Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Don’t you just love straight line thinking?
They have a graph that clearly goes up and down with time and then take the latest and extrapolate to a crisis. What ever happened to looking for patterns? Maybe there’s a cycle that could be operating? Eh? Crickets . . . .
O also like that way the data ends in 2004 and we have data up to 2011. How long did it take for them to cobble this up? Oh, I see. They do not use the observations of the real world, but use models which we all know tell us more about the real world than the real world, in a Disneyland sort of way. So, their projection of ice thinning is not altered by the fact that, since 2007, multiyear ice has been steadily increasing. Oh, those inconvenient realities!
“Don’t you just love straight line thinking?
They have a graph that clearly goes up and down with time and then take the latest and extrapolate to a crisis. What ever happened to looking for patterns? Maybe there’s a cycle that could be operating? Eh? Crickets . . . .”
Don’t you just love short term pseudo trends based on arbitrarily chosen dates?
I keep seeing graphs that clearly go up in a staircase fashion but are extrapolated to hide the incline. Whatever happened to looking for patterns? Maybe there’s a pattern in temperature increase that is operating? Cri-cri, cri-cri, cri-cri
You have to laugh….
When the GCM’s do not forecast sea level, it’s because the sea floor is sinking and the land is rising….
When GCM’s do not forecast the temperature, it’s because of the sun, or hiding heat…
When GCM’s do not forecast the snow, it’s warmcold wetdry….
But they are exactly right about forecasting ice…………
So do we laugh now or 3 years time?
Now of course……….
No matter what anything does in the future…
…some moron is going to claim they predicted it anyway
lol, I guess both would most appropriate.
Go and read the link rather than some smart ass remark
Andy, didn’t you know tha smart assh*lism is what passes as “real science” here?
Yeah, so their GCMs didn’t predict at all. So they’ve predicted that since they can’t predict anything we’re going to have “ice-free fall by 2016 (±3yrs uncertainty[sic])”.
So, let’s break it all down into simple, numbered points (since that’s what a certain illiterate seems to prefer):
1. The models failed to predict anything important.
2. Therefor a nice, linear trend-line is entirely appropriate.
Is that about right?
lol, So I guess I’ll be laughing at you two again in a couple years too.
I note the graph above was produced in 2007, and the report was published in March 2010. I’m wondering why they didn’t have a more up to date graph?
Arctic sea ice….this topic just continues to P*ss me off….so what…
every year…the ice melts…the fall…it starts again…
Ladies and Gentleman…get over it…nothing new…
I don’t care if the ice goes away one summer…its not the first time…and its not Catastropic…it has happened before… it will happen again…
and one year, the northern hemisphere will be under a mile of ice with or without our SUV’s
i really do shake my head sometimes at the BS that this is UNPRESCEDANTED….
i do know though, that it was very windy tonight, and i decided to not go for a bike ride as i just didn’t feel like riding into a gale wind….Ya, it would be a nice tall wind on the way back,…..but i just didn’t want to do it tonight…now that is real!!!
“I don’t care if the ice goes away one summer…its not the first time…and its not Catastropic…it has happened before… it will happen again…
It is, pseudo scientific anecdotes notwithstanding, the first time it’s happened in a million years. That includes the Holocene Thermal Maximum where there was a partial ice cap.
Yes it will be ruinous for those who have the sense to study some paleontology. When the Earth is warmer by several degrees than our present time , most of the land area covered by the United States becomes arid.
Of course, you probably don’t mind eating cactus.
the first time it’s happened in a million years. That includes the Holocene Thermal Maximum where there was a partial ice cap.
Ah, yes “a million years”. Please provide one piece of million year old ice from the Arctic ice cap.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Ice free Arctic ocean during the Holocene
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
Ill wind blowing
Ice free arctic ocean
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Ill wind blowing
Here is another
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227
Ill wind blowing
Here is Tundra where there used to be trees. All within the Holocene. 😉 Do you now wish to retract your statement?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(71)90069-X
They start at 1979. How convenient. How disingenuous.
That’s the first year of accurate ice thickness measurement. How disingenuous of you.
Whoops, wrong. There has never been a year with accurate ice thickness measurement. It’s all modeled.
Ill wind blowing
It’s good you talk a lot so people can see you don’t know what you’re doing. If you said just a little I’d have to point out your blaring ill preparedness. But you do a good job of showing your emptiness.
Thank you.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
July 1, 2011 at 7:05 am
“…There has never been a year with accurate ice thickness measurement. It’s all modeled.”
So we’re supposed to believe that the ice extent has dropped dramatically but the ice thickness has not?
Face it, the main reason for the ice cap shrinking is that it’s being melted from below by warming waters.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Ill Wind
Please remember that Arctic sea ice extent has be on a downward trend since 1860.
Nasa says “…aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades.”
Ill Wind, you should have also thought about the wind
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011.html
Once again a misleading headline .. I see some of the sheep on this blog just don’t even bother reading the link .. shameful …
Andy
He actually projected it for 2013, which is only two years from now. I cut him some slack.
Maslowski thought that even 2013 was being too conservative.
No Steve. This is what Maslowski really said in the PDF you linked to; on page 12:
“Combined (95-07) model / data linear volume trend of -1075 km3/yrprojects ice-free fall by 2016 (±3yrs uncertainty -95-07)”
You could hold your breath until 2019
No, that’s only one of the four trend-lines. And not one of them is even close to having predicted 2009, 2010, or 2011 so far, so cherry picking the one that gives you the longest time to deny the obvious is a bit disingenuous.
The issue is that the title of this thread says one thing and Maslowski says another.
The title says 2016. Maslowski says 2016 +/- 3.
Do you have difficulty reading graphs?
“The title says 2016”
What title says 2016?
Maslowski’s 2004 prediction was for ice-free fall by 2011, if you’d care to actually read.
Also, if it’s 2016±3 then he starts being wrong in 2013. Well, unless you’re a climate scientist, obviously.
This article consists of a logo and a graph. Do you have trouble reading graphs?
Right, he backed off a few years from his original prediction. You are playing catch up, I understand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Your not telling me anything I don’t know Steve. That is why I don’t take Maslowski seriously.
The issue is that you misrepresented him by claiming in your title that his prediction was for 2016. You know well that it was a range not a specific year. That is not ethical.
Do you have trouble reading graphs?
I think he has trouble in several areas.
Global sea ice extent shows no such dive (and it’s only ice thickness computer models that show this):
http://k.min.us/ibtZec.jpg
What’s happening in the Antarctic is of no relevance to what’s happening in the Arctic. The sea ice down there is increasing due to the mechanical action of increased winds.
So fantasize the “Death Spiral” away.
According to the majority of Climatologists, the Arctic ice cap will be ice free in the summer; for a few days at first, then weeks and months in following years. They predict this will happen by
I personally believe this may happen between 2018 and 2022. That is far more than Steve’s former prediction that by 2020 the Arctic ice cap would either grow, shrink or stay the same. In other words, skeptics make no prediction at all.
Face it folks, it doesn’t even matter whether anyone gets the exact year right because the important thing is THAT THE DAMN ARCTIC ICE CAP IS IRREVERSIBLY SHRINKING!
Actually, you’ll be wrong every year from 2012 until the day you stop predicting an ice-free Arctic.
But here’s my prediction: Ill Wind Bowling will be predicting an ice-free Arctic within 7 to 11 years every single year for the next three decades.
lol, It will happen! Damn it, it will eventually! Or not, Maybe, or maybe not!
Stark Dickfloss:
“But here’s my prediction: Ill Wind Bowling will be predicting an ice-free Arctic within 7 to 11 years every single year for the next three decades.”
My prediction for you is quite stark Dick. In a few years you will be changing your mind over to “natural” global warming and then claim that you knew the Arctic was going to be ice free all along.
Me says:
July 1, 2011 at 7:11 am
“lol, It will happen! Damn it, it will eventually! Or not, Maybe, or maybe not!”
Steve said something like that just a few days ago. He said predicted that the Arctic ice cap would eith grow, shrink or stay the same.
Four legs good. Two legs better.
lol, Did he, the only thing is, I was mocking you not making a prediction, and I guess (now it’s just a guess) that Steve was doing the same. I see how you may confuse that, or not, maybe, or maybe not!
Do you have trouble reading graphs?”
I’m reading his ice volume graph on page 12 of the PDF. Is there a problem with that chart?
Ill wind
are you Villabolo/Mecago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfY12YCDh4
lol, Ill wind tooting on the daily show.
The graph starts at 1979, three years into the Great Pacific Climate Shift. A natural cycle of warming began in 1976. It would follow that Arctic ice would be in a decreasing trend. For a few decades before it Arctic ice had been in an increasing trend. Starting in 2007 Arctic ice went back to an increasing trend. That increasing trend could last for decades.
To pick out the time period of 1979 to 2005 to try to prove global warming is cherry picking and disingenuous.
Being disingenuous is what they do best.
IWB, you’ve made so many fallacious statements in this thread I’d hardly know where to start.
Cactus makes fine eating. Shredded properly, it tastes like green beans. Just because once it happened doesn’t mean it usually happens nor does it mean it will happen again.
Basic climatology will tell you we can expect more precipitation, not less in a more hydrolyzed world. Unless you believe that clouds will suddenly have an aversion to this area we call the U.S. its silly to make such suppositions. There were times in a much warmer world when this area was much more moist. Paleo that.
And, still, consistent with what I’ve always stated, who cares? So what if the arctic melts? Will shorter shipping routes be disastrous? No, it will benefit mankind. More habitat for food sources is another positive development if the arctic melts. Good lord we wouldn’t want that!!!
A million years…..ahahahahahhahhahhahhaahhahahahaa
They were successfully farming grain in Greenland during the MWP. You’re going to try and pretend the arctic hadn’t completely melted then? Yeh, I’d go with the unsupportable posit that its been a million years.
The latest science says its not irreversible. In fact, it’ll bounce right back if it ever gets to the ice free state. Just like it did 50 years ago. Just like it did 1000 years ago. Just like it did 10,000 years ago. Just like it will again. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045698.shtml
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
A: Because we’ve never had an ice-free Summer.
Q: What evidence do you have for there never having been an ice-free Summer?
A: Because there is ice up there now, we already know it to be irreversible.
Q: How do you know it’s irreversible?
If melting ice has anything to do with temperature it must be the winter temperature. Summer temperatures are NOT rising the last years. The summer of 2010 was below average.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg62618/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg62618.pdf
pag 43
“summer ice depends mostly on how much is blown out of the artic basin – something that used to be textbook information”
Richard Lindzen
Written testimony : House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing
november 17, 2010
read it all
Ill wind:
from the learned professor:
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
Seems pretty clear to me. He is actually saying that 2013 is too conservative. But he is saying 2013.
It’s always fun to read the musings of AGW flunkies. Cooling is warming; black is white and up is down.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/2011/06/28/initial-analysis-on-arctic-data/
“Data from Catlin Arctic Survey 2011, collected during an eight-week expedition from March to May, indicates the temperature of Arctic seawater below 200 metres depth has decreased by a ‘surprising’ one degree Celsius in comparison with previous observations.”
Then to reinforce the “cooling is warming” meme, the inevitable conclusion:
“This may conversely be accelerating the Arctic sea ice melt, which could have a knock-on effect for the currents that circulate heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans.”
Hmm. It seems I recall we were told more open waters would accelerate ocean warming by allowing more solar radiation to heat the oceans.
Perhaps Ill wind blowing can enlighten me on the physics in all of this. According to NODC, OHC is plummeting in the Arctic. So it is in the North Atlantic as well. How does this support the speculation that Arctic ice melt accelerates by melting from under the ice when 0-700m OHC is losing heat instead of gaining? Shouldn’t have 2007 (which was caused by wind/ocean currents), the beginning of the “death spiral”, continued and surely would have manifest itself by now?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_0-360E_65-90N_n.png
Sure looks like negative feedback in realtime to me. Whatever it is, there is ZERO evidence that Arctic ice melt is accelerating.
Don’t confuse Ill Wind with facts. He has difficulty with them.
Your statement about ocean heat “plummeting” is an example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Using your chart you find a statistical average from 1980 onward that shows a general rise upwards with two temporary downward dips; the 1990s and a much milder dip in the late 2000s.
The plummeting is an artefact of your focusing on one downward dip (always the present one, of course) and then ignoring that it is the eighth of a series of downward dips of equal or greater severity. Don’t you think that true pattern recognition that allows you to see that the eighth of something in such a short period portends nothing of any significance?
The god of cherry picking forbid we should draw a trend line from 1980 to show the big picture. Few years of data good; 30 years of data baaaahhhhd!
Also, the first article you linked to, obviously in derision, illustrates the complexities involved in ocean heat exchange due to currents, upwelling, etc.
As for the skeptic cliché that 2007 was caused by winds the real answer is this.
1. Several decades of thinning and shrinkage due to GW weakened the ice cap to the point where…
2. Higher than average sunlight and higher than average winds gave us a super-shrink year. Because higher than average situations automatically return, there was bound to be a rebound …
3. … but only in thin pathetic first year ice. Multi-year ice continued its drastic decline even from 2007-2008 in spite of a La Nina that lasted two years.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png
So there is a continued attrition of multi-year ice and it sure is not thinning because of higher winds in 2007-2009 (see the image linked above.
Conclusion; the Arctic ice cap has AIDS and the slightest thing that used to be harmless will now sicken it. Oh yes! It gained some fat in 2007 but its muscle tissue kept wasting. 🙂
Ill, you don’t have to prove that some liberals are the lowest form of slimy self righteous scum on this planet……..
…that last line was unnecessary
If the sea-ice melts, it’s global warming. If the sea-ice grows it’s not multi-year and so it’s still global warming. If the sea-ice grows for 3 or 4 consecutive years it’s not multi-year enough, and you know what!
Ill wind blowing,
Apparently you don’t know the difference between heat and temperature. It is in fact very significant that OHC has been falling in the Arctic and NA, which is precisely why the Catlin group speculated as they did because it doesn’t follow the AGW storyline, but did so only with respect to the Arctic. The NA feeds the Arctic.
Ask yourself a simple question:
1) Where did the heat go that has been escaping from the upper 700m of ocean?
The drop in OHC in those regions is quite large. It may reverse of course, but for one to claim it is supportive of the “death spiral” meme we’ve been hearing about for the last four years, they must reach deep into the AGW Magic Bag.
If there was “accelerated warming” in the Arctic, it would be showing up in the ocean data. It isn’t. May I suggest that the AMO is at or near peaking and one of the signs of it reversing from it’s warm phase to the cold phase is a large cooling in the sub-tropical NA OHC upper 300m that began last April, has propagated northward since then, and the upper 700m data clearly shows the NA as a whole is cooling, and by a lot.
That you went through all the contortions without one substantive statement speaks volumes. It really is puzzling how Warmology patrons think of the climate system as being static.
That should be last April 2010.
It’s unfortunate that many of you have not had the chance to see Dr. Maslowski’s presentations or read his papers. I would imagine though that some presentations are online from some meetings (he just presented at the IUGG meeting in Melbourne on oceanic heat transport in the Pacific sector and the importance of running sea ice/ocean models at high spatial resolution so that eddies and associated heat transport can be resolved). What he shows is that while we know that most of the heat gained by the ocean during summer as the ice cover retreats is released back to the atmosphere as the ocean once again freezes in autumn, some of that heat is being retained by the ocean, and he argues that ithis heat is responsible for the continued retreat of summer ice cover off the Beaufort/Chukchi/E. Siberian shelves.
I would urge any of you who actually want to better understand the science behind sea ice retreat in the Arctic Ocean to read some of the papers published by folks like Dr. Maslowski, or view their talks so that you can have a more informed and productive discussion of his work..
Julienne,
Do you have any idea why he publicly makes projections of an ice free Arctic by 2013, 2016, etc. ? The press picks up on those comments and makes the science look ridiculous.
Hi Steve, my understanding (and of course it would be better coming from Dr. Maslowski himself) is that the ocean storage of heat in the Pacific sector of the Arctic is contributing about 2/3 to the ice loss in that region of the Arctic (based on his modeling work). Part of the problem though is being able to validate the heat storage of the Ocean in that region without having enough validation data. So his projections are based on this heat storage that is not taken into account in GCMs (because they cannot resolve the small-scale processes leading to the heat transport and storage in the region). While I do believe that Dr. Malowski is using a very advanced, high resolution (2km) regional ocean/sea ice model for his analysis, the model is currently being forced with much lower resolution atmospheric reanalysis data and I’m sure that can invoke some biases. He is now working with other regional atmospheric modelers to couple a high-resolution atmospheric model to his ocean/sea ice model. Validation data is key however for any of this type of modeling work, and the sparsity of in situ data remains a problem in regions such as the Arctic.
Sounds like another one living in fantasy land,using a Silicon Crystal Ball (computer modles) to predict reality.
Hi Julienne,
A bit off topic, but what do you think of the idea of having all publicly funded conference presentations being made available online? Obviously there are pros and cons. Biggest pro being wider dissemination of modern research without being behind a paywall. Biggest con might be reduced sponsorship of conferences because attendance might drop since interested scientists wouldn’t need to attend to see results. Also, there would clearly need to be some delay time to help prevent people in competitive areas from being scooped.
I find the idea interesting, but I work in a considerably different type of science than one such as yourself. Any thoughts?
-Scott
Hmm. North Pacific OHC is not rising either. As I understand it, the influence of the North Atlantic is conditional depending on the circulation of the currents through the Fram Strait.
Nonetheless, I was reading the following two recent papers on OHC and its relationship to Arctic ice loss.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/7/335/2011/os-7-335-2011.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tietsche_GRL_2011.pdf
Looking at the latest NODC OHC data, I fail to see where any objective scientist can conclude the Arctic is in a “death spiral” based on OHC, which ultimately appears to be the determinate factor, not SAT (which is also dominated by oceans). Why is it too much for scientists to acknowledge they might not be as sure about the future of the Arctic as they think?
In this world of climate science, it is looking more and more like we really don’t know much about the earth’s climate after all, and no amount of computing power is going to change that until the very basics of what drives it are understood. CO2 is not one of them.
It is also interesting that whenever any particular data conflicts with the paradigm (models), why of course it must be the data that is wrong, not the modelers.
Where is the missing heat?
According to this article, it is the North Atlantic that feeds the majority of oceanic heat to the Arctic. I thought it odd that the North Pacific would be, but there is an apparent conflict then between the article says (and my understanding) and what Julienne said.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-north-atlantic-tied-arctic.html
“The Fram Strait branch of the North Atlantic Current is the major carrier of oceanic heat to the Arctic Ocean.”
The puzzling part is supposedly the North Atlantic is claimed to be the warmest in 2000 years, yet Greenland can’t be shown to be warmer than even 70-80 years ago! Ah, but this is climate science.