I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast for August, due Monday August 6th. Poll follows:
The above arguments around temperature lack mechanism. For those of you arguing AGW Arctic ice loss you will need to tackle the atmospheric conditions that set up extreme ice loss through Fram Strait and Arctic current conditions that bring in warm ice-edge melting oceanic sea surface temperatures, and then mechanistically connect these changes to increased anthropogenic CO2. That’s where the discussion and debate should be. The temperature trend, by itself, demonstrates nothing in terms of CO2 connections.
tjfolkerts
August 7, 2012 6:08 pm
Smokey, I am happy that you NOW provide better evidence (at least I will assume it is better — I don’t have time to fact check it all for you).
But no matter how much you try to redirect, you can’t change that fact that the evidence you originally presented was either irrelevant or contradictory to the point you were trying to make.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I shouldn’t have, but I decided to fact check one of your follow-up claims, since it repeats the claim I refuted before: ” If there was any acceleration in the warming trend, recent temperatures would be breaking out above the long term parameters. “
Did you not look at the graph you linked to? It shows EXACTLY what you claim it doesn’t show! The long-term linear trend is the center line. The top and bottom line are simply guides, arbitrarily added by whoever made the graph — they are not any sort of calculated “top and bottom limits of the long-term trends. (And the vertical scale is artificially manipulated to make the changes look small, but that is a different issue).
But strip that away and look at the actual data and the actual linear fit, and it is plain as day that there is an upward curve to the data = a positive acceleration!
Or we could be mathematical about it. The regression equation for the (offset) HADCRUT temperature points in YOUR plot) is
TEMP = 36.82 – 0.03274 YEAR + 0.000010 YEAR**2
Source DF SS F P
Linear 1 23.4856 63.71 0.000
Quadratic 1 2.7768 7.68 0.006
Note that the quadratic term is
1) positive, indicating a positive acceleration
2) highly significant (P=0.006) indicating the acceleration is real.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are now 0/3 at providing evidence that actually supports your claims.
Entropic man
August 7, 2012 6:13 pm
Sorry, I suffered a senior moment. My solar insolation post should have read:-
Entropic man says:
August 6, 2012 at 7:04 am
Nasa has published a report showing a long term solar insolation trend of +0.05% per decade since 1978. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase from 288K to 289K at the Earth’s surface would require extra energy proportional to the change in Absolute temperature and need an increase in insolation and other energy inputs of about 1/289 * 100 = 0.35%.
The insolation change between 1978 and 2011 would be 3.3 * 0.05 =0.165%.
The observed insolation trend would produce a temperature change of about 0.165/0.35 = 0.47C between 1978 and 2011.
NASA/Goddard’s temperature data show an global increase of 0.7C since 1978 (0.23C per decade). On this basis the solar insolation change would account for 0.47/0.7 *100 = 67% of the observed warming.
This is clearly a back-of-the-envelope calculation, with any number of complicating factors ignored. Would anyone more competent like to critique?
–
francois
August 7, 2012 6:17 pm
For crying out loud, as you say in your language, could we please have a couple of dates regarding the “medieval warm period” (i.e. beginning and end), alongwith possibly an idea of the extent of that phenomenon geographically wise? After all, you tend to beleive that an obnormal warm period during the 30’s, in the US, is of global interest. Whatever might be the -rather small- area covered by your Nation, that period does not seem to be commensurate with what was observed in the rest of the western hemisphere. Perhaps you did not take notice of a few incidents which occured earlier : the quasi-annihilation of the local population (Injuns), the quasi-disappearence of some species such as pigeons, bisons, and so forth, the huge progress in “industrialised farming” (whatever that means ploughing, dusting,pest-killing, fertilizing…). Maybe some local consequences were felt then, and there.
tjfolkerts
August 7, 2012 7:44 pm
Entropic man says: “By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase from 288K to 289K at the Earth’s surface would require extra energy proportional to the change in Absolute temperature and need an increase in insolation and other energy inputs of about 1/289 * 100 = 0.35%. ”
Because the power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a 1% increase in temperature corresponds to ~ 4% increase in power. So you need to divide your result by 4, so the insolation change only accounts for (0.47 K) / 4 = 0.12 K
tjfolkerts,
Rational folks understand that global temperatures are not accelerating.
So you look at a four century long chart like this and simply change the subject, because you know that it shows no acceleration in modern temperatures.
Then, when I post a long term trend with long term parameters that are not being exceeded, you change your arguments again.
It is clear that your mind is made up and closed tight. You just cannot accept the obvious fact that the rise in CO2 is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd predicted. Their CO2=CAGW predictions have all failed.
In science, when your conjecture is falsified, you reset and start over because the real world observations have shown you that your conjecture was wrong:
“If it disagrees with… observation… it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” ~R.P. Feynman].
The CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong. That’s all there is to it.
tjfolkerts
August 7, 2012 9:54 pm
Smokey, this is getting almost comical.
“Rational folks understand that global temperatures are not accelerating. [Link to yet ANOTHER graph, hoping, I suppose, that eventually one of the graphs will support his conclusions.]”
1) OK, I will admit that you found a downward trend. In fact, I would bet that an analysis of that data would actually show accelerated cooling! Unfortunately, the graph only covers 7.5 years — not NEARLY long enough to determine a climate trend (let alone “acceleration” of a trend”).
2) And why THOSE 7.5 years? It turns out we now have a classic example of cherry-picking. If the graph went a year or two earlier, the slope would be upward, not downward. If the graph extended to the present, the trend would pretty close to flat (maybe a bit upward). “Then, when I post a long term trend [link to a graph] with long term parameters that are not being exceeded, you change your arguments again. “
1) That is not the graph I was commenting on (although it is rather similar). So you are the one “changing arguments”.
2) That graph ALSO shows clear acceleration term (ie upward curve).
3) The data on that graph is cherry-picked. They left off the first 3 decades of the data set (1850-1880) where the data is pretty flat. With this data included, the acceleration is even more obvious.
4) The 95% prediction interval (ie your “long term parameters”) ARE exceeded! The data is too high once near the beginning and once near the end. The data is too low once (maybe twice) in the middle. That is a CLASSIC indication of “acceleration”.
5) The regression for the data in THAT new set you gave is
Temp = 193.1 – 0.2047 Yr + 0.000054 Yr**2
Where both the linear term and the quadratic term (ie the “acceleration”) are statistically significant at the p = 0.000 level! you are now 0/5 on the graphs I looked at.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have never changed my argument — it has always been that the information you have presented does not in the least show what you think it shows. Your certainty in the face of clear contrary evidence only shows that you are not a “skeptic” at all.
Furthermore, I never once addressed whether CO2 is causing the slopes and accelerations that are painfully clear within YOUR evidence. Now, it is always possible that your conclusion that “the CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong.” is correct DESPITE your incorrect arguments trying to back up your beliefs.
When are they going to start to plot the trend since 1940s instead of 1970s?
dave
August 7, 2012 10:22 pm
[SNIP: Rephrase that and it will get approved. Site policy is here. -REP]
climatereason
Editor
August 8, 2012 12:57 am
Eli
Just for the record, I note that the link you made regarding ‘stuck’ weather patterns includes an observation I made on that very thread some months ago.
Why not go and reread it and you will see that weather getting ‘stuck’ can be observed throughout the history I have examined which goes back 1000 years
tonyb
dave
August 8, 2012 1:26 am
Smokey says: “you just cannot accept the obvious fact that the rise in CO2 is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd predicted”
Not sure what you mean by the alarmist crowd, but it is doing exactly what climate models have been predicting for decades now. Temperatures continue to rise (and I’m not talking about the bumps and wiggles, but the long-term trend), the amount of snow and ice covering the planet continue to decline (Arctic sea ice, glaciers, snow cover), permafrost temperatures continue to warm, etc. etc. Seems you are the one not accepting the evidence that humans are impacting climate.
Dave says:
“Not sure what you mean by the alarmist crowd, but it is doing exactly what climate models have been predicting for decades now.”
The alarmist crowd is the same wild-eyed, unscientific gang that confidently predicted 20-meter rising seas, Manhattan under water, runaway global warming, etc., etc., for [in Dave’s words] “decades now”. The trend falsifies the models.
Lately the alarmist crowd has been backing and filling, and moving the goal posts, and calling their endless predictions of ‘runaway global warming’ by another name: “climate change”. Could they be any less credible?
Folkerts is going nuts nitpicking occasional tiny, insignificant fluctuations and going, “AHA!!”, as if he’s found anything other than natural fluctuations. If it were not for pseudo-science, the alarmist crowd would have no ‘science’ in their failed conjectures.
And I note tha no one ever responds to the Null Hypothesis – a corollary of the scientific method. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified – which deconstructs the alternate hypothesis that human activity changes global temperature. It does not, and there is zero scientific evidence that it does. Do you understand “zero evidence”, Dave? From your comment, I don’t think so.
• • •
Girma,
Good point. Here is a chart showing the decades long cooling around the 1940’s. Rising CO2 is entirely coincidental with the natural recovery from the LIA.
Like all the other charts I’ve posted, that one also destroys folkert’s alarmist conjecture. Global temperatures have been rising along the same trend line for more than four hundred years. There has been no recent acceleration, as I’ve shown repeatedly in numerous links. But Folkerts is ruled by his incurable cognitive dissonance, and he just cannot accept the plain fact that there is zero testable, empirical evidence supporting the failed CO2=CAGW conjecture. None. Global temperatures have always changed, naturally. The current natural variability is nothing new or unusual.
The alarmist crowd clings to the natural ebb and flow of polar ice because that is the very last [entirely natural] event they can point to that they believe supports their failed conjecture. But as tonyb and many others have pointed out, the current Arctic ice cover has been lower in the past, before CO2 ever began to rise. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause. Changing polar ice cover is a natural occurrance. And the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
Finally, once again I note that no one in the climate alarmist contingent is willing to try and falsify my easily testable hypothesis: that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. They cannot falsify it, so they hide out, and change the subject instead. The plain facts are that CO2 has no effect on polar ice, that the Arctic has gone through its current fluctuations repeatedly in the past and to a much greater degree, and that global temperatures are not accelerating. Thus, all the unscientific, wild-eyed conjectures over normal sea ice variability are nothing but a desperate attempt to salvage something of the original alarmist predictions of runaway global warming and climatte disruption. But those predictions have all been falsified. Sorry about the alarmist crowd’s religion. But they have been worshipping false gods.
rogerknights
August 8, 2012 7:32 am
jeez says:
August 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm
I’ll take that bet Mosh just for the hell of it. 125 dollars says no record set this year.
Crito says:
August 7, 2012 at 8:32 am
How many scientists does it take to demonstrate that you cannot stick your leg into the same river twice? Everything is flux.
The version I read (the original?) was, “You cannot go down twice to the same river.” That sneakily implies that “you” have changed too.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 8, 2012 9:00 am
From Gneiss on August 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm:
If kadaka understood what the term meant, then his statement that I cherry picked those quotes from Hald’s article would imply him believing that I picked out unrepresentative pieces, instead of the main things the authors said on these topics. And that if kadaka could see the whole paper…
Ah, but that’s the crux of the issue, you sneaky little bastard. You’re hiding behind an access wall, using materials not available to those arguing with you.
While I, following the principles of openness and honesty and the promoting of greater knowledge and understanding among all who would learn, use freely-available materials with links to the sources.
Since it is the nature of combat to use all available resources to one’s best advantage, I must assume you are cherrypicking, you are selectively presenting the bits of your hidden resource that best advance your cause. Further, I cannot assume that anything that you say is in the paper is true, beyond the freely-available abstract, as I cannot verify it, from the context to the content. “Quote” as much of it as you want, it makes no difference until I can confirm it myself.
My oh my, you got riled up over such a small part of a big comment, even resorting to “third person singularly personal”. Are you upset that, thanks to me, you owe Gail Combs an apology for yelling at her when it was you who was mistaken?
Gneiss
August 8, 2012 9:40 am
kadaka writes,
“With most of the sea ice thicker than 2 meters and 75% or greater concentration, you expect this storm will tear apart this “thin” ice?”
Now there’s a hypothesis we can test in real time. Let’s watch and see what happens to the ice.
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 9:47 am
Once again. Cherry picking does not matter. Temperature trend does not matter. They are symptoms of a cause that needs mechanisms, not just correlations. Step up. Ice loss is a mechanized event having to do with seasonal melt, and atmospheric and oceanic naturally occuring patterns and oscillations. What are these mechanisms?
To the point: How are they teleconnecting with the teeny tiny increase in anthropogenic CO2 ppm to make these mechanisms worse than they otherwise would have been? I have not seen a single piece of work that outlines these mechanisms with math proof (particularly regarding the anthropogenic sourced energy needed to worsen and sustain natural weather pattern and oceanic pattern variations that lead to ice loss). However I have seen plenty of speculative papers and presentations that say the teleconnections are there, we just have to find them. I remain unconvinced by low hanging fruit effort masquerading as high level science.
Gneiss
August 8, 2012 9:58 am
kadaka writes,
“I must assume you are cherrypicking,”
Like your hypothesis that the storm will not tear up ice because it’s too thick, this is testable in real time.
And the blog post by Chiefio that Gail quoted with approval makes exactly the mistake I describe, comparing Little Ice Age (1855) summit temperatures with older to declare “There is no hockey stick here.”
“you got riled up”
This internet mind-reading works poorly. I wasn’t riled but did laugh.
Entropic man
August 8, 2012 10:32 am
tjfolkerts says:
August 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Because the power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a 1% increase in temperature corresponds to ~ 4% increase in power. So you need to divide your result by 4, so the insolation change only accounts for (0.47 K) / 4 = 0.12 K
Thank you, tjfolkerts. That makes the contribution from increased solar insolation 0.12/0.70 * 100 =17% of the total warming.
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 10:59 am
Many warmers are predicting catastrophic sea ice loss due to the current unusual low parked over the Arctic. But a low pressure cyclonic system over the Arctic does not transport ice out Fram Strait. However, it can make for a shaken martini or even a margarita if we can ship some vodka and lime up there in a tanker. I predict that ice is being whirled around and around, changing both the extent and area but not much in the way of melt. Now if we have a dipole set itself up after this low moves a bit and the wind carries this shaken, not stirred ice straight across the basin and out Fram Strait, we might see some spectacular ice loss. However, the low would have to reverse course and go back the way it came in, plus a high would have to set up over Greenland.
On the other hand, a cyclone this big can bring in warmer air from outside the circle and push warmer oceanic currents further into the circle.
That said, I predict a flattening out of the rate of melt through the rest of the season as we are now past the peak high angle of the Sun.
Rob Dekker
August 8, 2012 11:18 am
Spence_UK said :
This period comprises half of our driftwood finds, but the high frequencies are punctuated by woodless periods at 2.5 to 2 ky B.P., 1.7 to 0.9 ky B.P., 0.5 to 0.3 ky B.P., and probably since ~1950.
This para shows that within the last 4,000 years, these sub-periods were particularly cold and ice-locked the beaches; note the medieval warm period and roman warm period visible in the gaps. During this time, there was less ice than at present.
But Spence, isn’t the “woodless period” from 0.5-0.3 ky BP known as the LIA ? And doesn’t the “woodless period” from 1.7 to 0.9 ky BP covers much or the RWP and the MWP ?
And where is your evidence that “During this time, there was less ice than at present.”, because Funder et al certainly does not claim that at all.
And this :
This is not a story of consistent sea ice over the last 4,000 years. Even within that time frame, there have been several century-scale periods with considerably less ice than the last 60 years or so.
is also not at all sustained by Funder et al. Where do you get this stuff from ?
The point is that you are seeing things in Funder et al that are simply not there.
In fact, the only “reconstruction” of Arctic sea ice that Funder et al performed is a model run using three runs of ONE model (LOVECLIM) which, using Funder’s words “are the most similar to our observations [experiments E3 to E5 (3)andfig.S3].”.
Here are these simulations (Figure S3) from the supplemental material of the paper : http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/08/03/333.6043.747.DC1/Funder.SOM.pdf
Which clarifies their statement that :
summer sea-ice cover, which reached its Holocene maximum during the LIA, attained its present (~2000) extent at ~ 4 ky B.P. (fig. S3)
Now, we can debate weather a simulation of one model is relevant and significant for a multi-millennial reconstruction (I think not, especially since the LOVECLIM simulation is unable to reproduce the maximum driftwood landings on Ellismere Island during the HCO) but even if you take the simulation as is, you will notice that the natural variability is realistic, and that the sea ice decline from the past few decades is unprecedented w.r.t. the 4000 year record, as Funder et al clarifies in their statement above.
Spence_UK wrote :
The point of my post was to underline the magnitude of natural variability on longer timescales, which need to be understood before any type of assessment can be made as to whether this is anomalous with respect to natural variability or
not.
Now that you had a chance to look at Funder et al supplementary material, and the basis of their claims regarding Arctic summer sea ice extent (the LOVECLIM model runs), do you want to argue the natural variability in the LOVECLIM model, or do you want to discard Funder et al altogether as a politically motivated “alarmist” paper ?
Let me know, either way….
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 11:30 am
To clarify, the low itself is not unusual for the Summer season. More lows appear in the Arctic Circle during Summer than they do during Winter. What is unusual about this one is the extent of the low. It was LOW! But is beginning to weaken. These strong cyclonic winds can do all kinds of damage to ice, no matter how thick it is. And if Fram Strait opens up again (winds are currently blowing the OTHER way and has closed down this ice exit), we could see a major flush.
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 11:46 am
By the way, the media reports of this being an unusual Summer event because these events don’t usually happen in Summer are wrong. Summer lows are more frequent than Winter lows basin wide. But not by much. http://dvfu.ru/meteo/library/00750233.pdf
“Cyclones in the Fram Strait are studied in more detail
because of their special impact on the ice export from the
Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. On the average, there are
5 cyclones per month. the cyclone frequency in the Fram
Strait is higher during the winter period than during the
summer period. This is in contrast to the overall Arctic
frequency which is higher in summer than in winter.
Cyclogenesis predominates in winter and cyclolysis in
summer in the Fram Strait. The most frequent direction of
motion is from SW to NE.”
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 8, 2012 12:00 pm
From Gneiss on August 8, 2012 at 9:58 am:
kadaka writes,
“I must assume you are cherrypicking,”
Like your hypothesis that the storm will not tear up ice because it’s too thick, this is testable in real time.
So you have a free-access link to the paper so I can verify the contents? Where is it? A pre-print will likely be good enough.
And the blog post by Chiefio that Gail quoted with approval makes exactly the mistake I describe, comparing Little Ice Age (1855) summit temperatures with older to declare “There is no hockey stick here.”
You’re as sneaky as an elephant hiding behind a corn stalk. I clearly linked to how you yelled at Gail, in bold, that the GISP2 ice core reconstruction ended in 1855, which is in error. You gonna fess up, or wuss out?
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 12:21 pm
For those of you interested, the discussions on the net about the supposed “Great Cyclone of 2012” is heating up and predictions are being made by a few of complete ice melt. Plans are even afoot to get the MSM to start pumping out ALARM sound bites. Should get interesting. The claim that a cyclone has never occurred in the Arctic Summer (JJA) prior to 2006 should be searchable. Gear up to hear that this is a drastic unprecedented change and that cyclones are increasing in the Arctic due to CO2.
The above arguments around temperature lack mechanism. For those of you arguing AGW Arctic ice loss you will need to tackle the atmospheric conditions that set up extreme ice loss through Fram Strait and Arctic current conditions that bring in warm ice-edge melting oceanic sea surface temperatures, and then mechanistically connect these changes to increased anthropogenic CO2. That’s where the discussion and debate should be. The temperature trend, by itself, demonstrates nothing in terms of CO2 connections.
Smokey, I am happy that you NOW provide better evidence (at least I will assume it is better — I don’t have time to fact check it all for you).
But no matter how much you try to redirect, you can’t change that fact that the evidence you originally presented was either irrelevant or contradictory to the point you were trying to make.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I shouldn’t have, but I decided to fact check one of your follow-up claims, since it repeats the claim I refuted before: ” If there was any acceleration in the warming trend, recent temperatures would be breaking out above the long term parameters. “
Did you not look at the graph you linked to? It shows EXACTLY what you claim it doesn’t show! The long-term linear trend is the center line. The top and bottom line are simply guides, arbitrarily added by whoever made the graph — they are not any sort of calculated “top and bottom limits of the long-term trends. (And the vertical scale is artificially manipulated to make the changes look small, but that is a different issue).
But strip that away and look at the actual data and the actual linear fit, and it is plain as day that there is an upward curve to the data = a positive acceleration!
Or we could be mathematical about it. The regression equation for the (offset) HADCRUT temperature points in YOUR plot) is
Note that the quadratic term is
1) positive, indicating a positive acceleration
2) highly significant (P=0.006) indicating the acceleration is real.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are now 0/3 at providing evidence that actually supports your claims.
Sorry, I suffered a senior moment. My solar insolation post should have read:-
Entropic man says:
August 6, 2012 at 7:04 am
Nasa has published a report showing a long term solar insolation trend of +0.05% per decade since 1978.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase from 288K to 289K at the Earth’s surface would require extra energy proportional to the change in Absolute temperature and need an increase in insolation and other energy inputs of about 1/289 * 100 = 0.35%.
The insolation change between 1978 and 2011 would be 3.3 * 0.05 =0.165%.
The observed insolation trend would produce a temperature change of about 0.165/0.35 = 0.47C between 1978 and 2011.
NASA/Goddard’s temperature data show an global increase of 0.7C since 1978 (0.23C per decade). On this basis the solar insolation change would account for 0.47/0.7 *100 = 67% of the observed warming.
This is clearly a back-of-the-envelope calculation, with any number of complicating factors ignored. Would anyone more competent like to critique?
–
For crying out loud, as you say in your language, could we please have a couple of dates regarding the “medieval warm period” (i.e. beginning and end), alongwith possibly an idea of the extent of that phenomenon geographically wise? After all, you tend to beleive that an obnormal warm period during the 30’s, in the US, is of global interest. Whatever might be the -rather small- area covered by your Nation, that period does not seem to be commensurate with what was observed in the rest of the western hemisphere. Perhaps you did not take notice of a few incidents which occured earlier : the quasi-annihilation of the local population (Injuns), the quasi-disappearence of some species such as pigeons, bisons, and so forth, the huge progress in “industrialised farming” (whatever that means ploughing, dusting,pest-killing, fertilizing…). Maybe some local consequences were felt then, and there.
Entropic man says: “By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase from 288K to 289K at the Earth’s surface would require extra energy proportional to the change in Absolute temperature and need an increase in insolation and other energy inputs of about 1/289 * 100 = 0.35%. ”
Because the power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a 1% increase in temperature corresponds to ~ 4% increase in power. So you need to divide your result by 4, so the insolation change only accounts for (0.47 K) / 4 = 0.12 K
tjfolkerts,
Rational folks understand that global temperatures are not accelerating.
So you look at a four century long chart like this and simply change the subject, because you know that it shows no acceleration in modern temperatures.
Then, when I post a long term trend with long term parameters that are not being exceeded, you change your arguments again.
It is clear that your mind is made up and closed tight. You just cannot accept the obvious fact that the rise in CO2 is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd predicted. Their CO2=CAGW predictions have all failed.
In science, when your conjecture is falsified, you reset and start over because the real world observations have shown you that your conjecture was wrong:
“If it disagrees with… observation… it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” ~R.P. Feynman].
The CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong. That’s all there is to it.
Smokey, this is getting almost comical.
“Rational folks understand that global temperatures are not accelerating. [Link to yet ANOTHER graph, hoping, I suppose, that eventually one of the graphs will support his conclusions.]”
1) OK, I will admit that you found a downward trend. In fact, I would bet that an analysis of that data would actually show accelerated cooling! Unfortunately, the graph only covers 7.5 years — not NEARLY long enough to determine a climate trend (let alone “acceleration” of a trend”).
2) And why THOSE 7.5 years? It turns out we now have a classic example of cherry-picking. If the graph went a year or two earlier, the slope would be upward, not downward. If the graph extended to the present, the trend would pretty close to flat (maybe a bit upward).
“Then, when I post a long term trend [link to a graph] with long term parameters that are not being exceeded, you change your arguments again. “
1) That is not the graph I was commenting on (although it is rather similar). So you are the one “changing arguments”.
2) That graph ALSO shows clear acceleration term (ie upward curve).
3) The data on that graph is cherry-picked. They left off the first 3 decades of the data set (1850-1880) where the data is pretty flat. With this data included, the acceleration is even more obvious.
4) The 95% prediction interval (ie your “long term parameters”) ARE exceeded! The data is too high once near the beginning and once near the end. The data is too low once (maybe twice) in the middle. That is a CLASSIC indication of “acceleration”.
5) The regression for the data in THAT new set you gave is
Temp = 193.1 – 0.2047 Yr + 0.000054 Yr**2
Where both the linear term and the quadratic term (ie the “acceleration”) are statistically significant at the p = 0.000 level!
you are now 0/5 on the graphs I looked at.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have never changed my argument — it has always been that the information you have presented does not in the least show what you think it shows. Your certainty in the face of clear contrary evidence only shows that you are not a “skeptic” at all.
Furthermore, I never once addressed whether CO2 is causing the slopes and accelerations that are painfully clear within YOUR evidence. Now, it is always possible that your conclusion that “the CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong.” is correct DESPITE your incorrect arguments trying to back up your beliefs.
When are they going to start to plot the trend since 1940s instead of 1970s?
[SNIP: Rephrase that and it will get approved. Site policy is here. -REP]
Eli
Just for the record, I note that the link you made regarding ‘stuck’ weather patterns includes an observation I made on that very thread some months ago.
Why not go and reread it and you will see that weather getting ‘stuck’ can be observed throughout the history I have examined which goes back 1000 years
tonyb
Smokey says: “you just cannot accept the obvious fact that the rise in CO2 is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd predicted”
Not sure what you mean by the alarmist crowd, but it is doing exactly what climate models have been predicting for decades now. Temperatures continue to rise (and I’m not talking about the bumps and wiggles, but the long-term trend), the amount of snow and ice covering the planet continue to decline (Arctic sea ice, glaciers, snow cover), permafrost temperatures continue to warm, etc. etc. Seems you are the one not accepting the evidence that humans are impacting climate.
Dave says:
“Not sure what you mean by the alarmist crowd, but it is doing exactly what climate models have been predicting for decades now.”
The alarmist crowd is the same wild-eyed, unscientific gang that confidently predicted 20-meter rising seas, Manhattan under water, runaway global warming, etc., etc., for [in Dave’s words] “decades now”. The trend falsifies the models.
Lately the alarmist crowd has been backing and filling, and moving the goal posts, and calling their endless predictions of ‘runaway global warming’ by another name: “climate change”. Could they be any less credible?
Folkerts is going nuts nitpicking occasional tiny, insignificant fluctuations and going, “AHA!!”, as if he’s found anything other than natural fluctuations. If it were not for pseudo-science, the alarmist crowd would have no ‘science’ in their failed conjectures.
And I note tha no one ever responds to the Null Hypothesis – a corollary of the scientific method. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified – which deconstructs the alternate hypothesis that human activity changes global temperature. It does not, and there is zero scientific evidence that it does. Do you understand “zero evidence”, Dave? From your comment, I don’t think so.
• • •
Girma,
Good point. Here is a chart showing the decades long cooling around the 1940’s. Rising CO2 is entirely coincidental with the natural recovery from the LIA.
Like all the other charts I’ve posted, that one also destroys folkert’s alarmist conjecture. Global temperatures have been rising along the same trend line for more than four hundred years. There has been no recent acceleration, as I’ve shown repeatedly in numerous links. But Folkerts is ruled by his incurable cognitive dissonance, and he just cannot accept the plain fact that there is zero testable, empirical evidence supporting the failed CO2=CAGW conjecture. None. Global temperatures have always changed, naturally. The current natural variability is nothing new or unusual.
The alarmist crowd clings to the natural ebb and flow of polar ice because that is the very last [entirely natural] event they can point to that they believe supports their failed conjecture. But as tonyb and many others have pointed out, the current Arctic ice cover has been lower in the past, before CO2 ever began to rise. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause. Changing polar ice cover is a natural occurrance. And the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
Finally, once again I note that no one in the climate alarmist contingent is willing to try and falsify my easily testable hypothesis: that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. They cannot falsify it, so they hide out, and change the subject instead. The plain facts are that CO2 has no effect on polar ice, that the Arctic has gone through its current fluctuations repeatedly in the past and to a much greater degree, and that global temperatures are not accelerating. Thus, all the unscientific, wild-eyed conjectures over normal sea ice variability are nothing but a desperate attempt to salvage something of the original alarmist predictions of runaway global warming and climatte disruption. But those predictions have all been falsified. Sorry about the alarmist crowd’s religion. But they have been worshipping false gods.
You can get approximately even odds on that bet at:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=758776
The version I read (the original?) was, “You cannot go down twice to the same river.” That sneakily implies that “you” have changed too.
From Gneiss on August 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm:
Ah, but that’s the crux of the issue, you sneaky little bastard. You’re hiding behind an access wall, using materials not available to those arguing with you.
While I, following the principles of openness and honesty and the promoting of greater knowledge and understanding among all who would learn, use freely-available materials with links to the sources.
Since it is the nature of combat to use all available resources to one’s best advantage, I must assume you are cherrypicking, you are selectively presenting the bits of your hidden resource that best advance your cause. Further, I cannot assume that anything that you say is in the paper is true, beyond the freely-available abstract, as I cannot verify it, from the context to the content. “Quote” as much of it as you want, it makes no difference until I can confirm it myself.
My oh my, you got riled up over such a small part of a big comment, even resorting to “third person singularly personal”. Are you upset that, thanks to me, you owe Gail Combs an apology for yelling at her when it was you who was mistaken?
kadaka writes,
“With most of the sea ice thicker than 2 meters and 75% or greater concentration, you expect this storm will tear apart this “thin” ice?”
Now there’s a hypothesis we can test in real time. Let’s watch and see what happens to the ice.
Once again. Cherry picking does not matter. Temperature trend does not matter. They are symptoms of a cause that needs mechanisms, not just correlations. Step up. Ice loss is a mechanized event having to do with seasonal melt, and atmospheric and oceanic naturally occuring patterns and oscillations. What are these mechanisms?
To the point: How are they teleconnecting with the teeny tiny increase in anthropogenic CO2 ppm to make these mechanisms worse than they otherwise would have been? I have not seen a single piece of work that outlines these mechanisms with math proof (particularly regarding the anthropogenic sourced energy needed to worsen and sustain natural weather pattern and oceanic pattern variations that lead to ice loss). However I have seen plenty of speculative papers and presentations that say the teleconnections are there, we just have to find them. I remain unconvinced by low hanging fruit effort masquerading as high level science.
kadaka writes,
“I must assume you are cherrypicking,”
Like your hypothesis that the storm will not tear up ice because it’s too thick, this is testable in real time.
And the blog post by Chiefio that Gail quoted with approval makes exactly the mistake I describe, comparing Little Ice Age (1855) summit temperatures with older to declare “There is no hockey stick here.”
“you got riled up”
This internet mind-reading works poorly. I wasn’t riled but did laugh.
tjfolkerts says:
August 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Because the power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a 1% increase in temperature corresponds to ~ 4% increase in power. So you need to divide your result by 4, so the insolation change only accounts for (0.47 K) / 4 = 0.12 K
Thank you, tjfolkerts. That makes the contribution from increased solar insolation 0.12/0.70 * 100 =17% of the total warming.
Many warmers are predicting catastrophic sea ice loss due to the current unusual low parked over the Arctic. But a low pressure cyclonic system over the Arctic does not transport ice out Fram Strait. However, it can make for a shaken martini or even a margarita if we can ship some vodka and lime up there in a tanker. I predict that ice is being whirled around and around, changing both the extent and area but not much in the way of melt. Now if we have a dipole set itself up after this low moves a bit and the wind carries this shaken, not stirred ice straight across the basin and out Fram Strait, we might see some spectacular ice loss. However, the low would have to reverse course and go back the way it came in, plus a high would have to set up over Greenland.
On the other hand, a cyclone this big can bring in warmer air from outside the circle and push warmer oceanic currents further into the circle.
That said, I predict a flattening out of the rate of melt through the rest of the season as we are now past the peak high angle of the Sun.
Spence_UK said :
But Spence, isn’t the “woodless period” from 0.5-0.3 ky BP known as the LIA ? And doesn’t the “woodless period” from 1.7 to 0.9 ky BP covers much or the RWP and the MWP ?
And where is your evidence that “During this time, there was less ice than at present.”, because Funder et al certainly does not claim that at all.
And this :
is also not at all sustained by Funder et al. Where do you get this stuff from ?
The point is that you are seeing things in Funder et al that are simply not there.
In fact, the only “reconstruction” of Arctic sea ice that Funder et al performed is a model run using three runs of ONE model (LOVECLIM) which, using Funder’s words “are the most similar to our observations [experiments E3 to E5 (3)andfig.S3].”.
Here are these simulations (Figure S3) from the supplemental material of the paper :
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/08/03/333.6043.747.DC1/Funder.SOM.pdf
Which clarifies their statement that :
Now, we can debate weather a simulation of one model is relevant and significant for a multi-millennial reconstruction (I think not, especially since the LOVECLIM simulation is unable to reproduce the maximum driftwood landings on Ellismere Island during the HCO) but even if you take the simulation as is, you will notice that the natural variability is realistic, and that the sea ice decline from the past few decades is unprecedented w.r.t. the 4000 year record, as Funder et al clarifies in their statement above.
Spence_UK wrote :
Now that you had a chance to look at Funder et al supplementary material, and the basis of their claims regarding Arctic summer sea ice extent (the LOVECLIM model runs), do you want to argue the natural variability in the LOVECLIM model, or do you want to discard Funder et al altogether as a politically motivated “alarmist” paper ?
Let me know, either way….
To clarify, the low itself is not unusual for the Summer season. More lows appear in the Arctic Circle during Summer than they do during Winter. What is unusual about this one is the extent of the low. It was LOW! But is beginning to weaken. These strong cyclonic winds can do all kinds of damage to ice, no matter how thick it is. And if Fram Strait opens up again (winds are currently blowing the OTHER way and has closed down this ice exit), we could see a major flush.
By the way, the media reports of this being an unusual Summer event because these events don’t usually happen in Summer are wrong. Summer lows are more frequent than Winter lows basin wide. But not by much.
http://dvfu.ru/meteo/library/00750233.pdf
“Cyclones in the Fram Strait are studied in more detail
because of their special impact on the ice export from the
Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. On the average, there are
5 cyclones per month. the cyclone frequency in the Fram
Strait is higher during the winter period than during the
summer period. This is in contrast to the overall Arctic
frequency which is higher in summer than in winter.
Cyclogenesis predominates in winter and cyclolysis in
summer in the Fram Strait. The most frequent direction of
motion is from SW to NE.”
From Gneiss on August 8, 2012 at 9:58 am:
So you have a free-access link to the paper so I can verify the contents? Where is it? A pre-print will likely be good enough.
You’re as sneaky as an elephant hiding behind a corn stalk. I clearly linked to how you yelled at Gail, in bold, that the GISP2 ice core reconstruction ended in 1855, which is in error. You gonna fess up, or wuss out?
For those of you interested, the discussions on the net about the supposed “Great Cyclone of 2012” is heating up and predictions are being made by a few of complete ice melt. Plans are even afoot to get the MSM to start pumping out ALARM sound bites. Should get interesting. The claim that a cyclone has never occurred in the Arctic Summer (JJA) prior to 2006 should be searchable. Gear up to hear that this is a drastic unprecedented change and that cyclones are increasing in the Arctic due to CO2.