Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Tensen

The point remains unstated.

That is not a point! What are you asserting?

If you won't actually state your points I can't respond to them.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do genuinely not comprehend that
1. The author of the graph has disowned the "hockeystick blade" at the end.

2. You cannot draw any coclusion from comparing single annual temperature points with century long averaged data. Average the last 100 years of annual temperature data and the "hockey stick blade" disappears completely.

In other words, using that graph to "prove" that recent warming is unprecedented is just plain wrong.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by StuM

So you don't believe the data?

The 1981 Hansen data direct from NASA:
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The 2001 data from the Wayback machine archive of the NASA site:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20010...raphs/FigA.txt

The 2014 data direct form the NASA site:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt

Please do give us your alternate version of the same graph using this original data.

The 1981 data I would immediately discount as being less accurate than modern data due to inferior technology and techniques.

The other two data sets are both by Hansen. I feel safe assuming that as far as he's concerned the newer data supersedes the older.

Posting from crack-pot conspiracy theory sites will get you nowhere.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by StuM

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do genuinely not comprehend that

You seemed to be deliberately avoiding making any assertions.

1. The author of the graph has disowned the "hockeystick blade" at the end.

They've done no such thing, don't exaggerate.
He's said (as was clear in the paper) that from 1850 that graph isn't "robust".

The point of their paper though, was to reconstruct the temperatures of the past 11,000 years. not the most recent 200.
Mann's similar work on the past 1000 or so years, of a much higher resolution, matches the data in this paper for that period.
Many, many others have accurately published recent temperatures, and we know the hockey stick is fact.

2. You cannot draw any coclusion from comparing single annual temperature points with century long averaged data. Average the last 100 years of annual temperature data and the "hockey stick blade" disappears completely.

In other words, using that graph to "prove" that recent warming is unprecedented is just plain wrong.

The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no evidence available to suggest that warming at this rate has precedent. This paper is the best long history data we have.

Modeling of recent years is only accurate when man-made impact is included.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Certainly.

From IPCC:

Models are only correct (bottom graph) when both natural AND man made influences are included.

Models are barely correct even with hindsight parameters added. Why is this any different?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

I give up. The old saw about trying to teach a pig to sing comes to mind.

[Eumelia]

Originally Posted by Tensen

The 1981 data I would immediately discount as being less accurate than modern data due to inferior technology and techniques.

One reason I think it is not possible to make any conclusions about global warming is the data is so dirty. And who was keeping records a thousand years ago?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It seems easier to demonstrate then co2 forcing atmospheric temps at 0.04% concentrations.

Demonstrate (gravity) yes, but you cannot tell what is the real phenomen just some theories. I can throw in my own (there's is no gravity) but you can't prove it wrong more than I can prove it right.
CO2 affects are measurable and proven scientific facts, but to demonstrate it in a global environment where other factorsˆn are involved is quite a task.
You refuse to believe one fact becouse it's so hard to demonstrate but consider other thing as a fact just becouse it looks like it..

[SailOar]

Long-Awaited ‘Jump’ In Global Warming Now Appears ‘Imminent’ | Climate Progress

NASA temperature data dispel the myth of a recent slow-down in long-term warming trend. But there was a big jump in temps during the mid-1990s. Many scientists believe another jump is “imminent.’

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

In March, NOAA announced the arrival of an El Niño, a multi-month weather pattern “characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.” ...

The fact that NOAA projects that the current El Niño could last most of 2015 means we are still on track for what is likely to be the hottest calendar year on record — very possibly beating 2014 by a wide margin (0.1°C)....

Antarctica appears to have set its all-time temperature record — 63.5°F (17.5°C) — on March 24 at the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. That is “more than 30°F (17°C) above average.” This was actually part of a heat wave since the Antarctic record it broke was set the day before (63.3°F). Also in March, the Chilean desert was deluged by “over fourteen years of rain in one day.” ...

But the NASA chart at the top makes clear there has in fact been no slowdown in warming. Indeed the March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change” makes clear the only “pause” there has been was in the long-expected speed-up of global warming. The rate of surface warming should have started to accelerate in the past decade, rather than stay fairly constant.

The authors warned that, by 2020, human-caused warming will move the Earth’s climate system into a regime of rapid multi-decadal rates of warming. It projected that within the next few years, “there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.”...

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Demonstrate (gravity) yes, but you cannot tell what is the real phenomen just some theories. I can throw in my own (there's is no gravity) but you can't prove it wrong more than I can prove it right.
CO2 affects are measurable and proven scientific facts, but to demonstrate it in a global environment where other factorsˆn are involved is quite a task.
You refuse to believe one fact becouse it's so hard to demonstrate but consider other thing as a fact just becouse it looks like it..

Interestingly enough there is no test you can perform that will differentiate gravity from acceleration. Recognition of this fact was key in formulating the theory of general relativity.

Then to connect the dots...think of a test that will differentiate AGW from natural cycles in the climate.

Can we determine that 100 more ppm of CO2 really allowing more H2O to be retained in the atmosphere. This is the crux of the AGW theory. The weak link in the models is modeling the global cloud coverage and types as some cloud types affect a net heat retention and other cloud types affect a net heat loss (by reflecting solar energy into outer space.)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Demonstrate (gravity) yes, but you cannot tell what is the real phenomen just some theories. I can throw in my own (there's is no gravity) but you can't prove it wrong more than I can prove it right.
CO2 affects are measurable and proven scientific facts, but to demonstrate it in a global environment where other factorsˆn are involved is quite a task.
You refuse to believe one fact becouse it's so hard to demonstrate but consider other thing as a fact just becouse it looks like it..

Al Gore and Bill Nye had problems too

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

[Reefmagnet]

Can anyone guess the date of this brief, but to the point article?

if the Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland icecap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting in the Arctic, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions and people living in the lowlands along their shores would be inundated. He said that temperatures in the Arctic had increased 10 deg. Fahrenheit since 1900–an “enormous” rise from a scientific standpoint.

“The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study the conditions on a global basis.”

Click here to find out

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Interestingly enough there is no test you can perform that will differentiate gravity from acceleration. Recognition of this fact was key in formulating the theory of general relativity.

Then to connect the dots...think of a test that will differentiate AGW from natural cycles in the climate.

Differentiate gravity from acceleration?? Connect the dots?? Does that actually mean something to you? For your own sake I hope not.

Can we determine that 100 more ppm of CO2 really allowing more H2O to be retained in the atmosphere. This is the crux of the AGW theory. The weak link in the models is modeling the global cloud coverage and types as some cloud types affect a net heat retention and other cloud types affect a net heat loss (by reflecting solar energy into outer space.)

Yes, trivially. There is no question about what CO2 does in the atmosphere. Most deniers have long given up asking this question and moved on to trying to say it's natural, or that the results won't be severe enough to matter.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Al Gore and Bill Nye had problems too

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

Er, no they didn't. The guy who wrote that page was obviously an idiot.

EDIT: perhaps I judged him too harshly, and he's only idiotic in some respects. Here's a quote from him:

I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Er, no they didn't. The guy who wrote that page was obviously an idiot.

Of course he was. The alarmist mantra.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Differentiate gravity from acceleration?? Connect the dots?? Does that actually mean something to you? For your own sake I hope not.



Yes, trivially. There is no question about what CO2 does in the atmosphere. Most deniers have long given up asking this question and moved on to trying to say it's natural, or that the results won't be severe enough to matter.

Tensen, methinks you are over your head and making stuff up here. To the first point...a simple analogy, to the second, lecture us on modeling and cloud cover. Check on most recent cloud cover comments from the modelers.