Slashdot Mirror
ESA Satellite Shows Sudden Ice Loss In Southern Antarctic Peninsula
ddelmonte tips news that the ESA's CryoSat spacecraft has detected a sharp increase in the rate at which ice is being lost in a previously stable section of Antarctica. In 2009, glaciers at the Southern Antarctic Peninsula began rapidly shedding ice into the ocean, at a rate of roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year (abstract). From the ESA's press release:
This makes the region one of the largest contributors to sea-level rise in Antarctica, having added about 300 cubic km of water into the ocean in the past six years. Some glaciers along the coastal expanse are currently lowering by as much as four m each year. Prior to 2009, the 750 km-long Southern Antarctic Peninsula showed no signs of change. ... The ice loss in the region is so large that it has even caused small changes in Earth’s gravity field, detected by NASA’s GRACE mission. Climate models show that the sudden change cannot be explained by changes in snowfall or air temperature. Instead, the team attributes the rapid ice loss to warming oceans.
People have been talking about global warming/climate change/politically-correct-term since the last two decades but some countries just keep their head in the sand. *COUGH*U.S.A.*COUGH*
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Being as it is the continent that encompasses the south pole, how do you define what is southern?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Build a trench from the ocean to the desert. Let the excess water pool there. Problem solved.
I'm in the Philippines at the monent and its 40 degrees celsius plus and all the malls and everything else seems to be airconditioned down to 22 degrees celsius or so. Could someone crunch the numbers of the global heating caused by air conditioning starting with their power consumption and efficiency for example? I'm thinking that insulation might be a better investment to prevent climate change because otherwise, what we are doing is expending huge amounts of energy to cool small sections (and thereby heating everything else) on a massive and unprecedented scale...
Not sure how this is news for nerds. Warming oceans are melting ice. That's not a surprise, it's not something new. We already know the oceans are warming. We already had a pretty good idea that warmer water meant ice would melt. We already know sea level is rising, meaning ice is melting.
The news part would be if this was unexpected or otherwise faster than expected, which really doesn't seem to be the case, so yawn. I suppose it does open a platform for people to yell catastrophe, denier and other none sense back and forth though, so there is that.
The post accepted by Slashdot cites European Space Agency's satellite as evidence of ice-loss.
And earlier submission citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion was not accepted. Kind a strange for a normally unabashedly US-centric Slashdot to so openly favour European satellite-data over American — makes one suspect a certain pre-existing bias...
I don't see any substantial changes here, do you?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
They certainly have. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
Would you care to prove the above statement wrong? Try to post a list of link-pairs: first link in each pair shall point to a prediction and the second — to its materializing... Note, that entries containing only the latter will not be accepted — when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
The prediction and the materialization would have to be at least 3 years apart too — successfully predicting tomorrow's weather does not count, that is.
Game?
Easy.
Many posters have noted before that the IPCC has highlighted many good predictions from models over the last while. The CMIP5 temperature projections for last decade for example, you can find their assessment of the models here. They compare climate model runs against observed temperature and here's the summary:
an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble.
The HadCRUT trend is the observed record and as you can see 111 of 114 model runs had a trend since 1998 that was way higher than the observed...
Oh, I guess I did that wrong and may have made your point for you...
It's ok folks, its just Mi the Ignorant Bigot repeating the same myths over and over, no matter how many times he's proven wrong.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This sounds more like the work of a master villain than regular global warming!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I stopped reading at "Climate models show..."
300 cubic kilometers of ice is nothing compared to the volume of the ocean, it is no different than a bucketfull.
Meanwhile antarctic ice is increasing overall.
Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.
Please, try again.
LOL, your a real piece of work, aren't you. Try reading my post again.
Here is a pair of links. this one is a report including some predictions made in the past and this one is a report showing that the HadCRUT trend is the observed record and as you can see 111 of 114 model runs had a trend since 1998 that was way higher than the observed
Fail. Link points to a report which contains numerous links to actual reports and paper providing what was asked.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.
Your request is unreasonable. Just because you would like real-world data to take a certain format: does not mean that you get to choose the format.
It is still sufficient to invalidate the claim that: none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
That is complete and utter nonsense, when the subject is modeling the value of a variable over a period of time.
It is implausible that someone randomly predicted all or most every possible set of results. That would only be possible with a simple 'binary' prediction such as "A positive trend", or at least a prediction of a small number of datapoints, or datapoints that can take on a limited number of discrete values.
Models make specific predictions over a period of time, when most of the predictions made by the model are accurate to a reasonable degree (no model is perfect), then the prediction was made and came true, And it cannot be attributed to the claim that "'once a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.'".
Thank you, yes, I'd like to think that I am.
Why? That it contains only one link is immediately obvious and enough to return it otherwise "unopened".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'll put it back. Didn't think anyone was using it.
In my college Earth Science classes, our professor taught us that there is no doubt the Earth is slowly warming. The only argument is over whether it's natural or due to mankind's effects on the environment.
I should have told him that mi, Slashdot's resident political scientist/economist/earth scientist has it all figured out, and that's not true.
Thank you, yes, I'd like to think that I am.
Why? That it contains only one link is immediately obvious and enough to return it otherwise "unopened".
My link shows the IPCC admitting that 111 of 114 models failed to predict the actual trend since 1998. I thought you'd be more into that.
I know, it says nothing of other predictions having been right or not, but you seemed the type that'd be interested in a failed prediction too, particularly one the IPCC agrees was inaccurate and worth investigation.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300km^3%2Farea+of+earth%27s+oceans
300km^3/area of earth's oceans
Answer is 880microns
I wonder if China has taken into account the sea-level rise that is likely forthcoming on all those little islands they're building in the South China Sea ?
Fast forward to 2020 when China converts said islands into a submarine base . . . lol
predictions made over these years by the "alarmists"
Wow, score 1 for intellectual dishonesty. How about you look at the predictions made by the scientists rather than random pundits in the media. You don't expect the media to accurately report tech news, so the fact that you refer to predictions from "alarmists" rather than scientists implies that you are intentionally going for bad reporting rather than trying to find out what is actually going to happen.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.
Please, try again.
Your request was phrased as a question, but is obviously a time wasting attempt to occupy/annoy/frustrate people who could otherwise be talking about something useful or interesting. Thus is not worth entertaining.
Please fuck off and drown.
College didn't serve you well did it http://it.slashdot.org/comment... and what is it you do for a job allegedly? Computer Security?? What happened there bigshot blowhard??? You got your ASS whipped is what.
The site you link to has no peer reviewed papers, charts with out proper methodology cited, and links to essentially nowhere. Not acceptable.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free". Do you have any?
You are right, no model is perfect. Can you link to a prediction, that materialized within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s)?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Newsweek does not a scientific claim make.
No matter how many times you try to cite it as such.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You are right, no model is perfect. Can you link to a prediction, that materialized within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s)?
Most of the model predict an average earth temperature around 290K. They are therefore all correct, as the measured mean earth temperature is each year between 80% of this value and 120% of it. As you are so precise about your words (like for example "pair of links", and that my comment meets your expectation of 80%, you must admit that you were wrong and that the models are correct. Thank you.
Ah, ad-hominems, they prove everything!
No, it's ad-homenim if he says "Mi is an ignorant bigot and therefore his arguments are invalid". otherwise it's just an insult.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not asking for a "model" — I just want to see a successful prediction. And I am willing to consider "within 80%" as "successful".
Once I see citations of successful predictions, we can switch into discussing their usefulness. But we aren't there yet, despite there being so many responses here already...
Your comment included no links at all and therefore can not possibly meet my expectations. FAIL.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You lazy fucker. Seriously. You are just playing little childish games because you seem to be so set on being right the very thought of you being wrong has made you start to act like a petulant child. Seriously. You are an embarrassment.
Are you that fucking retarded? Seriously? You are citing the Telegraph, and citing it wrong in the process. The article even states "... the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s...". You are hanging on the words of one researcher, and not even bothering to look at the actual research involved, or what the scientists are saying on the matter.
You don't want to be proven wrong, or you are simply terrible at logic. Pick one.
Why is that not counting? This is a perfectly legal pair, and each of them contains exactly what you want them to have.
Hugs and kisses, hater.
At least, a child, however petulant, would not use words like "fucker".
Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on those people, who want me to change my ways to fight a problem. They (including you) have to prove, the problem exists in the first place.
So, instead of posting attacks on my (deeply flawed) person, how about you either put up — the format I am asking for is perfectly reasonable — or shut up?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You are asking for a model, though. The models are used to make predictions - you can't have one without the other. As it is, many of the models have been very accurate, and this hasn't exactly been kept secret. The fact this information is so easy to find, and yet you haven't bothered looking for it, makes your position absolutely indistinguishable from someone who is engaging in an honest attempt to learn. If you are honestly attempting to learn, you are going about it the entirely wrong way. Instead of arguing on Slashdot, spend a few seconds on Google to learn something. I beg you.
none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
I don't know about none, there's probably one or two somewhere that have come true but essentially, yes, you're right. None of the claims made by the alarmist have come true.
On the other hand, scientists tend to be conservative and like to make predictions that are backed by a good understanding of what is happening. This is resulting in things typically being worse than the predictions that scientists were making.
In the 80s when I first became aware of the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, scientists were talking about hundreds of years for the Arctic to become ice free in summer. By 2000 they were talking about 2050. 2015 and 2035ish seems to be a point where the money is going. (My guess from extrapolating what the reasoned voices are saying is that the first exceptional melt year after 2020 will do it after which it will rebound for a few years and then we'll have ice free summers theafter)
I've not really followed Antarctica. However, back in the 80s I'm pretty sure it was "tens of millenia to melt all of Antarctica if it's possible at all". More recently I've seen comments along the lines of "It can't happen in less than 5-10 thousand years" with the assumption that it will happen eventually if we continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
You don't seem to understand what "ad hominem" means, even though you linked to a good description of it. You are not very good at teaching yourself, it seems. That would go a long way to explaining why you can be so incredibly wrong about so many things, yet seem to think you are right, even when the evidence is dangled in front of your face.
Not at all. I don't care, not yet, how the prediction was arrived to. Only that it was made and turned out accurate. Once I see at least two or three such, we can dig deeper. But I'm yet to see any.
Yes, yes. The Prince of Darkness must be very busy the last 10 or so years preparing that special place in his Realm for people, who claim information to be "easy to find" without providing links to any...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Most of the interior is a desert, no more than a few centimeters of ice crystal precipitation per year.
Bouldin struck speechless after that is priceless!
We all took a vote (I'd send you the link, but why?). You're not a fucker. You're a douchebag.
I'd be happy to - could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?
I don't know why you put "intellectually honest" in quotes. I suspect you're accusing me of dishonesty because for some reason pointing out blatant flaws in your reasoning is dishonest.
Well, it's easier to attack the person than it is to attack the argument.
So, since you're happy to be intellectually honest will you go ahead and retract all your claims measured against media pundits rather than scientists?
If you want predictions by actual scientists, you should look at some actual scientific papers or reports.
Of course this is all moving the goal posts, which is another intellectually dishonest tactic. Nonetheless, I'll play ball.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...
Go to Figure 1.4.
You can see predictions from 1990, 1996 and if you like more recent plotted alongside the actual temperature measurements. As you will see, the predictions match the observations.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Not acceptable.
Offfff course it isn't. Nothing besides "THE WORLD IS ENDING...NEXT WEDNESDAY!!!!!!1" is acceptable to an alarmist.
People don't have to jump through your ridiculous hoops to prove the Earth is generally warming.
I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.
In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.
And your source for data that says ice is accumulating in the Antarctic Interior?
Most of the interior is a desert, no more than a few centimeters of ice crystal precipitation per year.
I don't know about the parent's sources for interior ice, but here is a link from NASA for sea ice extent and area of both the Arctic and Antarctic. Pretty clearly shows a downward trend since 78 for the Arctic and upward since 78 for Antarctic. Pretty much in keeping with the IPCC original predictions back as far as 1990 expecting warming to reduce Arctic sea ice, and resulting precipitation to increase accumulations in Antarctic.
I have been trying to understand the true scale of the 300 cubic kilometers in lost ice. According to USGS.gov total planet water is 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers. That makes ice loss about 0.0000216% of the total water. Based on total water surface area of 361,132,000 square kilometers (eoearth.org), 300 cubic kilometers works out to 0.831 mm - about 0.5% of the global rise of 8 inches since 1880 (globalchange.gov).
No doubt that this is a very BIG topic.
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.
In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.
True, of course we could maintain zero increase in temperature out till nearly 2030 before we'd get outside the error margins, making the notion of disprovability a bit tenuous.
Apk "slam-dunked" you thru a hoop Bouldin http://it.slashdot.org/comment... Hahahahahahaha
Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free" [telegraph.co.uk]. Do you have any?
The article you cite also has this line:
While the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s, Dr Maslowski's study also takes into account the rate at which it is thinning and calculates that it will vanish much more quickly.
So Dr. Maslowski's prediction was at odds with the IPCC report that presents the general consensus of the field so it isn't a good example of a prediction.
I'd be happy to — could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?
All you have to do to get the predictions made by scientists is to read the IPCC reports. Here's the latest one.
The GRACE satellites show that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole and the rate of loss is accelerating. So the ice loss is not being balanced by accumulation in the interior.
"Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me,..."
The Hell it isn't.
" But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized."
You made the statement that none of the predictions have ever materialized. (You qualified it by claiming ignorance. At least on this, you are being honest.)
You made that statement.
The burden of proof is on _you_.
You don't want facts. You _delight_ in being lazy and ignorant.
You have a great career ahead of you in the Republican Party.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's amazing how articles written by the climate change proponents often fail to include important facts like the volcanic activity underneath Antarctica melting the glaciers: http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html/
Haha, I had seen the second site you linked, but not the first one. It's just as funny!!!
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Yes, 98-2012 period was unexpected - for some unknown reason atmospheric heating got uncoupled from the ocean heating. So Antarctic melting intensified and Arctic ice loss skyrocketed while the general air temperature growth slowed (it has NOT stopped). The last couple of years the coupling has returned with a vengeance and we'll all be seeing its results soonish.
So yes, if you want to nitpick IPCC then you should provide context and full information. Not just convenient sound bites.
The science is what it is and you can't change that. But a pretty rigorous statistical analysis doesn't show any distinguishable slowdown in the warming trend.
The mere presence of a 3000m thick ice cap, which is the accumulation equilibrium thickness of continental ice proves this. You can stack ice any higher at a temperature of -30. QED
I'm not going to try again because I've already presented you with this peer reviewed paper that compares IPCC projections to observations for temperature and sea level rise. The fact that you won't accept the format I present it in just shows how you lack intellectual flexibility.
by "link" I assume you are using a colloquialism for directions to a specific resource. One might think of it as a "Universal Resource Locator".
For instance, there is a "link" to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... but that does not identify the specific resources you are looking for. To do so, we would need to provide a more specific PAIR of links, for example:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... Page 131, Figure 1.4, TAR predictions 2001-2030
and
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... Page 131, Figure 1.4, Observed Temperature Anomalies
Now, you can argue the quality of the data, the accuracy of the models, and the legitimacy of the authors all you like. But these are TWO fully defined links to the exact information you are looking for.
If you would like to offer up your home address, I will personally pay for a special needs assistant to come to your residence, open a web browser for you, scroll to page 131, show you figure 1.4, and read aloud to you the text and description.
The burden of proof my friend, now lays on your shoulders.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Ok, here's the IPCC third report published in 2001. You can compare the projections in it to current observations.
You are specifying an entirely arbitrary condition.
The link I gave you gives sources for the predictions and sources for the data. The earliest prediction was made in 1990. The data is from 2013.
It's pretty hilarious that in order to "prove" that you are right, you have to impose arbitrary conditions that are of no relation to the topic and then jump up and down squealing about how those conditions haven't been met.
So far the only thing you've proven is that you're not interested in the truth. But since you're intent on digging a huge hole for yourself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
There's the first of the pair of links.
You now have two links, one from 1990 and one from 2013. The 1990 link has predictions of future temperature, the latter has measurements. The measurements lie within the predicted error.
Since this is obviously an emotional point for you and not a rational one, I look forwards for you rationalising reasons why thos doesn't count for some reason.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
People like you LOVE to point fingers at America as being the main one here causing this.
1) back in 1992 when we found out about this, Europe's yearly total emissions were actually MORE than America's and had been for a LONG TIME. Europe's gas tax is what brought down Europe's emissions, not the poltics.
2) During the time of W, America did NOT cut back, however, for the last 6 years, we have cut back because of 3 reasons:
a) cheap nat gas here, combined with cheap wind. Both of these are much cheaper to do than coal.
b) W delayed regulations on mercury until 2017. Now it is taking effect and many coal plants have shut down, with more to come.
c) O's regulations are taking hold and is preventing future coal plants, as well as some nat gas plants, and leading towards more AE, along with nukes.
3) America's emission are today BELOW 15%, and dropping. China's emission are estimated at around 33% of global emissions, rising, and that is without data from OCO2.
4) OCO2's emissions PROVE that China's emissions are much higher than anybody elses.
5) Not only is China's yearly emissions double of America's, but as of THIS YEAR, their TOTALED emission from 1850, is greater than America's.
6) And in terms of total emission for the last millennium, China's is greaters than Europes, but both are MUCH MUCH greater's than all of the America's COMBINED.
Yet, idiots like you will focus on 1 nation, rather than focusing on the nation that accounts for more than 40% (OCO2's date is going to prove that China has lied about their real emissions), or the fact that Europe's total emissions is much much higher than America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Or by my math, a rise in sea levels of 800 microns
Surely our sea defenses will be overwhelmed.
The science is what it is and you can't change that. But a pretty rigorous statistical analysis doesn't show any distinguishable slowdown in the warming trend.
Well, the IPCC disagrees with you in their fifth assessment report:
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.
Your rigorous statistical analysis doesn't look at the trend before 98 and after 98 and compare them, while the IPCC does. A linear trend at the rate from 1950-1998 would have warmed things faster than they have since 1998. That's what the IPCC says above. In your link you can clearly see the pattern. It's also true that things have continued to warm since 1998, it's just the linear average of warming from 1950-2012 is a slower warming than the linear average from 1950-1998 was. We are talking about climate and affects that span not just decades and centuries, but even millenia though so the divergence shouldn't be all that surprising.
What is more relevant and useful from it, as the IPCC goes on to note, is whether any of the existing climate models predicted the slower linear trend and if not why. Turns out 111 out of 114 overestimated the warming since 1998 and one of the biggest reasons is believed to be the already know poor understanding of clouds and water vapor.
Please ignore the big red splotch from the volcano, but we're not going to tell you which one that is.
Yes, 98-2012 period was unexpected - for some unknown reason atmospheric heating got uncoupled from the ocean heating. So Antarctic melting intensified and Arctic ice loss skyrocketed while the general air temperature growth slowed (it has NOT stopped). The last couple of years the coupling has returned with a vengeance and we'll all be seeing its results soonish.
So yes, if you want to nitpick IPCC then you should provide context and full information. Not just convenient sound bites.
The bigger nitpick should obviously be that getting one thing wrong is in absolutely no way evidence for the GP's boldly false claim that nobody has gotten ANYTHING right.
A more important point is that temperature is just a proxy measure of the actual greenhouse effect of increasing energy within the climate. Temperature, as the 'hiatus' demonstrates, is also very dependent on the oceans and how much energy they are absorbing or releasing in a particular time frame. The IPCC notes in this section that:
Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets since 2000.
Meaning that we've been taking in more energy than we are dumping out at an unchanged rate since 2000, so the overall greenhouse effect never slowed even though temperatures did. You've already mentioned some of the speculated reasons for this, but the general simplistic consensus is that if the energy wasn't heating the air the oceans obviously stored the energy somehow. Ocean heat measurements have generally confirmed this, with some investigation still on margins of error.
That's a pretty long winded and well documented way of stating I agree with your points. I still hold to my context being just fine though in observing that climate models systematically overestimated temperatures since 1998. I still stand that it very much IS a relevant and important observation and criticism. Here's why with some more references to the IPCC's assessment of models linked earlier. As mentioned before, the heart of the warming problem is the global energy balance, and how much extra energy CO2 and other processes are helping to add to our planet each year. It's generally referenced as the Top Of Atmosphere energy balance(TOA), and in the long term, it's virtually the only variable that really truly matters to what is happening to our planet. Ultimately more energy in in the long run will raise temperatures, similarly more energy out will lower them. How that energy gets distributed between air and oceans and globally is a secondary consideration. I state all this because when the climate models are being prepared, one of the last steps is 'tuning' parameters in them so that they are accurate. Here's a quote from the IPCC on that:
Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
So, this leads me to one accusation, that hindcasting skill within the models is biased on the most important element(TOA Energy balance), by design. That's not declaring the models bad science, instead it is just observing that the climate models are merely hindcasting with the benefit of having the energy balance corrected by hand. M
Hnsen's 1988 model Spot on, if you put in the actual emissions (close to Scenario A, IIRC). Well, the sensitivity that model got was 3.4Cper doubling but what happened over the period was 3.2C per doubling.
Go to Realclimate and look for model data comparisons.
Go check the IPCC First Annual Report and the predictions to 2000+. If anything the situation is much worse than predicted. If you're going to take that as good news, then I have bad news for you.
LOL, mi gets his info only from bona fide scientific sources - like Forbes, Newsweek, and press releases from The Heartland Institute.
Only morons like you claim "There was not supposed to be an ice cap by 2014". And only then to claim someone else said it.
It's a fucking lie, you shithead. Only other shitheads who want to believe it too will believe that load of crap.
Oh, and wasn't it supposed by you deniers' scientists that we'd be back to the 1956 average by 2006?
That one IS true.
Newsflash: Nobody cares about your "rules".
Try discussing things like an adult.
Dismissing valid information over technicalities (that YOU have decided are meaningful) makes you look like a small minded child.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
They certainly have. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
Would you care to prove the above statement wrong? Try to post a list of link-pairs: first link in each pair shall point to a prediction and the second — to its materializing... Note, that entries containing only the latter will not be accepted — when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
The prediction and the materialization would have to be at least 3 years apart too — successfully predicting tomorrow's weather does not count, that is.
Game?
Easy.
Many posters have noted before that the IPCC has highlighted many good predictions from models over the last while. The CMIP5 temperature projections for last decade for example, you can find their assessment of the models here. They compare climate model runs against observed temperature and here's the summary:
an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble.
The HadCRUT trend is the observed record and as you can see 111 of 114 model runs had a trend since 1998 that was way higher than the observed...
Oh, I guess I did that wrong and may have made your point for you...
Since there have been multiple reports of temperatures being falsified to support the warming concept, perhaps it would be wiser to try physical predictions? Like the streets of Miami becoming flooded by 2010? Or that Polar Bear would have suffered an extreme population loss by now, simply because they allegedly eat nothing but seal blubber, and refuse to move inland?
Or how about a refusal on the part of the scientific community to address the possible impact on the ice from those Antarctic volcanoes found erupting underneath the ice for a period of years? Or the activity on the Mid Atlantic Ridge? Surely a few thousand degrees of continuous heat would do something ............ to ice.
You cannot have it both ways. Address these very credible issues, and then I will be very happy to listen. Numbers are numbers, and as a retired programmer, I am all too familiar with what we like to do with those. Show me something real, that defies any other explanation. That's all I ask. Is it so much?
People don't have to jump through your ridiculous hoops to prove the Earth is generally warming.
The Earth is always warming ........... or cooling. The axial precession of the Earth demands that temperatures move in one direction or the other. But not only has your camp concluded that the Earth is being primarily warmed by humans, but that it is to such an extreme degree that it is necessary to modify the environment in some manner in order to change it.
That's a very dangerous idea, and requires that your camp jump through far more than hoops to prove it. What if you turn out to be wrong, have actually succeeded in altering the climate (doubtful at best) and a rather nasty, natural cooling trend starts. What will you say then? Oops?
First of all, the IPCC issues projections, not predictions.
Second of all, you're a partisan hack and you wouldn't accept evidence that goes against your biases if it flooded your own house.
But okay: info gathered from http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) was published in 1990.
The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) was published in 1995.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) was published in 2001.
I won't go on copying and pasting as it's 100% certain you'll not be convinced - I'm doing this for those that do have an open mind and are interested in evidence.
Again, the page at http://www.skepticalscience.co... has plenty of links to primary sources.
I'll paste one more thing: the summary:
PS, somewhere a village is missing it's idiot; he's on Slashdot and I'm replying to him.
I've not really followed Antarctica. However, back in the 80s I'm pretty sure it was "tens of millenia to melt all of Antarctica if it's possible at all". More recently I've seen comments along the lines of "It can't happen in less than 5-10 thousand years" with the assumption that it will happen eventually if we continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Currently, global sea ice is well above normal. That is largely because antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high, while arctic sea ice is slightly lower than (but approximately within one standard deviation of) average.
Now, while I know that overall ocean temperature and surface ice may not be a direct correlation, it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels.
Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations.
Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading.
And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now.
You know, reading through that stuff, I see that models are doing pretty well. There is a discussion of the slowdown of observed warming, including speculation on where the extra energy could be. Overall, it looks like a good scientific discussion, with confidence levels and admissions of anomalies, and it comes out concluding that models have improved since 1990.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.
I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
For one thing, the Antarctic land ice has been melting, lowering the salinity near Antarctica, and making it easier for water to freeze.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Gee... I say your references are not good and I am a troll. All I asked for was proper citations.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not.
I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view.
I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect?
You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850?
That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing.
I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient.
No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."
In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?
Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".
Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the
There are reasons to doubt the land ice melting connection to Antarctic sea ice, but I don't think that's one of them. I mentioned real reasons by citing Swart and Fyfe 2013, Polvani and Smith 2013 and referencing fig. 2 and fig. 4(e) from Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012 (PDF).
But ocean warming is sufficient to thin West Antarctic ice sheets, as I've explained:
"West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with an ice sheet that's vulnerable to the warming oceans because it's mainly grounded below sealevel."
"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate. ... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."
The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.
this proves a lot though, from your own post history: http://slashdot.org/submission...
i personally have debunked your bullshit dozens of times, as has dave420, ikanreed, dywolf, and others.
you are a shill and a troll, and a bigot. about the only person who believe your crap is Jane Q public, who frankly, is probably you, given how often you repeat each other.
I (and quite a few scientists) think the IPCC report made a mistake in talking about a hiatus. As shown statistically by Tamino it's a meaningless distinction at this point. Looking at the temperature trend only since 1998 is too short a period climatologically speaking as the standard climatological period is 30 years.
The only way climate models can account for natural variability is by using uncertainty ranges since by its nature natural variability isn't predictable ahead of time. The fact that temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of the climate models means it's impossible to say they're wrong.
If you've been looking at this for a while you know the antarctic ice mass grows in the middle and cleaves around the edges. The antarctic mass has been growing steadily for 45 years and has never been bigger than now.
How and why it's growing so much in a supposed "warming" world I leave to your imagination although keep in mind a new paper shows the rate of warming in the 20th century is the same rate as the previous 80 centuries.
Refs:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
http://multi-science.atypon.co...
Need Mercedes parts ?
Ice on land is melting during summer. ... during summer. ... and the so called records are exaggerated, there is no record.
That means fresh water is on top of the sea water
When it gets cold in winter that freshwater is freezing and giving the false impression there would be some mystery going on.
The sea ice we are talking about 50 years ago, was *permanent* ice.
No we have sporadic ice
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I (and quite a few scientists) think the IPCC report made a mistake in talking about a hiatus. As shown statistically by Tamino it's a meaningless distinction at this point. Looking at the temperature trend only since 1998 is too short a period climatologically speaking as the standard climatological period is 30 years.
The only way climate models can account for natural variability is by using uncertainty ranges since by its nature natural variability isn't predictable ahead of time. The fact that temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of the climate models means it's impossible to say they're wrong.
I'd be interested which scientists you count on your side wishing the IPCC hadn't discussed it. I'm pretty sure guys like Cohen who's published work on the matter they reference among others consider it worthy of mention.
The reduced warming trend wasn't just compared to models, but compared to the linear trend over the last 50 years of the observed record. Given that CO2 has been steadily climbing the expectation, and the model predictions, were for accelerating warming rather than slowing. After the slowing persisted for more than a decade failing to talk about it is not honest.
When 111 out of 114 models are all running higher than the instrumental record that indicates something is systematically different in the real world than in the models. Whether error margins haven't been exceeded yet or not, if things were kosher in the models, the distribution above and below the observed should be more random than 111 out of 114 being on the high side, and badly so at that. It is dishonest to just say everything is ok and no need to even mention it.
it hasn't failed yet, we've not yet had the summer of 2015....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Here are several posts at RealClimate on the subject of whether warming has paused or not:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
There are indications that the PDO is switching to a warm phase that generally favors El Ninos. If that happens temperatures may well move above climate model projections in a few years. It's all a part of the noise of natural variability. As I said before less than about 30 years is too short a time period to make judgements about the temperature trends.
they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world
But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? (I did read the paper, by the way.)
The models havenâ(TM)t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You donâ(TM)t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASNâ(TM)T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."
Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data
You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850?
No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that.
In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture.
Yes, indeed. If you should ever start actually using "all the available data", and were honest with yourself, I think you might start softening your tone.
They'll BOTH send 1 hell of a shock into your system! E.G. - U.S. Naval Map = http://www.phibetaiota.net/wp-... done by iirc, a military core of engineers & scientists' studies... & they said it was INEVITABLE.
AND
Edgar Cayce Map of US Future by Prophecy = http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dFRE...
* The late Mr. Cayce's QUITE a read in & of itself about himself - I truly HIGHLY recommend it...
APK
P.S.=> They did ME @ least - it is SPOOKY shit, & eerily more than "coincidentally so" in fact... apk
They'll BOTH send 1 hell of a shock into your system! E.G. - U.S. Naval Map = http://www.phibetaiota.net/wp-... done by iirc, a military core of engineers & scientists' studies... & they said it was INEVITABLE.
AND
Edgar Cayce Map of US Future by Prophecy = http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dFRE...
* The late Mr. Cayce's QUITE a read in & of itself about himself - I truly HIGHLY recommend it...
APK
P.S.=> They did ME @ least - it is SPOOKY shit, & eerily more than "coincidentally so" in fact... apk
My prediction would be the debates over whether human-caused climate change exists and is important or impactful w/acceptance of a need to change will still be ongoing for 15 years at least, with no major predictions accepted as valid or invalid by the opposing parties, because there are very strong economic, political, and commercial/personal brand interests by many people, and especially powerful people with deep pockets in the outcome of this debate on both sides, And politics tends to always trump science, logic, and rational action, at least for the short term.
See James Hansen's paper on Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Here are several posts at RealClimate on the subject of whether warming has paused or not:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
There are indications that the PDO is switching to a warm phase that generally favors El Ninos. If that happens temperatures may well move above climate model projections in a few years. It's all a part of the noise of natural variability. As I said before less than about 30 years is too short a time period to make judgements about the temperature trends.
You want to link a journal over a blog please? There is no argument or discussion about the matter. The instrumental temperature record as recorded in the HADCRUT data set used in virtually every climate modelling experiment has a higher linear warming rate from 1950-2012 than from 1998-2012. There is no debate on the matter, that's simply a fact. Any source denying this is very simply being dishonest.
That said, as I pointed out before several times, the energy imbalance at TOA is where the actual greenhouse effect is going on. For pretty near the duration of satellite records there we have seen a consistent imbalance with more energy coming in than going out annually. That imbalance is also agreed to have had no annual trend since 2000 or longer. That means the planet's been gaining energy at the same rate before and after 98 and only temperature has been fluctuating rates. The question of importance is what is the real temp response to that increasing temperature? The linear rate from 1950-2012 or from 1950-1998? That's an active area of study and simply saying don't tLk about it, or it isn't important is just dishonest, as I've repeated a couple times now. The only guys I've seen really adamant about rejecting that are alarmists that want to claim greater than linear warming and catastrophe are near, since the data refutes them they reject or deny it.
You know, reading through that stuff, I see that models are doing pretty well. There is a discussion of the slowdown of observed warming, including speculation on where the extra energy could be. Overall, it looks like a good scientific discussion, with confidence levels and admissions of anomalies, and it comes out concluding that models have improved since 1990.
I agree there is lots of good science within the models. I still question the quality and confidence levels in them. The same IPCC link will also note that models in their set nearly universally are hand tuned to match the known historic record of TOA energy imbalance. That is the most important measure if climate change, energy change at top of atmo is corrected in the hind casts by hand to be correct. More over, the most common parameter used to tune that energy imbalance is cloud effects. If you look again at the discussion of how and why models missed the lowered trend after 98 one of the major suspects is inaccurate natural forcing a, like clouds, impacting the net forcings, AKA TOA imbalance. Basically the hand tuned parts work a lot better when we know what to tune them to than when moving into an uncertain future.
The models still cover the very challenging questions of how climate responds to increased incoming energy. For long term projections though the energy balance dominates and getting it right or wrong is greater than the difference between the many emission scenarios the IPCC uses. Exactly like it dominates the long term historical trends were researchers routinely tune the models until they match the known historic imbalances. Without a model that can predict energy imbalances I lack confidence in its long term reliability, much like the researchers themselves already know when making longer term hindcasts.
Well those blog posts were written by Michael Mann and Stephan Rahmstorf, two rather prominent scientists and they do have citations to peer reviewed science. I don't have time to dig deeper now as I'm leaving in a few hours for a week of whitewater rafting.
There's not a lot of difference between the warming rate from 1950-1998 and 1950-2012 and choosing 1998 is cherry picking since it was an unusual year, more than 2 sigmas above the temperature trend. Since something like 93% of the warming goes into the oceans anyway it doesn't take much of a change in the rate of ocean heat absorption to have a large effect on atmospheric temperatures. But as long as there is an energy imbalance all of that heat is still accumulating and sooner or later it will have its effects.
Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?
"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]
Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.
The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.
That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.
I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.
That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d
Oops, 11 year baseline (like 2000-2010).
Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on those people, who want me to change my ways to fight a problem. They (including you) have to prove, the problem exists in the first place.
We don't have to. We just go to the polls and vote. And once our policy is state policy, you'll follow it - if need be, because we threaten to put a gun to your head (and if need be, actually do so).