Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[BenBurch]

All it supports is that there was open water on the northern shores of Greenland.

Which a warm-water current could easily explain.

Much like the Svalbard current now.

 

[DogB]

Ben, any current that clears the north of Greenland is going to clear the cap pretty effectively. I mean we're talking what 85 north here? Where’s that water going to go once it clears the icepack away from the coast?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Just like 6000-7000 years ago?

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

And this is important because?

That is for the alarmist's whose permafrost doomsday are based on models. You now have contradictory modeled results, amazing.

Oh, so models that support your view are accurate?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What is funny is Lambert's pathetic attempt to discredit Dr. Pielke's analysis can only be supported by true believers. Because his conclusion is irrefutable:

Evaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast (Roger A. Pielke Jr. Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Studies)

And what do you think Dr. Pielke's conclusion was? Did all those who posted comments find Dr. Pielke's conclusion "irrefutable"? Did you read the comments? Did you read the article?

If you throw up enough lines you can get one "close enough" it is only after examining how you got those lines Hansen's whole argument falls apart. If the "close enough" (which is still wrong) line was achieved from emission scenarios that did not happen, it only proves one thing, you are wrong.

Did you read the article or did you just look at the pictures?

 

[Poptech]

And this is important because?

If there was a similar situation in the arctic thousands of years ago it does not make the current situation that exciting.

Oh, so models that support your view are accurate?

Please show me where I stated this. I understand your lack of confusion with what I did say.

And what do you think Dr. Pielke's conclusion was? Did all those who posted comments find Dr. Pielke's conclusion "irrefutable"? Did you read the comments? Did you read the article?

I quoted part of his conclusion. What does it matter if an illogical commenter disagrees? Yes I read the article and the comments. My position has not changed.

 

[BenBurch]

Ben, any current that clears the north of Greenland is going to clear the cap pretty effectively. I mean we're talking what 85 north here? Where’s that water going to go once it clears the icepack away from the coast?

Note that the Svalbard current clears Svalbard, and then is spent.

Same scenario.

And we have no idea how long it persisted.

Does not seem to be supported by work elsewhere in the arctic.

Remember that we had a lot of terrestrial ice melting then as the ice age receded, sea levels rose considerably, the salinity of the oceans changed as did their temperatures, and this process ended between 8 and 6 Kya, and so regimes of current and saline flow we now have probably established themselves first during that time.

 

[BenBurch]

Some support for those dates; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png (Just because somebody was gonna ask, and because I got that from memory.)

 

[Poptech]

Some support for those dates; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png (Just because somebody was gonna ask, and because I got that from memory.)

Can you please prove that image was not created by a 5 year old via linking to a real source. Thanks this is the science forums.

 

[Dancing David]

Just like 6000-7000 years ago?

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)


That is for the alarmist's whose permafrost doomsday are based on models. You now have contradictory modeled results, amazing.

Hi, do you want to return to the original thread, or will you ignore it and mis-represent why you ignored my post there again?

 

[Dancing David]

Poptech, that article does not support an ice-free arctic ocean. Nice try, though.

It kinda suggests it Ben

(My bolding)

How much emphasis you put on a few 6000 year old ridges in a sand bar is up to you. Me - I remain quietly sceptical.

These also belong in the other thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry. I won't say anymore.
[lurk]

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If there was a similar situation in the arctic thousands of years ago it does not make the current situation that exciting.

If you go back far enough, you can find times when the Earth was even warmer. Which proves nothing about why the climate has been warming the past few decades. And since there weren't 5 or 6 billion people living on the Earth 6000 years ago, a similar climate scenario to then might be "exciting".

I quoted part of his conclusion. What does it matter if an illogical commenter disagrees? Yes I read the article and the comments. My position has not changed.

Oh, I see. Everyone who disagrees with you is "illogical". Even though you can't explain in your own words why Pielke's post proves anything or why the comments were wrong. Of course, if you actually read the comments you would know that there were several commenters who disagreed with Pielke, not just one.

 

[BenBurch]

These also belong in the other thread.

And of course you are right. If the mods are willing, please move those replies. Thanks.

 

[mhaze]

Back to the OP

Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF) (David R. B. Stockwell, Ph.D. Ecosystem Dynamics)

Computer Climate Model Validation has again failed despite the best attempts at mathematical deception by its proponents.

Well, we are on the subject here of Megaloon's favorite chart. I tried to engage him on it's statistical errors, and he vanished pretty quickly. Now we have a discussion on the subject.

Stockwell rebutes the assertion of "Higher climate sensitivity" that is alleged in Ramsdorf.

Based on Stockwell, Ramsdorf's arguments, the ensuing discussion at ClimateAudit, etc (and leaving aside the two brain cell arguments such argument from ridicule, argument ad hominem, as the fact that dainty little Warmers don't like a post about a E&E journal article at the party) ...

Anyone have a problem with the implicit conclusion of "lower climate senstivity"?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If there was a similar situation in the arctic thousands of years ago it does not make the current situation that exciting.

The warming at that time (sometimes called the Holocene climatic optiumum or the Altithermal Period) fits in well with the Milankovitch cycles, while our current warming doesn't.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Altithermal

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Well, we are on the subject here of Megaloon's favorite chart. I tried to engage him on it's statistical errors, and he vanished pretty quickly. Now we have a discussion on the subject.

Stockwell rebutes the assertion of "Higher climate sensitivity" that is alleged in Ramsdorf.

Based on Stockwell, Ramsdorf's arguments, the ensuing discussion at ClimateAudit, etc (and leaving aside the two brain cell arguments such argument from ridicule, argument ad hominem, as the fact that dainty little Warmers don't like a post about a E&E journal article at the party) ...

Anyone have a problem with the implicit conclusion of "lower climate senstivity"?

Lower than what? And what did the ClimateAudit post prove, other than that McIntyre doesn't know the difference between fitting trends and fitting polynomials?

 

[mhaze]

And what do you think Dr. Pielke's conclusion was? Did all those who posted comments find Dr. Pielke's conclusion "irrefutable"? Did you read the comments? Did you read the article?

Did you read the article or did you just look at the pictures?

You/I etc should be able to add the three more years of data to the "actual" and devise conclusions on our own based on the facts and using the method therein.

The spread between reality and Hansen is of course growing.

 

[macdoc]

Love those unsupported bits' of nonsense...

In general all the projections are turning out to be conservative

28 February 07 Britain experiencing its second warmest winter on record

Tags: Bill Miller, climate change, General, global warming, Science, Science, UK, UK, wayne elliog
The Central England Temperature Record, the world’s oldest continuous database for temperatures going back to January 1659, recorded a mean temperature of 11.22C (52.20F) for the 12-month period from March 2006 to the end of February 2007, which was the warmest year-long period on record.
Meteorologist Wayne Elliot said the five warmest years on record are the five past years, and this matched the sort of conditions that the UK is expected to experience as a result of climate change.

17 Jul 2009 ... Scientists at Antarctica's Casey station have recorded the warmest July on record. ....

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

The Finnish Meteorological Institute said the December-February period was the warmest since records began more than 100 years ago, with average temperatures about 5 degrees Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) higher than usual.

TORONTO — The winter of 2005-2006 has been Canada's warmest on record, and the federal agency Environment Canada said Monday it was investigating whether it's a sign of global warming.
Between December and February, the country was 3.9 degrees above normal — the warmest winter season since temperatures were first recorded in 1948.

Shanghai has experienced its warmest winter on record, but the global warming-induced phenomenon had some unexpected positive spin-offs for China’s economic hub, state press said Friday.
Average temperatures were 8.1 degrees Celsius (46.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a dramatic 2.6 degrees warmer than in previous years and the highest since records were first taken in 1873, Xinhua news agency reported.

real world ....long data records.....

 

[macdoc]

and indeed addressing the subject....projections do "disagree" with reality - they have been conservative.....

Climate Change Model Projections Likely Conservative


Contrary to what most climate change naysayers claim, scientists are mostly a conservative lot. The peer review process can sometimes be brutal. It is often only after significant resistance and repeated attempts and additional substantiation that new research ideas and findings traverse the gauntlet of reviewers and are published in the top scientific journals.

continues with supporting documents...

http://blog.nodvin.net/?p=212

 

[mhaze]

Lower than what? And what did the ClimateAudit post prove, other than that McIntyre doesn't know the difference between fitting trends and fitting polynomials?

I do encourage you to take this assertion to Climateaudit.

Please.

Pretty please?

Double dare ya.

Back on the subject and leaving the ad hominem attack on McIntyre... so you don't agree that the evidence points to lower climate sensitivity, not higher? Just seems like a reasonable question and chain of logic.