tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post8062064801185493008..comments2023-06-21T00:39:34.443-07:00Comments on Dosbat: April 2015 Status. Part 1.Chris Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-41105936031946348912015-05-07T23:51:23.373-07:002015-05-07T23:51:23.373-07:00Vindaloo Bugaboo,
No further comments from you ar...Vindaloo Bugaboo,<br /><br />No further comments from you are welcome. I don't want to turn on moderation, I don't like deleting comments, I prefer free and open discussion. But you are not interested in discussion, you are only interested in disruption.<br /><br />I have shown you several blog posts. You then say:<br /><br />"Do you agree then that AMO/PDO is primarily responsible for NH climate variation and supersedes AGW claims of CO2 forcing?"<br /><br />This makes it clear that you are incapable of understanding the evidence, or of reading.<br /><br />In this blog post, to which I referred you on 5 May:<br />http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/co2-causes-arctic-sea-ice-loss.html<br /><br />I included the following graphics.<br />http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7058/6993704168_03751afb94_o.jpg<br />and <br />http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7142592477_ed4594dbd9_o.jpg<br /><br />From the latter it is clear that there is scant relationship between the AMO and the Chapman long extent series.<br /><br />From the former it is clear that only CO2 increases show a clear correlation with sea ice decline. Correlation is not causation, but where mechanism exists correlation is a useful tool to show what factor drives the change.<br /><br />In any case in this post, which I also directed you to on 5 May:<br />http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-caused-volume-loss-in-piomas.html<br />I included a plot from a paper, that plot shows that in all models considered sea ice only declines when human factors, notably the increase in CO2, are included.<br /><br />Other evidence aside the evidence shows that only an idiot would come to the conclusion that human driven global warming, as indicated by CO2 increases, are not causing the current loss of ice.<br /><br />Anybody involved in studying Arctic sea ice, be they amateur or professional will have statements of what may happen in the future proven wrong by events. As we are all (amateur and professional) at risk of this we act as adults and treat such failures with respect. Sneering as you do is infantile.<br /><br />You ask:<br />"Which "other factors" are you referring to that are causing the 'pause'?"<br /><br />Yet prior to you writing that, on 6 May I directed you to a blog post. In that post I listed four papers:<br /><br />Kaufman et al, 2011, Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 to 2008.<br />Foster & Rahmstorf, 2011, Global temperature evolution 1979 to 2010. <br />Kosaka & Xie, 2011, Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling.<br />Cohen et al, 2012, Asymetric seasonal temperature trends.<br /><br />So why are you asking the question when you have already seen the answer? It is clear that you have a conclusion already and are not at all interested in sceptical thinking, the hallmark of which is allowing the evidence to guide your conclusions.<br /><br /><br />You also show a total lack of grasp, in your dealing with me you say:<br />"Since the real world hasn't matched modeled projections, it is fair to assume the climate forcing of CO2 is far less of a factor than currently believed."<br />It is evident from your answers to FishOutOfWater that you show the same lack of grasp.<br /><br />As Tamino has shown repeatedly, and as indeed the case. The mathematical tool for establishing a break from the forced trend is establishing if the 'pause' reaches statistical significance. By no measure does it do so. Therefore the 'pause' does not break the trend and does not bring the models or theory into question.<br /><br />With regards the Antarctic, you need only enter a search term into Google to get a factual explanation:<br />https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm<br /><br />Everything else you say on the matter shows your complete lack of comprehension.<br /><br />I advised you earlier to go back to Watt's Up With That, or somewhere else with equally low standards. Further posting by you on this blog will be a waste of time as I will delete as soon as I see the comments.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-55455502869464716232015-05-07T10:15:41.119-07:002015-05-07T10:15:41.119-07:00FishOutofWater,
"This situation in Antarctic...FishOutofWater,<br /><br />"This situation in Antarctica is actually quite dire but fools think it's good news that sea ice is increasing. Glaciers around Antarctica are melting at a depth of 100 meters below sea level and freshening the surface water."<br /><br />Two things:<br />1. It is good news because of the increased albedo effect going into the SH summer, which reflects ~90% of incoming solar insolation of 1366 W/m2. That, in turn, reduces atmospheric IR retention.<br /><br />2. Antarctic SST are at or near 0 to -1.5 Celcius. No melting is occurring at that temperature of surface ice. It is unreasonable to suggest any melting at depth ~100m is from upper-surface waters above -1.5C but is reasonable if from subterranean volcanic venting, which has nothing to do with AGW.AZ1971https://www.blogger.com/profile/14949986537841277624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-91074565104271756062015-05-07T10:07:45.210-07:002015-05-07T10:07:45.210-07:00Chris Reynolds,
"Just as gravity is still ac...Chris Reynolds,<br /><br />"Just as gravity is still active when electrostatic forces oppose it, so the forcing from CO2 is still active when other factors cause a 'pause'."<br /><br />Which "other factors" are you referring to that are causing the 'pause'?<br /><br />The skeptical debate centers on just how much of a climate forcing CO2 has in the real world. The UN IPCC presumes it is of value 'x' and models projections based on it. Since the real world hasn't matched modeled projections, it is fair to assume the climate forcing of CO2 is far less of a factor than currently believed.AZ1971https://www.blogger.com/profile/14949986537841277624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-38705304590426076712015-05-07T09:45:38.905-07:002015-05-07T09:45:38.905-07:00Chris Reynolds,
"20/20 hindsight will gain y...Chris Reynolds,<br /><br />"20/20 hindsight will gain you no points on this blog."<br /><br />20/20 hindsight is the only way to accurately analyze historical processes of Arctic volume and extent, and is how the whole AGW topic has been brought about - to explain a trend of upwards temperatures during the 20th century. Adjusting data records to solely cool the past to make current warming more pronounced borders on outright deceit because it violates statistical probability.<br /><br />"We have had two years with poor melt. I need more than that to conclude that there is a regime change. If we have two more years I will be strongly suspecting a shift in the AMO as the root cause."<br /><br />Do you agree then that AMO/PDO is primarily responsible for NH climate variation and supersedes AGW claims of CO2 forcing?AZ1971https://www.blogger.com/profile/14949986537841277624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-16475528692627496302015-05-06T13:02:57.574-07:002015-05-06T13:02:57.574-07:00Fish Out Of Water,
I hope you're right regard...Fish Out Of Water,<br /><br />I hope you're right regards your prediction of a warm summer. I could do with an exciting summer. :)Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-27811313185877803552015-05-06T12:33:01.134-07:002015-05-06T12:33:01.134-07:00https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-s...https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/#more-7338<br />There is no slowdown, hiatus or whatever you want to erroneously call natural variability. There was a super El Nino followed by some years that had more La Ninas than average. Anthropogenic global warming has continued unabated for the past 40 years. If statistics is too tough for you than you can see the unabated heating of the oceans in multiple reports on ocean heat content.<br /><br />This situation in Antarctica is actually quite dire but fools think it's good news that sea ice is increasing. Glaciers around Antarctica are melting at a depth of 100 meters below sea level and freshening the surface water. That's actually causing the intermediate levels of the southern ocean to retain heat in the winter. What's happening in Antarctica is frightening to anyone who understands it.FishOutofWaterhttp://www.dailykos.com/user/FishOutofWater/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-84021362370375359642015-05-06T10:04:31.482-07:002015-05-06T10:04:31.482-07:00By the way Vindaloo,
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/...By the way Vindaloo,<br />http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/that-no-warming-since-1998-bollocks-meme.html<br /><br />Note in particular:<br /><br />"2) At a party someone runs a nylon comb through their hair and amazes the denialist by picking up bits of tissue paper with the comb. Inspired by this, the denialist concludes that gravity is a liberal conspiracy, a great lie devised by so-called scientists, he blogs on this (it's normally a 'he'), hammering home the point that the scientific consensus on gravity is a socialist inspired fraud."<br /><br />Just as gravity is still active when electrostatic forces oppose it, so the forcing from CO2 is still active when other factors cause a 'pause'.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-43005786685273368872015-05-06T10:01:16.108-07:002015-05-06T10:01:16.108-07:00Anonymous,
In that paragraph I am using PIOMAS su...Anonymous,<br /><br />In that paragraph I am using PIOMAS sub grid thickness distrbution, see my recent post 'What is PIOMAS gice for a detailed discussion.<br /><br />However the distribution is given in this graphic from one of the papers describing the PIOMAS model.<br />http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bZJ52Kc_3aA/VTaXXMfbv_I/AAAAAAAABvg/zmb2n_-Uxw0/s1600/ZR%2BFig2.png<br /><br />From that you can see that the 2m thickness falls into the 1.93 to 3.30m band, nominal thickness 2.61m. So I have used the upper limit of that band after examination of the data confirmed my suspicion that it would be a reasonable choice. That thickness (3.30m) should encompass mainly first year ice below it, with mainly deformed ice and multi year ice above it.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-88589216085546084552015-05-06T09:54:00.842-07:002015-05-06T09:54:00.842-07:00Vindaloo,
20/20 hindsight will gain you no points...Vindaloo,<br /><br />20/20 hindsight will gain you no points on this blog. If that's the standard you work to may I suggest Watt's Up With That?<br /><br />We have had <b>two</b> years with poor melt. I need more than that to conclude that there is a regime change. If we have two more years I will be strongly suspecting a shift in the AMO as the root cause. Right now I await developments.<br /><br />Sorry, I'm too busy with the northern polar sea to look at the Antarctic.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-33889246689136589922015-05-06T06:52:34.294-07:002015-05-06T06:52:34.294-07:00"However looking at the PIOMAS sub grid thick..."However looking at the PIOMAS sub grid thickness distribution numerically, if I use the demarcation of above 3.3m thick,..."<br /><br />Is there a reason you chose 3.3 m?<br /><br />Visually, the maps indicate an increase of blue (+2m) area, particularly in Beaufort and Chuchki. Isn't that the benchmark used by Lindsay & Co. to predict summer melt? Why not use 2m or 2.5m?<br /><br />The PIOMAS track record is to under-predict the amount of very thick ice as compared to data from direct measurements. That suggests the relative difference from the recent low years is likely greater than the levels indicated. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-46450816669662546892015-05-05T22:46:18.996-07:002015-05-05T22:46:18.996-07:00FishOutofWater ... remember that correlation is no...FishOutofWater ... remember that correlation is not causation. Increasing CO2 cannot explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, the recovery in PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume, or the virtual standstill in global temperatures since 2000.<br /><br />Chris Reynolds ... from your link, "the [volume] decline has been staggering and it is clear why even a single year like 2013 is insufficient to break the trend of losses, the Arctic would need a succession of cold years to increase volume and start to rebuild the ice, bucking the trend and starting a recovery. But that is not going to happen." Yet that's precisely what we've seen: PIOMAS shows an Arctic recovery of 30% since 2011. Weather patterns could not be maintained for such a long time without washing out ice through the Fram Strait at some point in time. And if albedo controlled the Arctic, what does increasing albedo in the SH say about effects at the other pole? Regardless, it doesn't explain the sudden reversal in PIOMAS volume, so there has to be some other explanation besides AGW.AZ1971https://www.blogger.com/profile/14949986537841277624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-3114767663460047642015-05-05T17:51:34.912-07:002015-05-05T17:51:34.912-07:00Warm water has pushed northwards into the Barents ...Warm water has pushed northwards into the Barents sea and into the Bering sea as El Nino has strengthened from weak to moderate and while a huge Kelvin wave is hitting the west coast of the Americas. This surge will likely bring on a super El Nino like 1997-1998 and 1982-1983. Expect a warm summer in the Arctic and expect warm waters to flow into the Arctic from both sides.<br /><br />The central Arctic ice will hold out because it is thick but the rest of the pack will melt out. I think we will see a new minimum JAXA extent.<br /><br />Record high global temperatures with the El Nino will be the talk of the climate talks, and, yes, they correlate with CO2 and CH4.FishOutofWaterhttp://www.dailykos.com/user/FishOutofWater/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-28197454387183611532015-05-05T12:05:09.385-07:002015-05-05T12:05:09.385-07:00Nothing counter-intuitive at all.
The recent incr...Nothing counter-intuitive at all.<br /><br />The recent increase in volume has been caused by weather, that is all. The effect of AGW and CO2 is not in doubt.<br />http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-caused-volume-loss-in-piomas.html<br />http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/co2-causes-arctic-sea-ice-loss.html <br /><br />The Paris Climate Talks (first I've heard of them) will come to nothing in spite of the evidence, not because of it. Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-65314300609098795092015-05-05T11:05:37.345-07:002015-05-05T11:05:37.345-07:00Great data. But absolutely no correlation to incre...Great data. But absolutely no correlation to increasing temperatures and CO2 levels marking the return of sea ice volume thickness, which is what will be precisely argued this summer in Paris at the climate talks. If the return of PIOMAS volume runs counterintuitive to projections of effects by increasing CO2, then it needs explaining.AZ1971https://www.blogger.com/profile/14949986537841277624noreply@blogger.com