Arctic heat

[CrusaderFrank]

Meanwhile we froze our ass off in TX last night...

So let me get this right, OldCocks posts a graph which should leave one to conclude that the Northern Ice cap has lost about 1/3 of it's ice JUST THIS YEAR.

Logically then one can assume the sea level would have increased noticeably.

Of course it hasn't, and the pattern of deceit by the MMGW hoaxers continues unabated.

Now lets suppose you're the newly elected POTUS, and you're about to outline a budget for the next FY.

I wonder how terrified bed wetters are that a lot of the government funding that advanced this hoax may be cut off.

View image on Twitter

Follow
Zack Labe

✔@ZLabe


Today's latest #Arctic mean temperature continues to move the wrong direction... up. Quite an anomalous spike!

12:24 PM - 15 Nov 2016 · Irvine, CA

'Climate Emergency': North Pole Sees Record Temps, Melting Ice Despite Arctic Winter


"Folks, we're in a climate emergency," tweeted meteorologist Eric Holthaus.

Sea ice at both poles at about three standard deviations below normal. Overall sea ice level at a major record low for this time of the year. The temperatures in the arctic way above normal. Keep a watch on this, folks, could get very interesting.

OK, so you're telling us that this wasn't a Weather event, but the climate of the Arctic is now 35F warmer. Is that still true today, can you update up on Arctic climate

 

[Crick]

"update up on"????

Here's what it's been doing

Air temp from November 23, 2016

Air temperature trend in the Arctic

Here's what air temperature has been doing on a longer scale:

Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, 03 Dec 2016 Land and Ice in white

Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly, 03 Dec 2016

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com

-8F Baffin Bay. I guess the climate of the Arctic hasn't changed permanently to 35F Warmer, right?

Charts back in 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree = LOL

 

[jc456]

Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com

-8F Baffin Bay. I guess the climate of the Arctic hasn't changed permanently to 35F Warmer, right?

Charts back in 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree = LOL

well I'd sure be interested in where the heat comes from for the arctic. It isn't sunlight. So what produces their 35 degree F?

 

[Old Rocks]

We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.

Those three different aspects of M cycles have different periods, If I understood it correctly, I read that the the recent glacial cycles are synchronized only with the eccentricity, and not the precession and tilt. Looking at eccentricity alone does not synchronize with high insolation, as much as the other two aspects. So the M cycle model is iffy to some.

As far as the controversy today, the deep geologic history doesn't really matter to me as much as it would to a climate "historian". Today's rapid rise of CO2 is an independent concern.

We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.

Well now, if CO2 reinforces climate change, then what exactly do you think that the result of adding more than 43% additional CO2 is going to do to the climate? That is a lot of reinforcement.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com

-8F Baffin Bay. I guess the climate of the Arctic hasn't changed permanently to 35F Warmer, right?

Charts back in 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree = LOL

well I'd sure be interested in where the heat comes from for the arctic. It isn't sunlight. So what produces their 35 degree F?

Now jc, breathe deeply. Feel that stuff going in and out? That is called air. It is what the atmosphere is made of. And when a mass of that air in the Arctic, cold of course at this time of year, moves down south, then a mass of air has to move in to replace it. And that, of course, comes from the south. So, at the time that some area is getting a shot of Arctic temperatures, the Arctic is getting a shot of temperate temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.

The top graph spans 1,500 years.
The bottom graph spans 800,000 years.
Divide the two and see that the bottom spans 533 times more in years than the upper graph.
If both graphs are 1000 pixels wide on your monitor, the top graph would only span 2 pixels.
The area you circled is much bigger than 2 pixels.
You were confused by the similarity of the shape and didn't pay attention to the scale differences.

Here you go... It's not perfect but it is close and it makes perfect sense too.

View attachment 100995

****, but you are an idiot, Dingleberry! That last section goes from 200,000 to zero. So one percent of that section would be 2000 years. 1500 years would 0.75% of that section. That is much, much less than the section you have indicated. Engineer?

 

[Old Rocks]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

Sure, so what? Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph?

About two pixels of the upper graph are on the end of the lower graph. Too small to see any of the structure that you outlined. So, no in essence the upper graph is visible as the end point tips, and not the circle you outlined.

Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.

Exactly. Then you must have the intellect to interpret what the graphs are saying. And, no, there is absolutely no reason that we can expect more warming from the present interglacial. And certainly not at the rate of warming that we are presently seeing. If the upper graph were on the same scale as the lower graph, the slope of the warming lines would be about 10 degrees. It warmed 8 C in about 10,000 years. That is about 1 degree per thousand years. It has warmed one degree in the last 150 years. Your interpretation of the graphs is not even up to high school level.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.

It doesn't matter what the graphs represent. The slopes are still easily calculable from the data that they do show.

Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.

LOL Goddamn! Engineer, eh? Lordy, lordy. The slopes of the lines are very different on a graph with the same scales for time and temperature. That you cannot grasp that puts a lie to your claim to be an engineer.

 

[depotoo]

From recent research of drilling ice cores-

But Schaefer found cosmogenic nuclides in the bedrock, indicating it had been exposed at some point in the relatively recent past. The specific timing of this exposure is still uncertain. In the most stable scenario, Greenland was nearly ice-free for 280,000 years, before it started freezing over again about 1.1 million years ago. But the data collected by Schaefer and colleagues could also indicate that the ice sheet melted and refroze more than once over the past few million years, which might mean the ice sheet is far less stable than previously assumed.

and this-

Greenland’s ice has grown and shrunk over time, driven by variations in the climate, but mapping out the history of those changes is a remarkably difficult task. The deeper that researchers dig into Greenland's past, the more tangled the icy narrative becomes.

Two new studies published today in Nature illustrate the complexity that faces scientists studying changes to the Greenland ice sheet. One study led by Joerg Schaefer finds that Greenland was almost entirely ice free for extended periods of time during the last 2.6 million years. The other study, led by Paul Bierman, finds that there has been a stable ice sheet over East Greenland for the past 7.5 million years.



So anyone trying to blame the recent icemelt on agw is full of themselves. There have been cycles, always will be cycles. Can we change those cycles? No. It is what it is, whether anyone likes it or not.

Can the modles accurately predict the future? Noo, particularly because they like to play with the datasets to try to show agw. Each threshold they have predicted has been wrong.

The mystery of Greenland’s icy history could help us survive climate change




“It is certainly surprising,” Schaefer says of his results. “Most importantly, there is not a single model that can show that Greenland’s ice sheet has been gone several times over the past few million years or for one period over that time”

The fact that the current models used by glaciologists appear to be too stable and conservative could be bad news for future estimates of ice loss and sea level rise, which rely on models of what happened in the past to figure out what will happen in the future.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"update up on"????

Here's what it's been doing

Air temp from November 23, 2016

Air temperature trend in the Arctic

Here's what air temperature has been doing on a longer scale:

Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, 03 Dec 2016 Land and Ice in white

Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly, 03 Dec 2016

Lemme see..accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880, off by 35F in December 2016.

Yeah, that's science

 

[jc456]

Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com

-8F Baffin Bay. I guess the climate of the Arctic hasn't changed permanently to 35F Warmer, right?

Charts back in 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree = LOL

well I'd sure be interested in where the heat comes from for the arctic. It isn't sunlight. So what produces their 35 degree F?

Now jc, breathe deeply. Feel that stuff going in and out? That is called air. It is what the atmosphere is made of. And when a mass of that air in the Arctic, cold of course at this time of year, moves down south, then a mass of air has to move in to replace it. And that, of course, comes from the south. So, at the time that some area is getting a shot of Arctic temperatures, the Arctic is getting a shot of temperate temperatures.

No, no, your group states it's warm in the arctic, not sure how with no heat, but it's your sides pledge!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do you insist on attaching a series of yearly CO2 outputs onto a graph that has a spatial resolution of 500 years? Why are you doing a Michael Mann lie parlor trick?

Do you realize that spikes of CO2 shorter than 500 Years in duration can not be seen? SO the current spike is possible in previous temperature rises yet can not be seen..

You lying pricks are so predictable.. Trying to get a fear response from a lie..

 

[ding]

We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.

Those three different aspects of M cycles have different periods, If I understood it correctly, I read that the the recent glacial cycles are synchronized only with the eccentricity, and not the precession and tilt. Looking at eccentricity alone does not synchronize with high insolation, as much as the other two aspects. So the M cycle model is iffy to some.

As far as the controversy today, the deep geologic history doesn't really matter to me as much as it would to a climate "historian". Today's rapid rise of CO2 is an independent concern.

We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.

Well now, if CO2 reinforces climate change, then what exactly do you think that the result of adding more than 43% additional CO2 is going to do to the climate? That is a lot of reinforcement.

Have you done the radiative forcing calculation?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, but the scientists that study the cryosphere all have. And their results are far more credible than yours. After all, they are just doing science, not trying to peddle their silly politics.

 

[flacaltenn]

View image on Twitter

Follow
Zack Labe

✔@ZLabe


Today's latest #Arctic mean temperature continues to move the wrong direction... up. Quite an anomalous spike!

12:24 PM - 15 Nov 2016 · Irvine, CA

'Climate Emergency': North Pole Sees Record Temps, Melting Ice Despite Arctic Winter


"Folks, we're in a climate emergency," tweeted meteorologist Eric Holthaus.

Sea ice at both poles at about three standard deviations below normal. Overall sea ice level at a major record low for this time of the year. The temperatures in the arctic way above normal. Keep a watch on this, folks, could get very interesting.

We did all of this already. In a mis-placed thread in the Science forum.. Here is the answer...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15905573/

The shills at this University let the undergrads run their REANALYZER. Got a hot spot in Siberia that lasted a day or two from MODELED data. Starting tweeting about the entire Arctic on fire.

I posted the daily, weekly, monthly Arctic temperatures from REAL data in that other thread. Nothing to see here, but another grant getting the desired propaganda produced so that NASA/NOAA don't have to be the liars all the time..

 

[ding]

No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.

The top graph spans 1,500 years.
The bottom graph spans 800,000 years.
Divide the two and see that the bottom spans 533 times more in years than the upper graph.
If both graphs are 1000 pixels wide on your monitor, the top graph would only span 2 pixels.
The area you circled is much bigger than 2 pixels.
You were confused by the similarity of the shape and didn't pay attention to the scale differences.

Here you go... It's not perfect but it is close and it makes perfect sense too.

View attachment 100995

****, but you are an idiot, Dingleberry! That last section goes from 200,000 to zero. So one percent of that section would be 2000 years. 1500 years would 0.75% of that section. That is much, much less than the section you have indicated. Engineer?

You are literally rejecting NASA data. As for your scientific analysis that the last 1500 years would be 0.75% of the section, that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Look at the gridlines, Einstein. Use your eyes to read the scale.

 

[ding]

Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?

The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.

Sure, so what? Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph?

About two pixels of the upper graph are on the end of the lower graph. Too small to see any of the structure that you outlined. So, no in essence the upper graph is visible as the end point tips, and not the circle you outlined.

Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.

Exactly. Then you must have the intellect to interpret what the graphs are saying. And, no, there is absolutely no reason that we can expect more warming from the present interglacial. And certainly not at the rate of warming that we are presently seeing. If the upper graph were on the same scale as the lower graph, the slope of the warming lines would be about 10 degrees. It warmed 8 C in about 10,000 years. That is about 1 degree per thousand years. It has warmed one degree in the last 150 years. Your interpretation of the graphs is not even up to high school level.

Sure we can. We are still below the peak temperature of the past four interglacial cycles. Use your eyes. Besides isn't the current AGT 1C? Can you see on this graph where it shows the AGT temperature at 0 time (i.e. the present) to be 1C?

 

[ding]

It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.

It doesn't matter what the graphs represent. The slopes are still easily calculable from the data that they do show.

Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.

LOL Goddamn! Engineer, eh? Lordy, lordy. The slopes of the lines are very different on a graph with the same scales for time and temperature. That you cannot grasp that puts a lie to your claim to be an engineer.

No. The slopes are not very different. Use your eyes. But even if they were, that doesn't mean diddly squat. The reality is that we are still below the peak temperatures of the last 4 interglacial cycles. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[Wuwei]

Sure we can. We are still below the peak temperature of the past four interglacial cycles. Use your eyes. Besides isn't the current AGT 1C? Can you see on this graph where it shows the AGT temperature at 0 time (i.e. the present) to be 1C?

The current AGT is not 1C. It is around 15C.