I recommend Death Valley (282 feet below sea level).
Well, maybe not.
You said “our models did not see this coming, you must trust us”
It was just addressing that. Latif was dealing on the canard that on the last 10 years there has been no warming.
Well, just clarify your position, do not play dumb. When you say:
““our models are sooooo good, you must trust us” and then the next day “our models did not see this coming, you must trust us”.”
You are referring not only to any simulations applied to ice, it is clear that you are telling us that other simulations can not be trusted also.
Incidentally it was old news that the Ice melting was going above the predictions, a long time ago I made the point that the IPCC was recommending to make policy changes based on conservative predictions. I then mentioned that Ice melting going over the limits translate to: "who would be dumb to continue to assume that we should only expect to see the low ends of the predictions?
Most models dealing with atmospheric climate take ice into account, but they did not say so much about the effects of the climate on the ice. One needs to use other types of simulation and AFAIK in the past there was not much progress on that but see below for the current state of those models.
I don’t play dumb, I am.
Although my phrase about models was specific to the OP, you can generalize my feeling that if certain groups of models (about AGW or aluminum production or traffic) are consistently wrong, why should I trust the guys making them? Especially when they themselves accept that, again, they have been wrong.
I love mathematical/statistical models, but if you’re usually wrong, I’m getting another opinion. I trust (any, on any subject) models that consistently predict correctly and that applied backwards reflect the past correctly.
Also, still nothing on antarctic ice which, I repeat, reached its maximum level the same day when the “OMG, Arctic ice has reached a minimum” news came. Also, Don’r forget that good (satellite) observation of (Ant)Arctic ice come only from the late 70’s.
Linkand linkto antartic ice
GIGObuster:
This is not a criticism - it’s an honest question. I had read that one of the problems with ice measurements is that the NASA satellite which was measuring ice cover was somewhat defective, and for years people had been correcting its data. Last year, it was replaced with a new satellite that has better detectors, and the result is a one-time apparent loss of ice mass. Have you heard anything about that? It sounds somewhat fishy to me, but I haven’t been able to find much else about it.
Also, can you have a look at this graph and tell me what I’m missing? Because it looks to me like the current measures of sea ice extent fit within normal variation. It also looks like the annual sea ice minimum contains quite a bit of variation, but it seems to correct itself once temperatures drop - I assume there’s some feedback mechanism here, where a larger-than-normal ice loss in the summer brings with it a greater than normal period of ice growth.
Models are not the only thing used to say what is taking place in the Antarctic.
AFAIK, there were other explanations on why the interior of the Antarctic is gaining ice, but recently it is not looking as the wash that it looked before. (Your references are from 2007 and from denier sources)
Whoa, I researched for that subject a few days ago and I did remember a graph almost exactly like that:
What that graph from the IARC is missing is the average from 1979 to 2000:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The graph you posted only covers from 2002.
The 2009 ice sheet cover was less than the average of the 1979 to 2000 years. Not as bad as 2007 or 2008, but there was still less ice than in 2005
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/091709.html
As for the satellites, I think they are mentioned in the previous post but I may check more information later.
I would expect there would be some difference due to the fact that Antarctica has a land mass beneath the ice and snow, whereas the Arctic is just water. By my calculations…darn, dropped my slide rule! Well, you guys can do this simple math stuff as easily as I…
Yes, but the headlines are saying that there is new information that indicates the ice sheet loss is accelerating. Let’s look at the claims in the OP:
I’m having a hard time reconciling this with that chart. It looks like arctic sea ice patterns haven’t changed much at all since 2002. How can they say that the loss is 'much higher than ‘recently projected’ if in fact it’s better than it was in 2007 and 2008? Did they ‘recently project’ it to be even better?
What is the basis for this? Given that the Earth hasn’t warmed at all in the past decade, why are they still predicting the same temperature rise for 2020 that they were making a decade ago? Shouldn’t they at least reduce it by the amount of warming they expected in the 2000’s, which never materialized? Or are they assuming that the cool period is due to a temporary phenomena and once it goes away the temp rise will be even faster until it hits the same level they expected in the first place?
This seems disingenuous, since the IPCC projections did not include a flattening of warming trends. I’ve seen the long-term projections - there was a similar cooling before, but the temp caught up with the projected trend line, so it appears to have been normal variation. So are they just assuming that the current flattening of warming is just normal variation? If so, it’s not really fair to say that it ‘continues to track early IPCC projections’. It doesn’t. It’s tracking significantly below projections. If it’s normal variance, it will regress to the mean to be sure, but that’s not the same as saying it’s currently tracking previous projections.
Saying that temperature ‘continues to track projections’ implies that current values validate the projection. If they’re simply assuming variance is the cause, then they’re actually saying the opposite - that the projection proves that current lack of warming is just variance. I’m sure you can see the fallacy there.
Also, the ‘could be as high as’ phraseology really bugs me. The IPCC’s best estimate in the 3rd assessment Report in 2001 was for warming of between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100. And this was before a a decade of no warming and a global recession which has quite dramatically cut CO2 emissions.
Even the 4th assessment’s most pessimistic scenario, SRES A1F1, has warming in a range from 1.4 degrees to 6.4 degrees. So these guys are taking the highest predicted value from the most pessimistic scenario, then rounding it UP. This is not good science - it’s propaganda.
It would be equally accurate for me to say, “Why do anything at all? Even the IPCC agrees that warming may not be a problem. Their projections show it could be as low as 1.1 degrees of warming by 2100, which is pretty much the natural warming rate we expected at this point since the last ice age, and which would actually be beneficial to the planet.”
Of course, what they should have reported is the median value and used the phrase ‘likely’: "According to the IPCC, if we do nothing the global temperature is likely to increase by approximately 3.4 degrees C by 2100 " (SRES Scenario A2 - best estimate). But then, that doesn’t sound nearly as scary.
It’s also worth noting that CO2 emissions saw their biggest decline in 40 years last year, and will probably decline again this year, or at best be close to flat. And we don’t know where or when it will recover to previous levels.
The SRES scenarios translate into CO2 emissions growth of between 1.8% and 3.4% per year. From 2000 to 2007, emissions growth was tracking at about 3%. Adding in the 2.6% decline in 2008 and calling it flat for 2009, that would translate into a growth rate of about 2.1% per year for the 2000s, which is near the low end of the IPCC projections. So a more accurate guess would probably be to use the best estimate from a mid-range scenario, which would be around 2.5-3 degrees.
So by what mechanism would the Greenland ice sheet be decreasing, while Arctic ice overall seems to be relatively stable?
And I thought I recently read that the Antarctic ice sheet was thickening. The area of the ice sheet may be diminishing, but the thickness is increasing. Have you heard that?
Okay, this is the paragraph that actually prompted me to go look up that chart. This seems highly disingenuous. They’re leaving the impression that the arctic ice is vanishing, melting away in the summer. In fact, the level of ice by the end of the year in those cases was within the region of normal variability. And isn’t it important to note that the last two years have seen significantly lower levels of ice sheet loss in the summer?
So all in all, this really highlights the problem I have with the way some in the AGW community are pushing the science. They’re not behaving like scientists - they’re advocates. They’re taking the science and stretching it, using the worst-case scenarios, playing fast-and-loose with the numbers by trumpeting summer sea loss without mentioning that it completely recovered by the end of the year, etc. Exactly the kind of shenanigans the anti-AGW people tend to play.
For someone like me who honestly wants to follow the science and the economics and do the most logical thing, the distortions on both sides are maddening.
Sam
I have never known you to post anything thats not pro nuke, when I meant we, I was not specifically refering to any one individual. By we, I meant society at that time decided nukes be it power generation or boom boom nukes were a bad thing and no amount of common sense would have detered these people.
Declan
No one equates coal with Radiation, no one has ever been able to get common folk freaked about coal, mention radiation and mutation and throw in movies like China syndrome, threads, the day after and you have a populist movement.
Its not about whats worse, its about control and who controls and the anti nuke folks were in the saddle for the past three decades.
Declan
GigoBuster:
You use the word “denier” so much…do you get a dollar each time? Also, maybe the sire is a “denier” but the graphs ain’t.
Why is my 2007 quote bad -cuz it’s old - but when you say something is “old news” then it is good?
I never said mathematical model were the only thing, but “expectations” (OP) are based on models that I’m sure have at least a couple of nice equations.
A couple of links to antartic
From one of the reports :
“The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.”
Thats MY biggest beef with the whole thing. The whole global warming field of science appears to me to be plaqued with that sorta thing. That means “bad things happening” can range from almost nothing happening to something bad. I can just sit in my living room and give such “useful” predictions about all sorts of stuff.
That sorta error range / predicted increase ratio is bad/useless enough when its regarding one very simple and specific thing that you understand every well and has very few variables (think something like bolt strenght vs carbon content or some such science/engineering model.
But with a massive model thats got probably thousands of input parameters (where the actual values are may not be known to a high degree of precision) , all sorts of models of processes that are poorly understood, probably plenty of processes that are unknown/missing. feedback loops upon feed back loops, chaos theory kind of problems, the computer models (or data )not having the kind of physical/ temporial resolution one would really like…and so on and so on (probably)
As a coworker of mine (working in a different field of simulation) used to say “If you have to guess at more than 2 or 3 inputs, you might as well just guess at the output”
Excellent post btw Sam Stone.
(snipped and bolded)
I wish my statistics teachers had allowed me to use that phrase in a test, it would’ve made everything so easy.
:rolleyes:
It is not models what the most recent links are dealing with but the results of the current satellite surveys, the margin of error is referring to the minimum estimate to the maximum, I do not think that dismisses the most possible average or medium.
I do not think Sam is doing so well after the “Given that the Earth hasn’t warmed at all in the past decade,” That is a statement that makes me doubt if he is paying any any attention to the researchers and only listening to deniers.
We are still within the projected levels and misinterpreting the decadal warming trend is reaching appalling levels.
From guys like Mark Morano and denier blogs, It is a tough call to differentiate if they are ignorant or malicious after the years they have to get it right.
And before continuing, we should not forget the third dimension, the surface area of the ice is not the most important issue here, but the volume.
Tell me where that’s wrong, then. I know it’s still within the limit of predicted variability - I just said that in my last message. But my understanding is that there has been no real measured temperature gain in this decade.
One of the leaked E-mails in the CRU hacked database is from Kevin Trentworth, a climate scientist and member of the IPCC. He says this: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”
My understanding of what’s going on right now is that temperatures are NOT tracking IPCC’s previous estimates, but temperature is still within the range of variability of the estimate, so it doesn’t disprove anything, and should regress to the mean over time and the long-term estimate does not necessarily change because of this short-term variance in temperature.
Is that a fair statement?
Of course, with such a high margin of error, anytihng can be expected.
If I predicted I’d win 6 Cy Young awards in twenty years, and after winning two in five years, I haven’t won one in ten, I’m still within my parameters, but it’s easy to see that I’m stretching it.
how may years of flat temperatures will be enough? 20? 50? At some point there’s gotta be a problem.
As you ignored elsewhere, researchers like Latif do mention that after having around 20 years of apparent flat readings (while warming is still accumulating) then that would show that there are other driving mechanisms that scientists have missed in the current warming, that would be good news, but the warming is not going away and other driving items remain wishful thinking.
(Yep, Marc Morano, the same fellow you relied as a cite on a previous post)
Staying warm is not a good reason to dismiss the theory, a cooling trend is needed for that. And it is misleading to claim that we are in one, there is still more cooling needed to start claiming that we are out of trouble.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
So, no amount of years.
As I said, with those gigantic error bars, sometimes much bigger than the effect measured, you can justify anything.
Of course, short-term cooling or flat trends co not invalidate warming and are expected as part of the variability.
What cooling trend would be enough? If by 2040 we’re still at the same temperatures that we are today, will it be enough?
In your first site, “Max” makes some very useful observations, particularly when he says “there will always be ENSOs” so trying to wish them away won’t work.
Warmest/Hottest months are a dime a dozen, when the hottest month of a century is not the hottest of a decade.
October '09 is the 6th hottest of the last 31, but 3rd of 130.
My point is simply that the statement “The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections” is not particularly accurate. It’s not wrong, but it’s not really a fair statement of what’s going on. The way it’s worded sounds like current data validates the prediction - that it’s a close fit. In fact, it’s trending off the prediction line, but hasn’t gone outside the limits of variance, so the correct scientific statement is to say, “current warming levels are still within the limits of error of the IPCC’s previous prediction”.
What a lot of the AGW science community seems to do is this: Instead of communicating the fairest assessment of where the science is, they try to communicate the most extreme interpretation of where the climate is going, while trying to stay within the limits of what the science says.
You see that kind of thinking in the leaked E-mails as well. When faced with an anomaly, the reflex seems to be to ask, “what can we do to make this as small as possible, while still remaining within the bounds of correct science?” In short, they’re biased. They already have their conclusion, and they work hard to make the science fit the conclusion. They have rationales for it all, and you can’t necessarily point at any one correction and say, “That’s cheating!” But bias has a way of accumulating.
This of course is why you want independent peer review, preferably by people with no axe to grind. But again, a lot of these guys don’t do that. Their peer reviews consist of showing their data to people who already agree with the conclusion. From a pure science standpoint, it’s much better to get a peer review from someone who is actively trying to punch holes in your model, but again, these guys seem to do everything they can to keep their work away from people who disagree with them.
These are my big problems with what’s going on - the science is being carried out in ways that look biased and questionable, and the public pronouncements are not fair statements of what the science says, but statements designed to make the science look as strong as possible and the potentional consequences as bad as possible.
Why can’t they just release the IPCC conclusions? The IPCC goes to the trouble of coming up with a ‘best estimate’. If it’s the best estimate, that’s what should be communicated in press releases - not the highest range of the highest scenario with no other context. It’s dishonest.
The reason this is happening is that there’s a fundamental conflict of interest at play here - the same people doing the science are also acting as political agents to gain public support for government regulation. The careful analysis of science gives way to the need to dramatize the projection, minimize the uncertainty, and convince the public to take drastic action.