• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brilliant video and the change is shocking. Apparently there were gasps from the scientists that viewed it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/video-polar-disaster-movie


more

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/video-polar-disaster-movie

Dramatic visualiztion of the changes in a couple of decades....

Dramatic is an understatement
I don't see any longer term ice that is more than 4-5 years old, this is quite probably the youngest the northern polar ice has been in modern history.
 
Finally A Real Scientific Consensus – Everyone Agrees That The Recent Displaced Polar Vortex Wasn’t Caused By Global Warming

[qimg]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/snow_thing_of_the-past.jpg[/qimg]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...x-wasnt-caused-by-global-warming/#more-103614

Hey, it's on of those strawmen from a few decades ago !




A three degree increase in global temperatures won't make winter go away. The extra energy in the atmosphere will even make some winters more bitter.
 
I don't see any longer term ice that is more than 4-5 years old, this is quite probably the youngest the northern polar ice has been in modern history.
That we don't know is a shame, a scientific sin really.

For some reason no records or any historic documents have any information on the arctic ocean and the sea ice there. History starts in 1979

We know that in the 70s sea ice would surround Iceland in winter, and we know that during the LIA the sea ice in the Bering sea could be a hundred feet thick, but not much more than that.

It's such a short period of time, you can't really say much about it, except that it's pretty obvious the wind and currents are always moving the ice around, and away from the pole.

Cool video bro.
 
Last edited:
You've already been given a link to the science behind the claim, it just happens to be regional phenomenon, not a global one.
 
Now who's providing contraversial rubbish without citations?

There are plenty of records predating 1979. US Navy submarine records for a start. Also various Northern Hemisphere navies and met offices have records going back quite a way.

I would love to see records from the LIA era though, where did you invent that one? Never mind the random figure of a 'hundred feet' thick!
 
I'm joking about no records, of course there is extensive information on the arctic sea ice. Movies showing the ice melting away ignore all of it, and make it seem like it just started in 1979. The sea ice has been declining for centuries of course, along with glaciers and ice sheets.

After a generally warm period in the northern North Atlantic from 1920 to 1964, the period from 1965 to 1971 was characterized by very low temperatures and salinity typical of polar water. This was often accompanied by sea ice over the northern shelf. In some of those years, the sea ice covered the whole north and east coasts of Iceland. Temperature differences in the waters north of Iceland between these two periods were up to 3°C.
http://www.fisheries.is/ecosystem/oceanography/climate-variability/

Captain Cook recorded the sea ice conditions in the Bering sea, as did Bering.

That you don't already know this is strange. Do you actually think the sea ice since 1979 represents the only history of it?

If you knew the big picture, you probably wouldn't be gasping while watching the movie.
 
During 1996 temperatures north of Iceland increased again, and since then the temperature has been relatively high and accompanied by higher salinity as well, indicating an intensified flow of Atlantic water to the area. The increase in temperature and salinity has also been observed south of Iceland in the recent years. In fact this is part of a larger-scale change observed in the northern North Atlantic Ocean. South of Iceland, regular monitoring of the hydrographic conditions started in 1970 and during the past decade record high temperatures and salinities have been observed. This is not the case for the Siglunes section, where the present temperature does not exceed the temperature observed during the warm period from 1920-1964. Whether this recent warming is due to global warming caused by emission of greenhouse gases, or due to a natural change in the circulation in the North Atlantic is uncertain. A combination of both is most likely, but their relative contributions are unknown.
http://www.fisheries.is/ecosystem/oceanography/climate-variability/

If you only get your science from blogs, you might think little is known about the arctic, as well as the climate changes that happened. For the last 1000 years or more.

None of it is some mystery. Much less that surprising. But darn, you read them blogs and it's a virtual panic attack.
 
http://www.fisheries.is/ecosystem/oceanography/climate-variability/

If you only get your science from blogs, you might think little is known about the arctic, as well as the climate changes that happened. For the last 1000 years or more.

None of it is some mystery. Much less that surprising. But darn, you read them blogs and it's a virtual panic attack.

You did read the part that talked of record high temperatures most likely due in part to global warming?
 
Last edited:
R-j, the animation posted up was, in part, using satelitte data. THAT didn't exist prior to 1979. Also, I didn't mske any claim about 'the sea ice since 1979 represents the only history of it', you were the the one that said
For some reason no records or any historic documents have any informstion on the arctic ocean and the sea ice there. History starts in 1979
 
I find it mildly amusing that a blatant false statement can be made, no source provided for it, no scientific evidence at all provided. Repeated questions are ignored about it, and the always ready to speak group here doesn't say a thing about such a huge blunder.

pretty much nothing, either to support the false claim, or to note that yes, he is avoiding any evidence for it.

Yet there is all this "education and wisdom" learned here.

http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal2009.pdf

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/publications/search_abstract.php?fmContributionNum=3302

and more generally:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/44/17905.full.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/28/1222000110.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/8738/1/2009JD013568-pip.pdf

http://neespi.org/web-content/meetings/EGU_2009/Semenov.pdf
 
Brilliant video and the change is shocking. Apparently there were gasps from the scientists that viewed it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/video-polar-disaster-movie


more

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/video-polar-disaster-movie

Dramatic visualiztion of the changes in a couple of decades....

Yes and Arctic sea ice is presently at a record low for this time of year. This after many people suggesting ice extent was recovering.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-sits-at-record-low-for-mid-february-17093

There is another video here showing the dramatic recent decrease.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OBCXWAHo5I
 
One wonders if he even knows what a Rossby wave is?
Or the Arctic Dipole :rolleyes:

••••

Meanwhile back to new science instead of reiterated basics...

Warmer world may wreak havoc with the Atlantic

* 19:00 20 February 2014 by Colin Barras

A warming world could slow the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean, potentially triggering African droughts and more rapid sea level rise around Europe. If it happens, it won't be the first time the Atlantic has been disrupted during a warm period.

Water in the Atlantic is constantly on the move. In the icy north, cool and dense surface water sinks and flows south, forming the North Atlantic Deep Water. The NADW then encourages warm surface water in the south to flow north, creating the Gulf Stream.

In theory, this "conveyor belt" could weaken as a result of climate change. A hugely exaggerated version of this proposal was the premise for the film The Day After Tomorrow. But until now the evidence from warmer periods in Earth's past suggested that temperature rises would not affect the circulation. A new study indicates otherwise.

continues
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25093-warmer-world-may-wreak-havoc-with-the-atlantic.html
 
That we don't know is a shame, a scientific sin really.

For some reason no records or any historic documents have any information on the arctic ocean and the sea ice there. History starts in 1979

We know that in the 70s sea ice would surround Iceland in winter, and we know that during the LIA the sea ice in the Bering sea could be a hundred feet thick, but not much more than that.

It's such a short period of time, you can't really say much about it, except that it's pretty obvious the wind and currents are always moving the ice around, and away from the pole.

Cool video bro.

if you say so.

Personally, I prefer facts and well-supported understandings to partisan folklore and rhetoric.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

picture.php


Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years -
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-warming-unprecedented-in-last-44000-years/

Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, newfound evidence indicates.

The new research offers the first direct evidence that the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer was roughly 9 percent greater than today, said Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado, Boulder (CU-Boulder), who led the study. The Holocene is a geological epoch that began after Earth’s last glacial period ended roughly 11,700 years ago and which continues today.

Miller and his colleagues used dead moss clumps emerging from receding ice caps on Baffin Island as tiny clocks. At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago....http://news.agu.org/press-release/new-study-finds-unprecedented-warmth-in-arctic/
 
Last edited:
R-j, the animation posted up was, in part, using satelitte data. THAT didn't exist prior to 1979. Also, I didn't mske any claim about 'the sea ice since 1979 represents the only history of it', you were the the one that said
I said I was JOKING! Using a very short period of time can give a fake view of things, and it is hardly scientific in any sense. If you made a satellite image movie of the great lakes for the last 3 decades, you could make it look like the ice there is growing at an alarming rate.
The bitter weather also has the Great Lakes on the brink of setting a record for the widest ice cover recorded. As of Thursday, 88 percent of the five lakes were covered in ice according to data from the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. And with persistent cold temperatures forecast through early next week, there’s a chance this year’s ice cover could top the record of 94 percent set in 1979.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-trends-tell-different-story-for-great-lakes-ice-17077

Just start the animation in 1980. It ends with possibly the greatest ice extent, hence the ice is getting worse. You see how a short time period and leaving out data can make something seem true, that isn't?

You did read the part that talked of record high temperatures most likely due in part to global warming?
Of course, I read everything. I'm OCD about it.

Notice how nobody thanked me for instantly providing sources for all my claims?
 
Last edited:
I said I was JOKING! Using a very short period of time can give a fake view of things, and it is hardly scientific in any sense. If you made a satellite image movie of the great lakes for the last 3 decades, you could make it look like the ice there is growing at an alarming rate. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-trends-tell-different-story-for-great-lakes-ice-17077

Just start the animation in 1980. It ends with possibly the greatest ice extent, hence the ice is getting worse. You see how a short time period and leaving out data can make something seem true, that isn't?

Of course, I read everything. I'm OCD about it.

Notice how nobody thanked me for instantly providing sources for all my claims?

Perhaps you could provide a proper source for this claim.

The sea ice has been declining for centuries of course, along with glaciers and ice sheets.

Note that the sources in Trakar's post immediately before yours contradicts your claim.
 
Last edited:
Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years -
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...t-44000-years/

and that was posted a few pages ago which indicates certain parties can't be bothered to read and learn.

•••


Consequences

Extreme weather caused by climate change decides distribution of insects, study shows
Date:
February 20, 2014
Source:
Aarhus University
Summary:
Extreme weather caused by climate change in the coming decades is likely to have profound implications for distributions of insects and other invertebrates. This is suggested by a new study of insects in tropical and temperate regions of Australia. "Our predictions are that some species would disappear entirely in the next few decades, even when they have a fairly wide distribution that currently covers hundreds of kilometers”, the researchers conclude.
more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220161312.htm

Our changing planet in fast forward 2x 4 x 8 x .......
 
Still waiting for any evidence to support that false claim.
The evidence starts with climate science:
Short form: Colder winters are a prediction of climate models.
Longer form:
Climate models predict higher global surface temperatures. And (to put it simply :)) higher global surface temperatures provide more energy to drive things such as wind. That means cold air gets further south in winter. That means that places further south get more cold air than they used to and cool down in winter.
Thus: Colder winters are a prediction of climate models.

As far as I know, earlier climate models did not have the ability to model climate on small enough scales get to stuff such as winter temperatures. I think that modern models are able to model seasonal conditions (as mentioned in your link, r-j). At least the modeling that I can find about cooling winters seems recent.

A couple of results from the first page at Climate Change Science Search Engine
This search engine will scan a large number of sites known to have good climate change related information on them.
with 'climate model cooling winters':
* How reliable are climate models? just has "For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting.".

* Cold winter in a world of warming? (2010)
In a more recent press-release, Vladimir Petoukhov and Vladimir Semenov, argue that Global Warming could cool down winter temperatures over Europe, and a reduced sea-ice extent could increase the chance of getting cold winters.
 
Last edited:
Finally A Real Scientific Consensus – Everyone Agrees That The Recent Displaced Polar Vortex Wasn’t Caused By Global Warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...x-wasnt-caused-by-global-warming/#more-103614
Actually a very bad title that is basically a lie, Haig, for a few reasons :D
* Not everyone in the world ("Everyone") was questioned by the author.
* Not every scientist in the world ("Everyone") was questioned by the author.
* Not every climate scientist in the world ("Everyone") was questioned by the author.
* Not every climate scientist in the world agrees that the displaces polar vertex was (or was not) caused by global warming.

The author does not seem to grasp the actual situation:
There is a hypothesis that the polar vertex was displaced due to global warming of the Arctic by one set of scientists. Other scientists disagree with the hypothesis. This ongoing discussion is part of how science works.

There is no "Real Scientific Consensus" - just an idea still being debated.
 
Last edited:
I will even read a blog for a good debunking.
r-j, you do not seem to know about Prof. John Abraham's analysis of Monckton's lectures. Or even Christopher Monckton!
A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton

Climate Misinformer: Christopher Monckton
For a comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check out this presentation by Professor John Abraham. Abraham has compiled many examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites. Check out this PDF of Monckton quotes versus the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom