ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
Was there a reason you chose the Monckton approach?
The trend for Arctic sea ice is dire.
In April 1980 the total sea ice was over 1 million sqkm less than the 30 year average from 1979-2008. Right now the total sea ice is about 1 million sqkm less than the average from 1979-2008, so yes I would say it is exactly the same.
But seeing as you guys want to look in more detail, lets compare April 1980 with April 2008, or maybe April 2009, nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.
What the graph really shows is that there is no real change over 30 years. If it was a graph of some trading vehicle/contract, you would be a fool to put your money on anything based on it. Basically you would be guessing.
brty
I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming that *any* scientist is qualified to comment. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no-one on the anti-GW side who's qualified to comment, but there are a LOT of scientists out there who know nothing about climate science and are not qualified to comment.
If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?
There are not and never have been any easy options with energy. It's either polluting, too resource intensive (ie expensive) to the point of being largely useless, or it just doesn't work.Look at Rudd. Look at the little sleaze trying DESPERATELY to look like he's doing something about climate change, while doing as little as he can possibly get away with. Look at most of the governments on earth doing the same. And then getting the crap kicked out of them electorally whenever they do a damn thing, since anything effectual will be painful for their voters.
Do you seriously think that if ANY of them had evidence that all of this was a crock that they'd hold back for a SECOND?
TERRIBLE news everyone - everything's fine! PROSPERITY FOR EVERYONE!
I provided an explanation of the approaches Monckton takes in mischievously using data.Monckton approach, wtf is that?
I posted a response to your statement that northern sea ice is contracting markedly. Presumably you meant the Artic regions. The graph I posted shows satellite data since 02 and there has been no significant contraction.
But, in response, you provide an image of global sea ice along with a petty ad hom.
What should we call that approach?
Link as follows: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/February 3, 2010
Despite cool temperatures, ice extent remains low
Despite cool temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal. By the end of January, ice extent dropped below the extent observed in January 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, the one major area of the Arctic where temperatures remained warmer than normal.
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for January, but 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in January 2006.
Climate science tries, wherever possible, to use 30-year averaged data as it overcomes a range of multi-decadal cyclical anomalies.
So you're looking at a few of the outliers to make your argument? Seriously? Cherry picking is usually a misused term on the intertubes, but this, sir, is cherry picking.
brty .....nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.
The low points getting lower on average. The high points getting lower on average. The sea ice change here is especially dramatic given that we've experienced only a small part of what we can expect in the long term (only about 0.3 of a degree in the period shown).
Unfortunately the anomaly in your chart shows a statistically insignificant decrease on the longer term trend at this point in time.Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly.
brty
I provided an explanation of the approaches Monckton takes in mischievously using data.
What I can really see happening is that all changes must be due to man-made global warming according to the alarmists. Warmer here, PROOF. Colder there, PROOF. Less ice here, PROOF. More ice there, PROOF.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm"There's been a change in atmospheric circulation around Antarctica related to the stratospheric ozone depletion and this actually causes stronger winds, which then pushes the ice away from the coast in some regions of Antarctica, which actually then causes more new ice formation and increases the overall sea ice in that region," she said.
"In other parts of Antarctica the temperatures have been decreasing and this is again sort of what we've expected to see, at least according to what the climate models tell us should be happening".
...
"This recent paper shows you know a change in the annual mean ice extent of Antarctica of only 0.97 per cent per decade which is really close to zero," she added.
"In contrast if you look at the Arctic, you see statistically significantly trends of about 4 per cent per decade in the opposite direction right now if you look at the annual mean. Certainly it's a very small change for the Antarctic.
"The Antarctic is very different than the Arctic and what we're noticing is that you'll see negative trends in some areas of the Antarctic and positive trends elsewhere."
We are agreed that the approach is counter-productive. That so, it cuts both ways.Although I think said approach is counter-productive, it's a bit rich that the AGW cultists criticize the approach, as it is part of their own stock in trade.
I am at a loss to find this "unfettered truth", so your help would be appreciated. It is definitely not apparent in this thread.Sceptics need only state the unfettered truth to torpedo the "co2" based AGW hypothesis and much of the purported "empirical" (pffffft) evidence of runaway global warming.
Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly. The IPCC report states that Antarctic sea ice is growing at 1% per decade. Yet ALL the climate models have Antarctic sea ice as either stable at present and then declining, or if created ~10 years ago as declining, and continuing declination into the future (which means they are just wrong).
Isn't that what I just said?We are agreed that the approach is counter-productive. That so, it cuts both ways.
I am at a loss to find this "unfettered truth", so your help would be appreciated. It is definitely not apparent in this thread.
I've been saying over and over and over and over and over and over again that some local areas are supposed to get colder.
(equivalent to approximately –2.7% per decade)
clearly shows a reduction in overall sea ice over the last 50 years.
And I do not have to be a scientist to demand this. Arguments need to be in ordinary language with easy to understand proofs. This summer in N.Queensland is no different from many before.
His reference was to data available at the "site".Sure it does... even though it shows only 30 years of records.
Do you work for the IPCC with a use of data like that??
brty
You and every other true believer, every bit of change is PROOF of global warming, not just proof of constant change, as has always happened in the past.
The "insignificant" change in Antarctic sea ice of 100,000 sq km...
...when referring to the decrease in Arctic sea ice. I suppose that is nearly 4%.
Have a really good look at the Antarctic sea ice rate of change since the end of 2005, it shows the area of sea ice increasing at a faster rate than before, yet ignored in the models, ignored by the IPCC, ignored by the climate change religious zealots.
All I want the true believers to do is have an open mind, look at the evidence in an unbiased way, look at the raw data themselves, the unaltered data that is. Everywhere I look the data on climate has been adjusted. I am open to all evidence, not a 'true non-believer', if someone can show me data that has not been adjusted and then offer proof that it is not a normal natural change then i will reserve the right to change my opinion.
Because most of the direct observations of sea ice (1870-1971 period) are from ships at sea, they are generally the most complete near the ice edge. The conditions north of the ice edge are often assumed to be 100% covered during this period.
The satellite era has shown otherwise with concentrations between 70-90% frequently occurring well north of the ice edge in the post-1972 data.
15% is commonly used
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?