Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,581
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39031 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
When even a sceptic like Christy says there's nothing here to see, maybe you should take notice?
So you keep sending me to Skeptical Science, but they keep coming up with strawman arguments. The whole point is that the AGW hypothesis and models don’t match observations. This is what Christy said regarding model/observation discrepancy on the hot spot:

A particularly obvious feature of this expected warming, and is a key focus of this blog post, is that this warming increases with altitude where the rate of warming at 10 km altitude is over twice that of the rate at the surface. This clear model response should be detectible by now (i.e. 2012) which gives us an opportunity to check whether the real world is responding as the models’ simulate for a large-scale, easy-to-compare quantity. This is why we care about the tropical atmospheric temperature.

We see that all 73 models anticipated greater warming than actually occurred for the period 1979-2012. Of importance here too is that the balloons and satellites represent two independent observing systems but they display extremely consistent results. This provides a relatively high level of confidence that the observations as depicted here have small errors. The observational trends from both systems are slightly less than +0.06 °C/decade which is a value insignificantly different from zero. The mean TMT model trend is +0.26 °C/decade which is significantly positive in a statistical sense. The observed satellite and balloon TLT trends (not shown) are +0.10 and +0.09 °C/decade respectively, and the mean model TLT trend is +0.28 °C/decade. In a strict hypothesis test, the mean model trend can be shown to be statistically different from that of the observations, so that one can say the model-mean has been falsified (a result stated in a number of publications already for earlier sets of model output.) In other words, the model mean tropical tropospheric temperature trend is warming significantly faster than observations (See Douglass and Christy 2013 for further information.)

The bottom line is that, while I have some ideas based on some evidence, I don’t know why models are so aggressive at warming the atmosphere over the last 34 years relative to the real world. The complete answer is probably different for each model. To answer that question would take a tremendous model evaluation program run by independent organizations that has yet to be formulated and funded.

What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time.

http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tr...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39032 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
And cut'n paste denier spam too.
Krusty as usual runs to the denier blogs for a response.
LOL...Too funny coming from someone who runs to Skeptical Science all the time.

Just find a skeptic claim, and click, your answer appears. No need to do any independent or critical thinking, we do it for you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#39033 Sep 10, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
It did not happen. We made it. Glad it is finally over. That was scary.
You shouldn't believe anything you read in NEWSPAPERS without first checking the facts. And you SHOULD believe the facts you read in science (if you ever bother)
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#39034 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said there was not a downward trend, perfectly in line with a world that has been warming. This was about predictions made by climate scientists who believed the Arctic would be ice free today.
No. ONE scientist made an 'off the cuff' remark that the arctic COULD be ice free by 2013. Still perfectly true prior to 2013, but necessary to change that 'probability' to a past tense negation.

And, as you agree, it will be ice free soon. 2020, or earlier is the likely range.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39035 Sep 10, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
No. ONE scientist made an 'off the cuff' remark that the arctic COULD be ice free by 2013. Still perfectly true prior to 2013, but necessary to change that 'probability' to a past tense negation.
And, as you agree, it will be ice free soon. 2020, or earlier is the likely range.
I guess you didn't read my post above, but my response to you is in that post (linked below0. More than one scientist made the prediction, and no, they weren't off the cuff. We were told these predictions were based on improved models and these predictions, we are told, were made by highly regarded scientists who specialize in ice and the poles.

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...

Never said we would be ice-free by 2020, just noting there is a downward trend. If you look at the past, trends change due to sun, oceans, clouds, etc. With the changes in the sun and the oceans, it will be interesting to see if we keep a downward trend.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39036 Sep 10, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
You shouldn't believe anything you read in NEWSPAPERS without first checking the facts. And you SHOULD believe the facts you read in science (if you ever bother)
So are you saying the Arctic was ice free this year?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39037 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...Too funny coming from someone who runs to Skeptical Science all the time.
Just find a skeptic claim, and click, your answer appears. No need to do any independent or critical thinking, we do it for you.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The difference is that skepticalscience.com references the peer reviewed scientific literature, whilst the denier blogs you run to reference, well, any old garbage that seems to support their denial.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39038 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you keep sending me to Skeptical Science, but they keep coming up with strawman arguments. The whole point is that the AGW hypothesis and models don’t match observations. This is what Christy said regarding model/observation discrepancy on the hot spot:
A particularly obvious feature of this expected warming, and is a key focus of this blog post, is that this warming increases with altitude where the rate of warming at 10 km altitude is over twice that of the rate at the surface. This clear model response should be detectible by now (i.e. 2012) which gives us an opportunity to check whether the real world is responding as the models’ simulate for a large-scale, easy-to-compare quantity. This is why we care about the tropical atmospheric temperature.
We see that all 73 models anticipated greater warming than actually occurred for the period 1979-2012. Of importance here too is that the balloons and satellites represent two independent observing systems but they display extremely consistent results. This provides a relatively high level of confidence that the observations as depicted here have small errors. The observational trends from both systems are slightly less than +0.06 °C/decade which is a value insignificantly different from zero. The mean TMT model trend is +0.26 °C/decade which is significantly positive in a statistical sense. The observed satellite and balloon TLT trends (not shown) are +0.10 and +0.09 °C/decade respectively, and the mean model TLT trend is +0.28 °C/decade. In a strict hypothesis test, the mean model trend can be shown to be statistically different from that of the observations, so that one can say the model-mean has been falsified (a result stated in a number of publications already for earlier sets of model output.) In other words, the model mean tropical tropospheric temperature trend is warming significantly faster than observations (See Douglass and Christy 2013 for further information.)
The bottom line is that, while I have some ideas based on some evidence, I don’t know why models are so aggressive at warming the atmosphere over the last 34 years relative to the real world. The complete answer is probably different for each model. To answer that question would take a tremendous model evaluation program run by independent organizations that has yet to be formulated and funded.
What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tr...
More cut'n paste spam from the denier blogs.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39039 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am so glad to see that we have spent millions of dollars on satellites only to find out the scientists get conflicting results from all the different satellites. The paper I posted was from ICEstat, a NASA project that was used in the paper you posted.
From the ICEstat website:
ICESat (Ice, Cloud,and land Elevation Satellite) is the benchmark Earth Observing System mission for measuring ice sheet mass balance, cloud and aerosol heights, as well as land topography and vegetation characteristics. From 2003 to 2009, the ICESat mission provided multi-year elevation data needed to determine ice sheet mass balance as well as cloud property information, especially for stratospheric clouds common over polar areas. It also provided topography and vegetation data around the globe, in addition to the polar-specific coverage over the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
So this is the benchmark for measuring ice sheet balance and it says the mass in Antarctica has been increasing, but yet other information says Antarctica mass is decreasing and we haven’t even included the error margins, so basically here we are again at “we just don’t know for sure.” And seriously, we are talking about 0.013 inches per year sea level rise for Antarctica according to your paper, which is statistically zero.
But this is all a strawman argument, because Antarctica is not behaving as predicted by models and by the AGW hypothesis. For these scientists to now say the extra snow is from warming is a lie. The prediction was always for decreased sea ice. If they thought warming produced snow, they would have incorporated that into their models. Instead, none of their models agree with the observations.
Just a few papers on this:
The recent observed positive trends in total Antarctic sea ice extent are at odds with the expectation of melting sea ice in a warming world. More problematic yet, climate models indicate that sea ice should decrease around Antarctica in response to both increasing greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+smi...
We investigate the effect of stratospheric ozone recovery on Antarctic sea ice in the next half-century, by comparing two ensembles of integrations of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, from 2001 to 2065. One ensemble is performed by specifying all forcings as per the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5; the second ensemble is identical in all respects, except for the surface concentrations of ozone depleting substances, which are held fixed at year 2000 levels, thus preventing stratospheric ozone recovery. Sea ice extent declines in both ensembles, as a consequence of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/...
This paper examines the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 models used in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small of an SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/J... ;
Yet more cut'n paste spam from the denier blogs.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39040 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said there was not a downward trend, perfectly in line with a world that has been warming. This was about predictions made by climate scientists who believed the Arctic would be ice free today.
A lie.

It was a claim made by *one* scientist.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39041 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OTTAWA (Reuters)- The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday. Warwick Vincent, director of the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.
http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2009/03/arcti...
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Hansen and Wadhams agreed with the prediction and in fact promoted the prediction in public media, thus giving the prediction credence. Wadhams actually said this about Maslowski’s model giving the prediction even more credence:“Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.” "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice." He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting. Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years. "The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.
And in 2012, Wadhams has now claimed the Arctic will be ice free by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/s...
So again I ask, where is Skeptical Science lecturing any of these scientists with their “regression toward the mean” theory? I’m sure they will be out in 2015 lecturing the skeptics when the media reports a response to Wadhams’ 2015 prediction. I mean how dare the skeptics hold someone accountable to their predictions.
So you are the liar, claiming there was only one scientist that predicted a 2013 ice-free Arctic and calling me a liar by stating NONE of these scientists predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2013.
Note the word *scientist*, imbecile.

Hansen and Wadhams are agreeing with a prediction for 2016, imbecile.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39042 Sep 10, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...
This graph is interactive and will allow you to compare any two years.
Why not compare a whole lot of years?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39043 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you didn't read my post above, but my response to you is in that post (linked below0. More than one scientist made the prediction, and no, they weren't off the cuff. We were told these predictions were based on improved models and these predictions, we are told, were made by highly regarded scientists who specialize in ice and the poles.
http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...
Never said we would be ice-free by 2020, just noting there is a downward trend. If you look at the past, trends change due to sun, oceans, clouds, etc. With the changes in the sun and the oceans, it will be interesting to see if we keep a downward trend.
You're doing a great job keeping on target here. Especially as each new warmist pops in, doesn't understand the context, and gives their dime store input -- which is mostly just recycling claims made earlier (which they would know if they would read back a bit).

Keep it up. They're either going to give up (and call you a bunch of names), or make an admission they don't want to make.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39044 Sep 10, 2013
middleofthedownwronggully wrote:
Hey, gourd head!!! when will warming ever be deemed as temporary in your world???
LOL
btw....what is 'altho'??? We all know what a stickler you are for spelling! Did you finish middle school, mullet???
take a bath you 'steenking foul reprobate". you smell of used bytch.
Thank you for replying to my post, that you can't understand, because you have no science or mathematics background. Global warming continues, tho you can't(won't) see it:

"Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1."
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39046 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A lie.
It was a claim made by *one* scientist.
Not even a 'claim'. It was an off the cuff remark based on a discussion of 'if this goes on'. In other words, a speculation.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39047 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are some of your posts gibbldee-gobbledee-goobildee gibberish, and others not?

Do drop the former and keep the latter.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39048 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that skepticalscience.com references the peer reviewed scientific literature, whilst the denier blogs you run to reference, well, any old garbage that seems to support their denial.
All of my links are from original sources or mainstream media.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39049 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
More cut'n paste spam from the denier blogs.
So let me get this straight. You send me to Skeptical Science. I read the article, which by the way did not address the fact that models do not match observation, then you tell me to listen to Christy who is referred to by Skeptical Science. So I do a quick google search about Christy and hot spots and find Christy's analysis of the climate models versus observation:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/

About the site:

Climate Dialogue offers a platform for discussions between (climate) scientists on important climate topics that are of interest to both fellow scientists and the general public. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views that scientists have on these issues. Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by reacting to each others’ arguments moderated by one of the members of the editorial staff. Once the discussion has reached the point where it is clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why, the editioral staff will round off the discussion. The decision on when that point will have been reached is up to the editorial staff. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion. The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.

This site is for both sides. They have both skeptics and warmists, hardly a denier blog unless you think any scientist who is a skeptic should not have a say.

So did Skeptical Science not have an easy click to my reply? Were you unable to form your own thoughts on this? It's hard when Skeptical Science only gives you part of the information. It kind of leaves you hanging. So go with the denier blog answer if that makes you feel better.

“8 point Buck”

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#39050 Sep 10, 2013
Your links are correct young lady.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39051 Sep 10, 2013
More bogus hype by uneducated journalist following the directions of the paper owners.

The area of 100% ice is not 60% larger. The area that has 'at least 15% coverage' is 60% larger because it was 'spread out' by the winds.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min eghhed 1,129,134
Abby 10-30 16 min RACE 12
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min Rogue Scholar 05 179,651
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 28 min Stina2 98,545
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 34 min Boy G 50,755
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 55 min JOEL 70,145
Amy 10-30 1 hr edogxxx 11
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]