bluecon
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by bluecon
-
-
Um, no, it isn't - as explained time and again by many others, a ten year period that just happens to start with a huge peak year is proof of nothing YET, though of course it may become so.Inevitably, as a human being, my concerns are on a short human level. If one takes the longer view suggested by some here, nobody would ever bother to get up in the morning: what does anything matter if the only truth worth knowing is that the planet was here before us and will be here after us? Indeed, what does the planet matter since the universe was here before it and will be here after it?
I am trying to figure this out. A ten year period is to short and worthless?
And your concerns are on a short human level?
What are your exact parameters of the years we are allowed to use in this scientific discussion?
-
So, you deny there are other climate forcings, +ve and -ve? That, for instance, La Nina can have a cooling effect that for a time can override AGW (just as El Nino adds to it, or a volcano sufficiently big can cause cooling)?
Actually, look at it this way. The effect of CO2 conc increasing (as it has and is) on it's own IS linear on climate - about +.2C/decade. The point is there are other things going on. Really, I can't seriously believe you think only CO2 effects climate???
Walter Cunningham explains it.
"The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels.Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists: Carbon dioxide is a nonpolluting gas, essential for plant photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere produce bigger harvests."
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewp...-not-Bliss.html
-
I'm amazed you think the response of climate (which we all know isn't linear) should be linear to CO2. Why do you think it should be linear just to CO2?
Or, put it another way. The forcing due to CO2 is about .2C a decade (or, say, 2C this century). But, everyone knows there are other climate forcings. What happens to temperatures for a year if La Nina has a forcing of only .02C?
I am saying the response of the climate should be linear with the physics if the physics is right. That is what the models predicted. Very easy to change the prediction after the fact.
-
CO2 IS a important and effective ghg and messing with the atmospheric concentration of it WILL have consequences - either that or some basic, well understood physics is wrong (it isn't). Now, you may want the powers that be to tell you something other than that truth, I don't. Indeed I'd venture, to use your own words, to suggest that only a passive idiot would?
Still, good to know your for measure to reduce CO2 emissions
If the physics is right why has there been a huge increase in manmade CO2 and no resulting increase in temps for the last ten years? Obviously the physics is wrong.
CO2 is likely a beneficial gas that makes the plants grow.
-
Don't be silly, Bluecon, of course I'm not saying that (assuming I understand what you mean by pre SUV....Sports Utility Vehicle, is that right? We generally call them 4X4s over here, hence my slight confusion). But since these may be the lowest ice levels in mankind's recent history, it is sensible to be concerned about them as a possible bellwether for a change in climate that could prove difficult for our post-industrial population levels to cope with.
Oh, and talk to me again in 10 or 15 years' time about how I've enjoyed the 'cool spell'. If it has happened I will be a very, very happy bunny indeed. My children will have snowy winters, and I will realize that I was wrong to have been so worried for so long about their - and all our - futures.
If the 'cool spell' should come to nothing, what will your reaction be? Just to say, "Well, it doesn't matter anyway because the planet has been here before"?
Inevitably, as a human being, my concerns are on a short human level. If one takes the longer view suggested by some here, nobody would ever bother to get up in the morning: what does anything matter if the only truth worth knowing is that the planet was here before us and will be here after us? Indeed, what does the planet matter since the universe was here before it and will be here after it?
The children! If scientific fact doesn't work use the children! Your childrens future will be far more affected by the economic recession we are entering than any tiny increase in CO2. Pushing some far fetched AGW scheme with no factual basis to shutdown the economies of the west will have a great detrimental effect on your children.
For the last ten years the Earth has shown no signs of warming while the manmade CO2 has greatly increased. Is that not proof enough?
-
And the record temps in Iceland prove AGW is real and serious
But the point is: AGW is not about everywhere getting warmer every year. And what you read and hear in the media is generally wrong.
AGW is about whether humans are producing carbon emission and whether any increase in carbon emissions has any effect on climate; it's about whether humans are affecting cloud cover in any way at all and whether cloud cover has any effect on climate; it's about whether humans are affecting albedo and whether albedo has any effect on climate whatsoever; it's about whether humans are affecting ozone levels and whether ozone levels have any effect on climate; it;s about whether humans are changing forestry cover in the tropics, temperate zones and even arctic regions, and whether such forestry cover has any effect on climate; it's about whether humans are producing sulphates and whether sulphates also affect the climate. Etc etc etc.n
And most importantly it's about whether there are any natural factors that affect climate, and how much human activities amplify or mask such factors.
We can enter a new ice age and still be experiencing AGW.
The deniers consistently offer evidence of places that are not getting warmer, or evidence of natural factors that affect climate. But they consistently fail to even attempt to show that human activities do not affect climate
Whether human activities are yet affecting climate the way computer models predict is neither here or there. If there is evidence human activities affect climate, and no contrary evidence showing that climate cannot be affected by climate, what are you to conclude?
Are you saying the human activity is affecting the climate but there is no actual evidence it affects climate?
Manmade CO2 has seen a huge increase for ten years and there has been no increase in temps. Should we destroy are economy for this? And let the Chinese and Indians do whatever they want?
-
bluecon, with the greatest of respect you didn't come close to answering mt question above. I'll answer it for you and you may ,if you choose take issue where you feel necessary.
to paraphrase, you feel the 7 mile strip that calved last week as insignificant. the 'single year ice that built last year was, on average, a mere 3 to 4 ft thick, Ward Hunt was 134ft (give or take 10ft) thick. slice up that 7 mile strip into 4ft thick chunks and then tell me how 'big' the resulting floe would be. once you have done that tell me again how 'insignificant' it is.
Glaciers and ice shelves calve at their leading edges and when you can see the terminal moraine in front of the ice wall (either on sea bed or glacier front) you know it is in retreat. Google Ward Hunt to see just how much it has 'shrunk' throughout the 20th century. Please do not attempt to tell me this normal ,cyclical behaviour without presenting me with a raft of studies proving such.
Another point being, why does the Antarctic peninsula seem to be shedding as much as the arctic (think Wilkins here)? I thought when one pole warmed and contracted the other grew. Any suggestions as to what could be driving such a global phenomina?......oh yeah, of course, global cooling (tee-hee)
Right where I am sitting there was miles deep thickness of ice not to many thousands of years ago. Hundreds of thousands of square miles of that ice existed.(probably millions of square miles of the ice existed worldwide) It melted and life went on. And it wasn't the first time that happened. And you are predicting the end of the World when a 7 sq mile section breaks off? 3.5 by 2 miles of ice? There has been much greater climate events in the pre SUV history of the Earth.
-
So are you saying pre SUV the Arctic has never seen such a low level of ice?
Or do you think the history of the Earth begins in the 1950's?
This isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last.
Now enjoy the new cool spell the Earths climate is entering.
-
But Bluecon, I have never mentioned the Ward Hunt or any other ice shelf in any of my posts. You keep answering my specific points and questions by referring to a recovery from just one extreme year, and then padding it out with general statements about GW and attacks on the media and people who believe in AGW.
All I have been attempting to point out is that, yes, we probably have a slight recovery from the alarmingly low Northern Hemisphere minimum ice coverage of last year. But the overall trend since satellite data began in 1972 (not 1979 as I mistakenly said in my last post) is inexorably downwards. I repeat that in 1972-78 the mean was 9.78m sq km, in 1979-2000 (the period you have talked about) it was 8.81m sq km, and in 2001-2006 (i.e. excluding the ultra-low 2007) it was 8.10m sq km. And if you go back to 1953 the drop is even longer and further - 10.08m sq km was the mean in 1953-1971.
So from 10.08 to 9.78 to 8.81 to 8.10m sq km in the 54 years from 1953-2006 - an apparently accelerating loss of nearly 20% of minimum summer ice. Or if you won't accept the 1953-1971 figures, a loss of over 17% since satellite coverage began in 1972. Both figures exclude 2007, which should be to your advantage in the argument.
Do you accept these figures, and if so would you like to comment on them? If you don't, could you point me in the direction of any available alternative figures?
That is a few years into the past that agree with your theory. I find it hard to believe that you are trying to use the old hockey stick theory to prove the AGW theory. That was one of the first of the AGW myths to be discredited.
Ten years of cooling and a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions. Kinda blows a large hole in the AGW theory.
-
Bluecon, how thick , on average, was the section of Ward hunt we just lost and how thick is the single year ice you speak of? I would suggest that if you 'stretched out the section of lost ice so that it was as thin as the single year ice you'd find that it would cover quite a vast area. Conversely if you piled up you 'gains' to the thickness of the chunk of shelf loss you find there was only a teensy weensy bit of extra ice present. you cannot mix apples and pears my Friend and you do seem awfully keen on doing just that
The ice flow of a glacier is caused by the accumulation of snow and ice. It is a normal occurence and will not cause life on Earth to halt. Go out to Lake Louise in the Summer and watch the glacier. It routinely drops large chunks of old ice.
-
What I am saying is the Earth has been cooling for ten years the Arctic ice has greatly increased this year and the AGW crowd with the help of their allies in the MSM point out the loss of 7 square miles of ice as though it is the end of the world while ignoring reporting the truth about the huge increase in ice cover in the Arctic. The AGW argument is no longer put forward with science but is solely based on fear tactics.
-
Thanks for that link, Bluecon - no sign there of Delta's "...growing upturn for sure". I shall pop it into my 'favourites' and we can look at it again in a month or two.
I'm disappointed that you don't want to discuss the apparently reliable 1972-2000 ice level numbers I carefully extracted, averaged and presented, or your use of the phrase "cold years" to describe 1979-2000.
Pro-AGWers may sometimes look silly when they try and guess the details of the immediate future and say they are certain. The same applies to you.
You'd better PM the link to me, however, rather than showing it publicly, as Bluecon says nobody knows what the ice cover was in 1870 - or presumably before satellite coverage full stop, and I imagine it will only annoy him.
The ice levels you extracted have nothing to do with the current climate and do nothing to show that the facts do not match up to the predictions of the AGW crowd.
At this point all the AGW proponents are starting to look rather foolish. Huge increase in manmade CO2 and a cooling Earth. You need to be a real diehard to cling to the AGW theory.
No thinking person would believe that such flimsy evidence could be used to tell what the level of the ice cover in the Arctic was back to 1870.
-
It is normal for the ice to break off and is why there are icebergs. The ice is like a plastic and flows, not a static solid.
-
Personally, here's how I think it will play out in reality.
What I think is going to happen is much simpler.
The economy is going to go in the tank and the climate will be cold this year.
Then people will start questioning why billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to perpetuate this fraud.
-
Laerguy
Telling the truth is considered an attack and is not politically correct.
-
The cold years from 1979-2000? I don't quite understand, Bluecon.
According to the figures (Cryosphere again) since full satellite records began, the mean summer seasonal ice extents (not minima) were as follows:
1972 - 1978: 9.78m sq km - 7 years, of which 2 were over 10.0, and none was below 9.0
1979 - 2000: 8.81m sq km - 22 years, of which none was over 10.0, and 12 were below 9.0
If you're prepared to accept the figures back to 1953 (no satellite, but 53-71 are direct observations with "complete coverage from a variety of sources...generally accurate"), then:
1953 - 1978: 10.00m sq km - 26 years, of which 15 were over 10.0, and none was below 9.0
Since 2000, of course, they've fallen still further - The 2001-2006 mean was 8.10m sq km; and 2007 plummeted to 5.56m sq km.
So the ice coverage in the years immediately before 1979 was on average in summer nearly 1 million sq km more than in 1979-2000.
1979-2000 may have been cooler than the last seven years, but hardly cold in even recent historical terms. Whatever happens in the next few weeks, and even if things should be on the turn, there is an awfully long way to go before you get back to 1970s levels.
Spin it how you want but this years melt is behind 2007, 2006 and 2005. Telling is the fact that there is no BBC article to follow up on their end of the Arctic ice stories that they circulated earlier in the year.
-
The Arctic ice has made a huge increase in area this year and the press hypes a 7 sq mile loss as the end of the World. And this is used to determine the end of the Earth is upon us?
-
And to start the thread, a comparison with the long term average and the picture last year.
The current ice levels are significantly larger than last year but almost equally below the climatic average.
In one year the ice has recovered half the ice back to the levels of the cold years from 1979 to 2000.
-
The folk who supply C.T. with their data of course! If you want the info then the horses mouth is the best option (I find)
And that small amount of melt is proof that AGW is going to heat the world beyond repair?
-
I promised myself I wouldn't, but.....
Bluecon, I did not say that they "know" what the ice extent was in 1870-1953. As I've emphasized, I said that they carefully estimated what they believed it to have been, based on data from many different sources - and most of that complex estimation process (and all of the data collection on which it was based) was done before there was an AGW orthodoxy. I know you've said that you're not interested in who did the work and when: but, please, if the work was done in the 1970s, why would they have felt pressure to fake the figures upwards as you claim?
They have stated the exact amounts of ice back to 1870 based on some scant evidence. A classic case of junk science being put forth as fact. They cannot predict the ice extent for 2008 yet they know the exact ice extent for 1870. You really believe that?
And the example were a bunch of scientist guess every possibility and a few are right proves nothing. they could go to the racetrack and pick every pony in the race and somebody would be right.
-
Anybody agree the greatest melting of 2008 now appears to be behind us?
Or will even this simple question be frowned upon?
One thing that is ignored that a lot of the ice extant last year wasn't caused entirely by melt but wind from the Alaska way that piled up the ice. And it was freakishly warm in the Arctic. Anomoly condition that will likely not be repeated this year.
For a start last Winter nearly reached average - After the record high melt. You must see that a repeat of last winter will see Artic ice sheet expand above average. This follows a poor melting of ice this summer season. Ice builds on itself. It will not contract this winter unless it defies the laws of physics. It will expand and more multiyear ice should be created.Last Winter was very cold in the Arctic and this summer has not seen the high temps or winds of 2007. With the cold conditions in Pacifac and the cool Sun expect a very cold winter again in the Arctic.
The facts have changed and people should look at that instead of blindly supporting the AGW theory.
-
So, lets get this right, you are uninterested in understanding the details of our case, or the bona fides and motives of those who have worked to produce the evidence on which it's based, since....what....you just know they and we are wrong, and therefore don't feel the need to argue logically?
Well, OK, Bluecon - thank you at least for being so honest. It will save me many hours of internet investigation and analysis, not to mention time spent carefully trying to construct calm, intelligent, lucid, logical, well-argued posts, now that I know I might as well have been speaking Vulcan.
It's been nice talking to you, and I've learned a lot while doing my research.
Think of this. If they can know what the ice was in 1870 it would be a much easier thing to have predicted the ice in 2008 and to know the ice extant in 2009. It is very easy to say the ice was at a certain extant in 1870 and very difficult to predict 2008. And now with all this powerful science the AGW scientists are wrong for 2008.
They have absolutely no solid evidence to back up their beliefs. So they know from scant evidence what the ice was like 139 years ago and with all the scientific equipment available today they get it wrong for 2008?
-
Of course it is a competition of ideas and the scientists were predicting the end of the Arctic ice and now it is increasing.
The consensus of sciece and scientists themselves will be the ultimate losers if the climate turns much cooler over the next years.
What is your theory? The world is undergoing AGW except the normal climate of the earth overides the AGW?
The way the economy is headed downhill nobody is going to care about AGW within the year.
-
(i) I'm sorry that you are back on your theme of corrupt scientist who fake their results to fit an agenda determined (presumably) by their desire for admiration or money. Bill Chapman helpfully twice provides his email address in the second link I gave. Perhaps you would care to write to him explaining that you believe his science is embarrassing, and that he has been making up data to "fit the cause"? He may reply that much of the earlier data came from John Walsh's work published in 1978 - rather before there was any likelihood of it fitting some lucrative orthodoxy. While Walsh and others - as Chapman would be the first to admit - did not and do not know exactly what ice cover there was pre-1953, they worked hard and long, using many sources (such as the long-standing Danish Ice Charts) to make their best estimates. Unless you or anyone else can demonstrate that they were hopelessly out, over-estimating by at least 27%, then I am inclined to accept as probably true that the minimum Arctic ice extents in both 2005 & 2007 were lower than any in the last 137 years.
(ii) You say "largely concluded". Well, yes: doubtless most of the melting will be over by late August. But you seem to be accepting that there may still be some well into September. What I talked about yesterday was "around a month and a half of melting time left" - i.e time when melting could still take place - and should the minimum not be reached until September, than it will not be the first time. It may be as late as that, it may not: like everyone else, I just don't know. Is that such a deeply contentious suggestion?
(iii) I thought you were talking about "the consensus of scientists" - that was the phrase you used. I'm not sure what the opinions of either a few extremists the media come up with OR a few ditto on here have to do with "the consensus of scientists"? As Roger elegantly put it, "The general public may have been misled by the media into thinking that the AGW theory predicted a non-stop increase in ice melt year after year, I doubt that even the more ardent proponents within the scientific community would have expected this, you are always going to see year-to-year variations. So what we are seeing right now is not really a definitive sign of any theory verifying or not verifying."
(i)I don't care who did the work or when, it is still junk science with no actual facts to back up the so called science. They don't have a clue what the actual ice cover in the Arctic was going back to 1870.
(ii)exactly. You have no idea how much melting time is left. Usually there is not much melt in September.
(iii)Is that not what professor Hansen who leads the movement has stated? Look at his predictions from the past and they are all wrong. No one in the AGW movement predicted a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions would result in a slight and increasing cooling. All the AGW predictions are for a temperature increase that will reach a tipping point and fry us all. Scare tactics basically.
I think it's horses for courses Beng, the two SST charts attached show pretty normal conditions and SST's above in the Arctic circle on the Canadian/Alaskan side.A few predictions from me.
The NE passage will open.
The NW passage will open.
Svalbard will not have ice joining to the arctic.
Franz Josef islands will not have ice joining them either.
Minimum ice extent will be reached in September.
Last years minimum will not probably not me reached.
The arctic north pole will NOT be ice free this year.
However alot of the 1 year ice will have melted.
The melt of Greenland ice will be the highest ever recorded.
That is like picking the horses after the race has been run.
Your predictions have changed.
The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
The scientific evidence is mounting against the AGW theory.
The MSM however with the scientists that still believe in the theory continue to play up every unusual bit of climate as proof of AGW.