Con-Climate Science Fudged - But Why?

[editec]

Here's what I know about the environment.

Its going to be about 65 today here in Maine.

It's October 21 and the first frost didn't happen here in Maine until about a week ago. That's pretty late for this area, but not unheard of, I suppose.

Global warming? Here's what Oct 20th looked like over the last 50 years

Searsport MaineTemperatures Oct 20th​

year........min......mean...max​

2012..... 57......61.3......63​

2002 .....28......45.6......55​

1992 .....28.9....38.9.....50​

1982......41.......50.5.....63​

1972......28.......33.9.....41​

1962......43.......49.9.....57

source
​

Some of you might find the source of this data an amusing site to check up past weather conditions in your own areas.

I'd be interested to see what the weather conditions were like for the past 50 years in other parts of the nation.

Do those also show a trend toward higher Oct 20th temperatures over the last 50 years?





​

 

[IanC]

tell me again just how storm lost ice in the Arctic makes any impact on AGW theory.

It doesn't - which was why I thought Westwall's theory that it did hilarious, remember?


The melting of Arctice and Antarctic ice, on the other hand, is absolutely vital to our understanding of climate change. Laugh at that idea as much as you like.

I just reread his post. I didnt see any mention of AGW theory or even a hint of it. he has posted pictures of Subs surfacing at the north pole though. that would seem to show that the amount of ice is variable. so? he is certainly not the first or last person here to present anecdotal evidence that is not particularly informative. his graph of the ice rebound is a pretty strong argument that ice forms at 29F or whatever the melting point of salinated water is. what do you think the sea ice minimum would have been without the storms? do you think that a period of years without storms would change the yearly minimum in a positive way? AGW theory predicted more hurricanes for the US but they didnt arrive. is that a fluke or is something wrong with AGW theory? AGW predicted Antarctic melting but...not so much, probably the opposite. do we only count the correct predictions (there must be a few of them) and ignore the wrong ones?

 

[IanC]

btw, Since we seem to be changing topic again - you do back Zwally's research on the Arctic, right?

how much has it climbed back? Greenland is losing mass but I dont know by how much. Zwally's prediction of an ice free Arctic by 2012 is (predictably) wrong.

again, my point is that I dont think that altimetry measurements are a mature enough method to blindly believe them. do you believe that there are areas in the oceans where one spot has been rising at 10mm/yr for 19 years, right next to an area that is falling at 10mm/yr for 19 years? the north coast of Australia appears to be rising ~10mm/yr by altimetry yet the tide gauges say ~2mm/yr. who is more likely to be right?

 

[Saigon]

o we only count the correct predictions (there must be a few of them) and ignore the wrong ones?

No, we move closer and closer towards scientific positions which are backed by increasingly strong data, and achieve greater levels of scientific consensus.

In terms of Arctic ice, I believe that scientific consensus exists.

That doesn't mean that we can predict EXACTLY the rate at which Arctic ice will decline, but it does mean that we know that it is declining, we know why, and we know more or less at what rate that change has been ocurring.

In the Antarctic, I think there is some distance to go yet before we can say that scientific consensus exists. I would say the same with hurrican patterns - I don't think we are very close to understand the patterns there.

 

[IanC]

o we only count the correct predictions (there must be a few of them) and ignore the wrong ones?

No, we move closer and closer towards scientific positions which are backed by increasingly strong data, and achieve greater levels of scientific consensus.

In terms of Arctic ice, I believe that scientific consensus exists.

That doesn't mean that we can predict EXACTLY the rate at which Arctic ice will decline, but it does mean that we know that it is declining, we know why, and we know more or less at what rate that change has been ocurring.

In the Antarctic, I think there is some distance to go yet before we can say that scientific consensus exists. I would say the same with hurrican patterns - I don't think we are very close to understand the patterns there.

why do you think the Arctic is special? especially the sea ice? is it some sort of lynch pin of AGWtheory? the glaciers and ice field up there have been melting since the mid-1850s. so what? at least those could add to sea level rise. why do you focus on sea ice? what information are you getting from sea ice being blown into warmer waters?

 

[PredFan]

We've all seen and heard the conservative dupes and their knee jerk reactions to any climate change science. They quote science of their own or most often they deny the scientific community's agreed upon analysis...but why? Why and how are our conservative friends duped?

I hate to sound like a conspiratist, but how does a climate change denier spell O-I-L?

Arctic Sea Ice Vanishes — and the Oil Rigs Move In
As Arctic sea ice melts to its lowest level on record, oil companies move in to begin drilling the far north.

As Arctic Sea Ice Melts Thanks to Climate Change, Drilling for Oil | Science and Space | TIME.com

Could the conservative dupes we all know be this easy? It appears they have been used time and time again for larger purposes having nothing to do with ideology or science -- it's profit. Profit.

Ok, so according to you, it's ok for the AGW people to fudge their data but the deniers can't? How's that fair?

 

[Saigon]

Ok, so according to you, it's ok for the AGW people to fudge their data but the deniers can't? How's that fair?

Fair doesn't come into this discussion - it's about scientific accuracy and integrity.

It's not ok for anyone to "fudge" data, and luckily most scientists seem to have a fairly strong ethical code.

Ian C just gave the example of Zwally, whose rsearch suggests scenarios for Arctic ice need to revised for a worse outcome, but at the same time revised the existing predictions for Antarctica towards a more conservative outcome. That shows a lot of intergrity, and it is that kind of honesty we should all insist upon.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I do think the Arctic is "special", though pivotal might be more the word I would use. I think it is pivotal not only to our understanding of climate science, but also because in purely geographical terms, the Arctic could have such an immense bearing on our day-to-day lives.

The melting of the Arctic could impact the Gulf Stream, global weather patterns and temperature as well as sea levels. There is a lot in play there.

I would say the same of the Antarctic, and possibly more so. Any major melting there could be catastrophic globaly.


btw. I don't focus on sea ice. I generally consider land ice to be more significant in Antarctica.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

I do think the Arctic is "special", though pivotal might be more the word I would use. I think it is pivotal not only to our understanding of climate science, but also because in purely geographical terms, the Arctic could have such an immense bearing on our day-to-day lives.

The melting of the Arctic could impact the Gulf Stream, global weather patterns and temperature as well as sea levels. There is a lot in play there.

I would say the same of the Antarctic, and possibly more so. Any major melting there could be catastrophic globaly.


btw. I don't focus on sea ice. I generally consider land ice to be more significant in Antarctica.

Im trying to understand your position here, i really am.

WRT Arctic sea ice- are you saying that the disappearance of sea ice is predominantly caused by warmer air temperatures rather than weather conditions? (and the starting amount of ice from year to year)

if yes, then what is a safe temp for Arctic ice? glaciers and ice fields have been melting for more than 150 years. scientists have been concerned over it for at least 100 years. was it OK until CO2 'took over' in the 50s or 70s, or whenever? is it only the unnatural portion of the warming due to CO2 that you worry about? how much of the 0.7C warming since 1880 do you attribute to CO2? How much is attributable to the solar Grand Maximum from 1920-1980? just as daytime temps keep rising until about 3pm even though maximum solar energy starts to decline after noon, what would global temps be expected to do under high solar input? how long would it take for oceans to become 50% equilibrated?

is your AGW theory separated into two parts, attribution of warming to manmade inputs and predictions of impacts due to increased temperature? I can see how Arctic ice fits (poorly) into the second portion but I see no meaningful correlation to the first (black soot perhaps, although that isnt really warming the air).

why does AGW alarmism focus on the poles, with their 3rd hand energy, rather than the equatorial and tropical zones which gather and release the bulk of the energy? why is there no 'hotspot' which is clearly necessary if the current AGW climate models are to be believed? (remember Dressler's windshear proxy for temperature? hahahaha)

you know, I dont categorically deny that AGW is happening. I actually believe that CO2 has a small impact on temperatures that is much less than 1C/per doubling due to negative feedbacks by increased use of alternate energy pathways such as clouds. I am also a fan of climate models as a tool to expand our understanding of various parts of climate and weather, I just dont think model predictions should be taken seriously nor given to the public as a 'probable' or even 'likely' outcome. 'faintly possible' is a much more accurate description.

saigon- could you be a little more precise about how you think the Arctic ice is 'pivotal'? I think you have your magnitudes mixed up. the dog wags the tail, not the other way around. the Arctic is driven by the way energy passed along to it by the tropical and temperate zones, not in the other direction. melting of land ice is a possible concern but so far the predictions are significantly out of whack, and crazy warnings of massive melting causing multi metre sea level rise are too often given to the public even though there is very little evidence that SLR is even keeping up with the supposed temperature increases (which should give people pause to consider the accuracy of the recent temp data sets).

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

With all due respect, I don't feel inclined to answer the literally dozens of questions and points you raise, which seem to cover a good half dozen different topics.

Tto answer what seems to be your main question:

could you be a little more precise about how you think the Arctic ice is 'pivotal'?

I already have been, but your confusion may rest on the fact that you assume that measuring what is occuring means ignoring the tropics. To my mind, quite the opposite is true - what is happening at the poles directly reflects what is happening at the tropics.

Key aspects of climate science do involve the tropics - such as ocean pH, the bleaching or coral reefs and measurements of storm frequencies and patterns.

Climate science to me is like a picture puzzle involving a dozen interlocking sciences, each piece influencing and reflecting every other piece. Remember that sea ice is reflective, bouncing solar energy back outwards. When th ice melts, the darker open sea absorbs more of that energy, increasing ocean temperatures. It is a cycle.

The poles - quite apart from being a fragile environment crucial to sea levels, fresh water supplis, marine life and possibly the gulf streamr - represent one of the clearer and most visual examples of climate change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian C -

With all due respect, I don't feel inclined to answer the literally dozens of questions and points you raise, which seem to cover a good half dozen different topics.

Tto answer what seems to be your main question:

could you be a little more precise about how you think the Arctic ice is 'pivotal'?

I already have been, but your confusion may rest on the fact that you assume that measuring what is occuring means ignoring the tropics. To my mind, quite the opposite is true - what is happening at the poles directly reflects what is happening at the tropics.

Key aspects of climate science do involve the tropics - such as ocean pH, the bleaching or coral reefs and measurements of storm frequencies and patterns.

Climate science to me is like a picture puzzle involving a dozen interlocking sciences, each piece influencing and reflecting every other piece.

The poles - quite apart from being a fragile environment crucial to sea levels, fresh water supplis, marine life and possibly the gulf streamr - represent one of the clearer and most visual examples of climate change.

Yes, there are a lot of variables in Climate science, but thankfully the AGW Cult can ignore all of them and continue the lie that a wisp of CO2 is melting the Polar Ice caps

 

[Saigon]

And Frank....concedes the debate and goes back to spamming.

Excellent work, Frank!

 

[Dot Com]

And Frank....concedes the debate and goes back to spamming.

Excellent work, Frank!

how the heck did ol' 57 get to 3000rep too

 

[Saigon]

And Frank....concedes the debate and goes back to spamming.

Excellent work, Frank!

how the heck did ol' 57 get to 3000rep too

I know!

It is a very weird thing about this forum that the three posters who I would say are the weakest posters, all three have massive rep numbers.

It does suggest that the system is more about a dozen semi-literates congratulating each other than it does anything else!

 

[Saigon]

Ian C-

WRT Arctic sea ice- are you saying that the disappearance of sea ice is predominantly caused by warmer air temperatures rather than weather conditions? (and the starting amount of ice from year to year)

Yes.

Although let's also remember that there may well be a connection between rising temperatures and those weather conditions.

"Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces."

Arctic Sea Ice | NRDC

 

[IanC]

interesting topic, melting glaciers and ice shelves.

sorry but I couldnt easily find a time graph for Ward Hunt. here is a different Greenland ice shelf/glacier

it appears as if most of the ice was already gone before CO2 was a problem. why do you alarmists always seem to ignore pertinent background information?

ice shelves are glaciers that flow into the ocean. sooner or later they always break off. why do alarmists point to a naturally occuring event and scream 'GLOBAL WARMING' ?

I asked you what was a 'safe' temperature and you didnt answer. obviously the ice has been melting for at least 150 years, does that mean you think the Little Ice Age was the last safe temp? global temps have gone up ~0.7C since 1880. do you really think the earth is perched on the knife edge? especially considering that most of this interglacial has been warmer than today?

even if the alarmists are partially correct about CO2, pre CO2 temperatures were melting the ice already so how is melting ice 'pivotal' to AGW?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C-

What possible value can there be in looking at a single glacier? Why on earth would you post such a thing?

Yes, glaciers have always moved. It is what glaciers do.

However, at no point in the past that science is aware of have 97% of the worlds glaciers are declined at the same time.

I'll ignore all of the chiildishness about so-called 'alarmists'.

 

[IanC]

Ian C-

What possible value can there be in looking at a single glacier? Why on earth would you post such a thing?

Yes, glaciers have always moved. It is what glaciers do.

However, at no point in the past that science is aware of have 97% of the worlds glaciers are declined at the same time.

I'll ignore all of the chiildishness about so-called 'alarmists'.

why on earth would I post such a thing??????

to show that the glaciers have been shrinking since the 1800's! why did you think I posted it?

here is another

most of the retreat was pre-CO2

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

No one has ever disputed that glaciers melt, and have always melted.

If you wish to deliberaly miss the point, then I'll leave you to do so with Frank and Daveman.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

No one has ever disputed that glaciers melt, and have always melted.

If you wish to deliberaly miss the point, then I'll leave you to do so with Frank and Daveman.

not so fast....

first you said melting ice was proof positive of CO2 induced global warming and now you're saying "meh, glaciers always melt".

evidence is evidence, you cant just point to it when it suits you and ignore it when it is inconvenient.