015 gives up a final pulse of energy into a lower troposhere that will distinctly cool over the coming decades as the declining solar activity further deepens. 2019-2020 is going to be downright chilly. You commies will be huddling together for warmth and fighting for food scraps because the nanny state will decrease the dole that bought your soul.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:13am PT
|
Wow, TGT, that looks more like where the posters are turned in and cleaned up.
Surely you've got more convincing evidence than that.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 10:33am PT
|
Sketch, I'm comparing the amount of Antarctic sea ice gain, year-to-year (1-2%), with the amount of sea ice loss in the Arctic, year-to-year (47%).
Is that what you meant? If so, why is that dumb?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:43am PT
|
Did I say you said that Chief? I was responding to Sketch's question.
And I see how you ignored this Chief.
Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.
Good for you, Chief.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:58am PT
|
But the entities you refer to indicate a temp rise rate less than 10% of that during the prior 20 or so years for the last 15 or so years.
I think you better work on your math, Chief.
NOAA Trend: 1979-1998 .127C/decade
NOAA Trend: 1998-present .04C/decade
UAH Trend: 1979-1998 .042
UAH Trend: 1998-present .062
And of course, by separating the two periods, you get to ignore the massive amount of warming between sections.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:06am PT
|
Now you are starting to get it Chief.
Notice how the long term trend increases when you include the 'pause'.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:11am PT
|
Where's the long term trend, Chief? Trying to hide it?
Again, notice how the long term trend increases when you include the 'pause'.
Time to go climbing, I'm outta here.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 12:21pm PT
|
Sketch, I'm taking my figures from the article I pointed to and the article you pointed to. Shouldn't be hard to read a little to see the years.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 12:24pm PT
|
The Chief, Why do you look at the last 15 years when you look at this chart.
I think you'll find the trend line from the years 1988 - 1955 to more closely fit yours ideology.
Or how about the 15 years from the early '40s to the mid-fifties?
I mean, if you're going to cherry pick years, why not pick the years that make your biggest case?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
So, 1-2% vs. 49%; yeah, I called the first one "miniscule."
Your words.
Back it up.
Sketch, the first number (1-2%) is from a NASA article. You could easily find it like I did in about 20 seconds. Also, it's from where the graphs in your post are from, I'm surprised you didn't read the article (having posted the graphs and all).
I gave the attribution to the second figure (49%) exactly where I first posted the figure, you even responded to that post. That post is only a couple of hours old, either your memory is very bad or you are just an as#@&%e.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
|
What's the shortest time period to qualify as a relevant trend (regarding climate change)?
Sketch, that's a great question and, surprisingly, you can use Google to try to find the answer to this. For example, type what is climate trend into the search box.
Reading up on this, I found an interesting fact on a NASA page:
It has been 38 years since the recording of a year of cooler than average temperatures.
Now that ought to get you thinking!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!