Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
greybeard said:
Perhaps you could provide a proper source for this claim.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for one single source of any kind, that shows that climate models predicted the colder winters.

As for the sea ice, unless you are complete in denial, you would already know it has decreased since the LIA, we have actual records of this, ships logs, port records, maps even. And of course Bering and Cook and arctic explorers and even nuclear submarine records, all of which is why it's no mystery.

If you think arctic sea ice is some mystery that nobody knows anything about, I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Personally, I prefer facts and well-supported understandings to partisan folklore and rhetoric.
Click to expand...
really? So a direct observation and records kept by captains of ships, harbor masters and shipping journals would be direct evidence. Computer modeling and reverse hockey sticks would be the partisan folklore and rhetoric

greybeard said:
Note that the sources in Trakar's post immediately before yours contradicts your claim.
Click to expand...
That illogical. You place a proxy study using computers over direct observation and records of actual events. That pseudo-scientific reasoning. Calling the actual information and historic records of the arctic "my claim" is an absurdism.

Reality Check said:
The evidence starts with climate science:
Click to expand...
That's the most pseudo-scientific thing I have heard here yet. It's like a homeopath telling us the evidence starts with the science of homeopathy. It's ridiculous.
 
r-j said:
really? So a direct observation and records kept by captains of ships, harbor masters and shipping journals would be direct evidence. Computer modeling and reverse hockey sticks would be the partisan folklore and rhetoric
Click to expand...

Actually, both of these are forms of direct evidence. You may be scrabbling for the difference between subjective and objective evidences. But if you are calling computer modeling "partisan folklore" then why were you just a couple of pages back trying to claim that computer models of a region of the western Pacific ocean were proof that AGW theories were incorrect?

When it comes to temperature and wind data in areas where the captains and harbor masters actually visit, I generally have little problem giving them at least some credence for knowing about that which they record. If you feel that you know of direct evidences that aren't being properly considered in this discussion, please present them for more detailed examination and consideration. Preferably from legitimate scientific references and sources.
 
Last edited:
Another potential factor in the slow down in surface and tropospheric warming, a sustained but small scale series of volcanic eruptions.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/small-volcanic-eruptions-add-to-larger-impact-on-climate-17112

In particular for a r-j, a link to the paper being discussed:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html

No-one is saying that any one factor is behind it, but a combination of them would certainly lead to a downshift. From all of the factors now being described I'm beginning to be surprised that the slowdown isn't even greater. Could be even worse when we get a period of reduced eruptions together with El-Nino and improved air-quality from the Chinese...
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
really? So a direct observation and records kept by captains of ships, harbor masters and shipping journals would be direct evidence. Computer modeling and reverse hockey sticks would be the partisan folklore and rhetoric

That illogical. You place a proxy study using computers over direct observation and records of actual events. That pseudo-scientific reasoning. Calling the actual information and historic records of the arctic "my claim" is an absurdism.
That's the most pseudo-scientific thing I have heard here yet. It's like a homeopath telling us the evidence starts with the science of homeopathy. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well it remains your claim until you present some solid evidence. As you say you only read scientific sources and not blogs then I really am interested to see the evidence. I've searched and drawn a blank.
 
Mikemcc said:
Another potential factor in the slow down in surface and tropospheric warming, a sustained but small scale series of volcanic eruptions.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/small-volcanic-eruptions-add-to-larger-impact-on-climate-17112

In particular for a r-j, a link to the paper being discussed:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html

No-one is saying that any one factor is behind it, but a combination of them would certainly lead to a downshift. From all of the factors now being described I'm beginning to be surprised that the slowdown isn't even worse. Could be even worse when we get a period of reduced eruptions together with El-Nino and improved air-quality from the Chinese...
Click to expand...

Indeed, every negative feedback is a precious gift, unfortunately we tend to have frittered away all the minor respites the Fates have thus far sprinkled upon us.
 
greybeard said:
Well it remains your claim until you present some solid evidence. As you say you only read scientific sources and not blogs then I really am interested to see the evidence. I've searched and drawn a blank.
Click to expand...

...care for some popcorn?

picture.php
 
r-j said:
Nobody in this topic seems to actually know much about the arctic, arctic sea ice, or how to research. That seems very hard to believe.

If you think I need to go do your coursework, and try and educate you on sea ice, you better look at yourself. Anyone who tries to demean somebody and belittle science and challenge factual information, but doesn't actual know the first thing about the subject, well. Think about it.

You just can't bring yourself to say the word "cooling", can you? Just like the many articles about that study, they never ever use the word cooling. Even when describing the change from volcanoes, they call it warming. Shameless.

It does of course support everything I said about the subject.
Click to expand...
While there is a small possibility of cooling (the quoted margins of error are larger than the trend over such short time scales) the likelyhood is that it is not cooling, so why should I wish to say that it is. Such a statement, given the present data, would be in error.

Even if the surface temperature record showed a small cooling trend, this would represent a measurement representing only 2% of the energy within the system, and the other measurements are showing that energy within the ENTIRE sysem is still increasing. Particularly incoming v outgoing energy at TOA, and ocean heat content. This is yet another study that adds to the knowledge to explain the present system and it's variability.

These are points that have been explained to you repeatedly, and no amount of tomfoolery and posturing on your part is going to change it.

If anyone needs an education about arctic ice it would appear to be you, as you do appear to be floundering without any useful data to back up your wild assertions.
 
It's interesting that r-j asked me to back up my assertion that most of Monckton's claims have been debunked. Monckton once claimed that centuries ago the Chinese navy sailed through an ice free arctic. Possibly r-j didn't know that claim had been debunked and that's what he is thinking of. Understandable mistake under the circumstances.
 
greybeard said:
Well it remains your claim until you present some solid evidence. As you say you only read scientific sources and not blogs then I really am interested to see the evidence. I've searched and drawn a blank.
Click to expand...
I found this on the NSIDC site:

Arctic sea ice before satellites

Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
It's obvious you didn't read it still. The information you are ignorant of, the very thing you are questioning me about, like you know enough to challenge what I said, is contained in the first ref on that page.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
Click to expand...

So quote me the bit I obviously didn't read.
As for the ref. which I never said I had read, I haven't time to read the document but as you haven't quoted the bit you think is relevant, I will point out this part.

The current reduction in Arctic ice
cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very
pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few
thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities
Click to expand...

So not centuries, plural and no mention of captains logs etc. You are floundering and your credibility is still zilch.

Also as you are quoting it as evidence I presume that you agree with their conclusion that it started after the industrial revolution and there are no known natural variabilities?
 
Last edited:
Actually what it says is exactly what Pixel quoted. Nowhere does it mention the LIA, and direct observational data prior to the 1950s has insufficient coverage. The proxy data does support some melting back to the time of the LIA, but of course you've already been quite distainful of proxy data...

Doesn't change the facts that the present sea-ice loss and the rate of loss are unprecedented.
 
Mikemcc said:
Actually what it says is exactly what Pixel quoted. Nowhere does it mention the LIA, and direct observational data prior to the 1950s has insufficient coverage. The proxy data does support some melting back to the time of the LIA, but of course you've already been quite distainful of proxy data...
Doesn't change the facts that the present sea-ice loss and the rate of loss are unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Which isn't that the same as saying that sea ice has been shown by ships records to be declining for centuries. I referred r-j to the proxy data trakar provided and he discounted it saying he preferred evidence he wouldn't show anyone. The last link that he provided shows that the melting is associated with no known natural cause.
 
The sea ice is not some simplistic thing, it's complicated. In the long view, it has been decreasing since a maximum during the coldest part of the LIA. Before that it was very low during the warm period.

There is no doubt about any of that. OK some people are trying to cause doubt, but among scientists who study these things, there is no doubt.
 
Last edited:
Try these for a realistic and science based studies of the arctic sea ice.

Polyakov, I.V., Proshutinsky, A.Y. and Johnson, M.A. 1999. Seasonal cycles in two regimes of Arctic climate. Journal of Geophysical Research 104, No. C11, 25761-25788.

Polyakov, I. , Akasofu, S.-I., Bhatt, U., Colony, R., Ikeda, M., Makshtas, A., Swingley, C., Walsh, D. and Walsh, J. 2002a. Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems. Transactions, American Geophysical Union (EOS) 83, 547-548.

Polyakov, I. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A., Karklin, V. P., Makshtas, A. P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A. V. 2002b. Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters 29(18), 1878, 25-1 – 25-4.

Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt , U.S. , Colony, R., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A.V. 2003. Long-Term Ice Variability in Arctic Marginal Seas . Journal of Climate 16, 2078-2085.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom