Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say

a reply to: bbracken677

I've parts of this post elsewhere, before. I made the effort to do it the first time, so why not? Little reason not to reuse parts of a post which haven't changed to address the exact same things in other threads.

Satellite measurements are not necessarily all that accurate, but they can take a lot more samples as they can orbit the Earth and record. There are limitations, though, such as these satellites being pole-to-pole orbiters. This means they sample the higher latitudes much more frequently than the mid or lower latitudes - sometimes an area near the equator might not be sampled for days while an area near the poles might be sampled several times a day.

REMSS, the site I linked discussing the limitations of these remote measurement devices, is where RSS data comes from. They readily acknowledge the limitations and also promote the advantages. Some folks seem to have blind faith in the satellite data, but it's just not everything it's cracked up to be.

Quite correct, these are deviations from the baseline temperature (1951-1980 average). My point was that, as 2010 was so exceptionally hot, then it's natural that temps have 'cooled' since. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about CO2.

The data I presented is from NASA's GISTEMP which can be found here:
data.giss.nasa.gov...

The RSS data such is used in your chart is based on data from NOAA satellites, and can be found here:
data.remss.com...

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two sets since RSS started in 1979:


Here's the "17 year pause" or whatever snapshot of the two sets:


a reply to: bbracken677
The problem is that this isn't very normal:


Which is the concern with regard to future warming.

How can it be called a "pause" until such time that the pause actually stops being a pause...?



Things that make you go "hmmm".

a reply to: bbracken677

Any time one attempts to do any sort of projection, it really is only as good as the information that one has at hand and even if perfect information existed, it'd still be subject to error. Projections tend to be statistically based and really are only estimates of what may (or may not) happen. Usually, past data is used to improve any projection's likelihood of being accurate.

The problem with climate data is that, although there is a ton of information out there, there's still always the chance that x is going to create y effect in a totally unexpected way. Scientists are smart but they are not omniscient and perfect projections require perfect information and that requires omniscience. That has jack to do with the actual scientific method and just the inherent issues with projections no matter the field (financial is going to have the same problems).

a reply to: Greven

This is partially in jest, so feel free not to respond, but in light of my finding that the hottest year on record as 1934, based on your previous assessment that if any data is flawed, we must ignore all subsequent data, yours is garbage. :0

a reply to: network dude

You may not be serious but I've run into other people who most certainly were; they tend to overlook something rather important:

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- NASA has revised climate data to show 1934 as the hottest year on record in the U.S., ousting 1998 and challenging the argument that national temperatures are reaching new highs amid global warming.

Something that people in the U.S. seem to have trouble grasping is that March tends to be hotter than most other months. They do not seem to understand that the Earth is closer to the Sun during January and furthest from the Sun in July.

a reply to: network dude

I apologize but I seem to have missed this when I was building graphs for the post at the top of page 3.

I will say this again: The Washington Times is about as reliable as a tabloid. It was founded by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church in response to critiques by The Washington Post as a competitor. Despite heavily leaning conservative, it has never earned a profit and has instead drained funds from said church.

I mentioned in a later response to another post, but it's pretty telling how they leave off the qualifier. The disputed years are for the U.S. annual temperature record - not the World annual temperature record.

Never trust The Washington Times reporting directly. This is one reason why.

originally posted by: Greven
I will say this again: The Washington Times is about as reliable as a tabloid.

Thanks for keeping up with the format.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Exactly... which is why you do not see me making any predictions. I use physics, or geological data and merely extrapolate what they say without making future predictions. Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to what the IPCC has done regarding predictions based on their modeling hypothesis knows how big a failure that has been.

a reply to: Greven

The problem is that this isn't very normal:

Which is the concern with regard to future warming.

Not at all. You are making the assumption that co2 is a major player. That, simply, is not so.

It is, however, the hysterical element of the man-made climate change proponents.

Unfortunately most real recent research shows that there are 2 components that vastly overshadow the greenhouse effect.

Insolation and cosmic rays.

This paper pretty much destroys the role of co2 as a major player, and it is not the only one. The following quote is from the abstract:

During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Recent work challenges the fundamental basis of these conceptions.

source


Would you agree or disagree that the current approximate average of 33C for global surface temps is, for the most part, a function of existing greenhouse gases/effect?

a reply to: bbracken677

The approximate average global surface temperature is not 33°C.

a reply to: DAZ21

We've been incredibly lucky as a species to have lived and evolved through a relatively calm and warm period of time on this planet. That is going to change dramatically sooner than many assume.

imo

a reply to: Greven

Then what is it?

a reply to: bbracken677

It depends on the time frame and source. GISTEMP says best estimate for absolute global mean from 1951-1980 is 14°C.

originally posted by: network dude

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.

Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.

Link

Is this proof of Global warming, or is this expected? I don't want to just claim it's significant, but damn, it sure sounds like it.
Or perhaps this is irrelevant.

How long have they been keeping records? At one time according to research done by Graham Hancock Antarctica at one time was ice free with maps to prove it. How much ice was there during the last ice age?

a reply to: bbracken677

Thank you for your input and you have some valid points to make. My question is this: with ice being displaced from land to sea, do you think this will impact weather (not climate but weather). The differences I've seen and felt have been with extremes (tons of snow, earlier winters, late springs, etc).

a reply to: Dianec

I know in the way-way long ago, we used to look at things like El-Nino and La-nina to help in predicting weather patterns in the Eastern US. Now, anything that happens is because of global warming. Good, bad, or indifferent.

I know if another mini ice age comes, folks will be crying for some warming. Perhaps in another 10-20 years, the climate will have made enough changes to solidify things and either kill us all instantly, or continue to be the dynamic force that it's been for 4.5 billion years. Either way, it's cool.

a reply to: Greven

What irritates me the most is that I cannot get any good information. If I ask you, I am going to get very biased information from biased sources, and if I ask bbracken667, same thing, but other side. No offence to either of you, as that's just how the information is split. Apparently any news that I see that is against Man-caused GW, I can disregard because the source either is on, or will soon be on the list of baboons that ignore (99.9999 percent of all scientists). And any news I see that is Pro- man made GW, comes from folks on the other side who are just as venomous with their information and have obvious flaws in their data displays. (Models don't work)

Hell, I cannot even get a straight answer on which charts of long term temps are trustworthy. NASA has crap info, IPCC has crap info, and anyone else is on the "bad scientists" list. At this point, it's probably better to just not do a damn thing and wait for the Earth to either melt down or continue as normal. If it melts down, the AGWers win. YAA!

a reply to: bbracken677

Well there's a reason why they are attempting to make projections about what may occur in the future in response to all the changes that have been occurring as it involves both risks to human life and billions of dollars to economies and real estate. In a sense, the projections that are being made are more like using the "generate a hypothesis" aspect of the scientific method and not the "theory". They're not doing anything wrong in that sense and I'd much rather them try to pool what they know in an attempt to plan a counter than do nothing at all and just let things happen.

It's rather like the whole meteor thing. We know that meteors have hit the earth in the past and yet, though we have not had an ELE level meteor strike the planet in a very, very, very long time, we still project that it will happen at some point and try to figure out how to do something about it should that occur.

Same goes with the weather.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: bbracken677

Well there's a reason why they are attempting to make projections about what may occur in the future in response to all the changes that have been occurring as it involves both risks to human life and billions of dollars to economies and real estate. In a sense, the projections that are being made are more like using the "generate a hypothesis" aspect of the scientific method and not the "theory". They're not doing anything wrong in that sense and I'd much rather them try to pool what they know in an attempt to plan a counter than do nothing at all and just let things happen.

It's rather like the whole meteor thing. We know that meteors have hit the earth in the past and yet, though we have not had an ELE level meteor strike the planet in a very, very, very long time, we still project that it will happen at some point and try to figure out how to do something about it should that occur.

Same goes with the weather.

This is a very sensible way to view the problem. Passengers wasted time arguing about whether it was poor design or poor navigation that was responsible while the Titanic was sinking. They weren't arguing for long.

a reply to: network dude

I see... so academic sources, and geologic record are biased?