Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 02:43pm PT
|
The Chief, you mean regional data like this:
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
|
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I expected that one. Where you can read
"These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. "
"But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models. "
""In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." "
" Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." "
What where you suppose to show? Your link obviously say that the sea ice extent has decreased faster than the standard models and that their estimate for an ice free arctic is many years from now. That one group of scientist made another prediction (without given any confidence interval in the article) that didn't turn out correctly is not really that important.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
|
Boy, show these blokes some facts and they start calling you names.
Just like little boys and girls do. I suppose that for a child, name calling would seem like the best way to go.
A little boy, throwing his big finger. So fitting for The Chief.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years.
Seems reasonable to me but you do of course only care about the lowest estimate.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
So you disagree with the newspapers that wants to earn many with catchy headlines but agree with the objective science?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
in 1 year, the sea ice recovery made up for 4 previous years levels. That is a 4:1 recovery ratio. IF that continues it will do so exponentially .
And the sea ice also recovered in 2008 and 2009 from the record law in 2007. It then decreased to a new record low in 2012.
So why should the recovery this year result in anything different than the recovery in 2008 and 2009?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
You guys both still use weather in your arguments rather than climate.
Blaming Hurricane Sandy, or the EF-5 tornado that I snuggled up against in Moore, OK are weather events. It is not possible to correlate these events to climate. Climate can be local or global. We often hear about our local climate on the Weather Channel, but this isn't significant in climate study unless it can be tied in directly, which it can't.
I believe that Rick S. actually posted about Gingko Stomata Density here a week or two ago. That is one way that we piece together paleoclimate in geology. Petroleum is found in sedimentary rocks, and sedimentary rocks are deposited by weather. A lot is known about paleoclimate, because these rocks are very important in economic terms.
There is exaggeration and cherry picking by lay media and lay people on both sides of this issue.
The two sides are:
1) AGW exists
and
2) The wrong side.
It is a matter of how bad. This has always been tough for climate modelers. Yes, things will change, but how much and how fast is hard to answer. The Chief will be dead by the time we have an ice free summer in the arctic, but we will surely see one in the next 100 years. The oil companies are falling over each other to start work in areas with longer ice free drilling seasons.
This is not an extinction event for humans, but it has the potential to totally change the distribution of things like farmable land and population centers.
The oceans are what drive climate, and we know that sea level is rising. It doesn't sound like much, but it fits the projections. I've said before that it would take a hundred years in a microwave to melt Greenland and Antarctica. What many here do is confuse the human time scale with the geologic time scale.
We already have dammed the Colorado River so that people can live in Phoenix. We pay farmers in the east not to grow corn, and then corn is grown with groundwater irrigation far west of its natural range. Areas like this may see more stress..or not.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
The story was titled Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
It's about selling fear.
The extreme prediction was noted by Gore, during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
1. You're wrong. No one mentioned in the BBC article, nor Gore in his speech, predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013.
The BBC article uses words like "forecast" and "projection" and "modelling studies"
"Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years."
2. So what if the year--the model--is wrong. Models are approximations. They are always "wrong". The question is, WRONG BY HOW MUCH?
The trend is clear. The forecast is for less and thinner ice in the arctic.
It's unfortunate that "projection" and "prediction" sound so alike yet mean entirely different things.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
|
My issue with this is the AGW faithful are zealous in their beliefs. They overstate a negative future. And they attack anyone who voices doubt.
my issue with the deniers is that they are zealous in their beliefs, even when shown scientific proof that they are wrong.
When they are shown facts, as determined by scientific observation, they claim, "We're going to give blind faith to science?" That, when they will gladly get an x-ray, use a computer, take a pill, use a car, eat GMOs, etc, etc.
Nothing worse, in my opinion, than those who spew fiction and strongly claim it as fact, even when shown they are wrong.
True balls, The Chief, is being able to admit when you are wrong. You have a long way to go, the little one with the big finger.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
|
chart,,(sigh)...bet its been posted fiddy times here so far..
And even with that many postings, you still try to claim that the arctic ice is growing.
Why is that??
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Permafrost is sometimes many hundreds of feet thick in arctic regions. Thawing that out is also something that won't happen overnight.
The big effects that we are seeing now mainly have to do with longer ice free seasons in arctic areas. This leads to more erosion from storms.
One of the kind of far out ideas is the loss of methane hydrates. There is a massive volume of methane hydrates in the arctic, and if those suckers start burping our methane, which is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, then it could get interesting. There are vast areas of seafloor that are covered with methane hydrates as well. The Japanese are looking at mining them, but I've never seen an economic method of recovering methane from them.
Methane has a fairly short lifespan in the atmosphere. Right now most of it probably comes from oil and gas operations. I need to read up on it, but too busy.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Had George Bush stated that percentile in his argument regarding WMD's to go to war with Iraq, you would of course assuredly been comfortable with that. Right?
If he had managed to prove that there was a 95% chance that Iraq had dangerous wmds I would of course had been for the invention.
The problem in this case where that it where 95% certain that there where no dangerous wmds in iraq.
We should of course act based on certainties when we don't have full knowledge.
Should you really risk your life if your doctor would say that he know by 95% certainty that you would die soon if you don't have a transplante? (ref. old discussion).
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Ron, you go on about the increase in arctic ice this year. What you don't mention is that it comes on the heals of the greatest one year loss in recorded history. Sure, it bounces back to "normal." What you need to concern yourself with is the overall trend, which is distinctly down according to all data sources. That one is simple math, and involves no interpretation.
TC, the Petroleum Industry doesn't do my thinking for me. It is true that a lot of anti global warming research has taken place using the dollars of Exxon. I find that repugnant. The truth is what it is. You can spin things however you like, but in the end, the truth will shake out.
Did you go to the doc and ask for some Seroquel?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Yep. Scientists use those kinds of words, Ron.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
The Chief, remember that scientist don't know or understand anything at all. How can you show figures of their propaganda?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
It is actually impossibly to say when there are no scale on the y-axis.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Did you make up that by yourself or completely misrepresented something you have read?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!