Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice - what to make of it?

Shady · June 11, 2015

the context was... is... temperature adjustments/homogenization. In any case, your perpetuation of the denier 'hide the decline' meme is noted. You've already had a 'new one' carved out for you in the past over this nonsense... you should resurrect the related thread for shytes&giggles (at your expense)!

Do you really want me to post all of their emails regarding their cock-blocking of anti-alarmist material during peer review?

waldo · June 11, 2015

Do you really want me to post all of their emails regarding their cock-blocking of anti-alarmist material during peer review?

Hackergate is soooooo old news! You recently harped on this 'gate-keeping' meme and I simply brought your attention back to the fact that the paper in question ending up being published... and referenced in the related IPCC report (pre-Hackergate).

in any case, why are you jumping to a completely different (unrelated to this thread) focus... are you suddenly a lil' gun-shy over your perpetuation of the 'hide the decline' meme? :lol: Like I said, you should resurrect the Hackergate related threads... your distraction has no place here.

Edited June 11, 2015 by waldo

TimG · June 11, 2015

Do you really want me to post all of their emails regarding their cock-blocking of anti-alarmist material during peer review?

You should not play his "reverse the onus" game. The problem is the data is sufficiently malleable that scientists always have plausible deniability and it is next to impossible to prove deliberate manipulation. Even when there is direct evidence of malicious intent like in the Climategate emails alarmists will always wave their hands and try to pretend the words don't mean what they obviously mean.

What is matters is whether we can trust the people producing the claims and given how malleable the data is and the politically charged nature of the debate it is reasonable to say that no one can be trusted and that we therefore have no useful information on the magnitude of temperature rises. If the onus is on anyone it is on the people advocating policy changes who need to prove to our satisfaction that government scientists are trustworthy. It is not up to us to show that they aren't.

Edited June 11, 2015 by TimG

waldo · June 11, 2015

You should not play his "reverse the onus" game. The problem is the data is sufficiently malleable that scientists always have plausible deniability and it is next to impossible to prove deliberate manipulation. Even when there is direct evidence of malicious intent like in the Climategate emails alarmists will always wave their hands and try to pretend the words don't mean what they obviously mean.

What is matters is whether we can trust the people producing the claims and given how malleable the data is and the politically charged nature of the debate it is reasonable to say that no one can be trusted and that we therefore have no useful information on the magnitude of temperature rises.

ah yes, the 'conspiratorial TimG' is never too far away. I asked you for examples... still waiting. Surely you should be able to provide examples of your claimed politically motivated pliable data (as you say, "deliberate manipulation") relative to the contextual discussed temperature adjustments/homogenization... surely!

ok... play time is over - CULater! The real world awaits...

Edited June 11, 2015 by waldo

WWWTT · June 11, 2015

again, your reference was to an uncertainty in millimeters (specifically, 0.45mm) for something (ice-sheet melting) being measured well beyond the uncertainty you "put forward"; typically, meters. How many times does this need to be stated to you?

No it wasn't!

You're going to have to point out where this 0.45mm comes from.

But you seem to be dodging that part.

WWWTT

WWWTT · June 11, 2015

without qualification you're simply projecting the past/distant past attributions (presumed or otherwise) to today's relatively recent warming and changing climate. As you were previously challenged to provide your (cited) interpretation on, if you presume to principally attribute this GW/CC to your described "natural causes", rather than anthropogenic sources, simply identify said natural causes (forces) and/or internal variability... and qualify your interpretation with cited reference(s).

Absolutely false statements!

For someone whom claims to be answering questions, you are again displaying "sidestepping", no need to answer anything when avoiding seems to your choice.

And after sidestepping, you claim to be "answering" questions, and then make the claim to impose demands on other posters.

I'll wait for another sidestep from you.

I should really just ignore these attempts from your part.

WWWTT

WWWTT · June 11, 2015

I posted the State records on maximums because they do away with all the "homogenization" and "adjustments" that are common in the rolled-up temperature averages - which often seem to adjust historical temperatures downwards and more recent ones upwards (a separate argument). Individual readings from single sources are difficult to manipulate. Don't you find it odd that with your own graphical presentation of how the US has gotten so much hotter - that not even one new State record has been set? One would think there would be quite a few over the last 20 years - those years that are the "warmest on record"? So what's with that?

Nothing wrong with using simple straight forward data!

Funny how that the alarmists feel that for some reason this must be made difficult to understand and always change what "global warming" is.

WWWTT

WWWTT · June 11, 2015

So you are saying NOAA is staffed by politically motivated scientists...

You seem perfectly comfortable in accusing Chinese state departments in being politically motivated.

Your double standard is showing.

WWWTT

On Guard for Thee · June 11, 2015

You seem perfectly comfortable in accusing Chinese state departments in being politically motivated.

Your double standard is showing.

WWWTT

I wasnt aware there was any arctic, antarctic sea ice in China. Maybe your geographic awareness needs some brushing up.

Keepitsimple · June 11, 2015

yes... that maximum temperature data you're fixated on is "raw", sans adjustments for both TOBS (re: the time of day readings were taken) and changing station instrumentation (e.g. from LiG thermometers to MMTS sensors)... both of which have introduced cooling bias into the data. And you believe ignoring those cooling biases is warranted?

............................................................................

again, for what its worth... I gave you 2 states with maximum's post 1998 (your earlier start reference)...........

1) Those two states you gave me were noted in my original post. South Carolina and South Dakota did not set new records - they tied older ones. Oddly enough, three states recorded their coldest temperatures ever since 1998 - Maine, Illinois, Oklahoma.

2) I'm aware there are legitimate reasons for adjusting temperatures. Time of day is a no-brainer - but you'd think that over hundreds/thousands of stations, there would be just as many "early readings" as there would be "later readings" and thus become almost a wash. But it really does appear that every time "adjustments" are heralded, recent averages increase and older ones decrease.....or is that just my imagination at play? <_< Can you show me any articles/studies where adjustments have caused substantial cooling?

So again, don't you find it odd that in this 21st century we haven't set any high-temperature records in any of the 50 states yet we've got some States with the coldest? After all, this is the decade that contains most of the "hottest years on record" and have regularly experienced "extreme weather".

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

Edited June 11, 2015 by Keepitsimple

WWWTT · June 11, 2015

I wasnt aware there was any arctic, antarctic sea ice in China. Maybe your geographic awareness needs some brushing up.

What does your accusation towards my knowledge of geography have to do with your double standard of political influence within government departments from different countries?

You clearly implied that there is no political influence within an US government department.

However, in the past, you have implied that at least one government department in China was politically influenced.

Why deflect when ignoring would be a better debate tactic in my opinion.

WWWTT

BubberMiley · June 11, 2015

You clearly implied that there is no political influence within an US government department.

No, he didn't. He clearly asked you whether you were implying that NOAA was staffed by biased people and therefore it cannot be trusted. You went off on a tangent about his position regarding corruption in China to avoid answering the question.

On Guard for Thee · June 11, 2015

What does your accusation towards my knowledge of geography have to do with your double standard of political influence within government departments from different countries?

You clearly implied that there is no political influence within an US government department.

However, in the past, you have implied that at least one government department in China was politically influenced.

Why deflect when ignoring would be a better debate tactic in my opinion.

WWWTT

I dont think its a deflection when I ask a question about environment, in a thread that is pretty clearly about environment. Perhaps throwing in a comment about the Chinese government might be though.

WWWTT · June 12, 2015

No, he didn't. He clearly asked you whether you were implying that NOAA was staffed by biased people and therefore it cannot be trusted. You went off on a tangent about his position regarding corruption in China to avoid answering the question.

I suggest you go back and see who was being asked the question about staff NOAA scientists from OGFT because OGFT didn't ask me such question.

As far as corruption in China goes, where did that come from?

WWWTT

waldo · June 12, 2015

No it wasn't!

You're going to have to point out where this 0.45mm comes from.

But you seem to be dodging that part.

"no it wasn't"... what? Identified to you? Sorry, I've noted it several times, showcasing that you're speaking to a reference (TRF - Terrestrial Reference Frame) that has introduced a discrepancy of 0.45mm in an application usage (actually, 0.47mm). And I've drawn repeated attention to you leveraging upon a ~~0.45~~ 0.47mm discrepancy/uncertainty in a discussion on ice-sheet melting where measurements are made in meters magnitude. Do you understand "orders of magnitude"?

you say that I need to point out to you where I've come up with the ~~0.45~~ 0.47mm number... that I'm "dodging something". I've not dodged anything... nothing, not a thing. Are you telling me that you don't actually read your own supplied linked references? Are you telling me you're simply one of those guys who latches upon a denier blog 'title headline'... and runs with it? :lol: Per your supplied linked reference, that 0.47mm discrepancy reflects upon using satellite altimeter measurement in an applied use... so, again, as orders of magnitude, do you finally get what negligible attachment a 0.47mm discrepancy example brings when ice-sheet measurements reflect upon meters magnitude?

bush_cheney2004 · June 12, 2015

Antarctic sea ice "reaches a record maximum".....whatever that means. We know this to be true because the great and powerful climate data Oz (NASA/Goddard) (from the USA of course) says so.

Truth is they have no idea why. Lots of guesses though.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

waldo · June 12, 2015

Absolutely false statements!

no, there's nothing false in what I stated... as I'm aware, you've never qualified your repeated projections of the attributions associated with the past or distant past climate (presumed or otherwise), to today's relatively recent warming and changing climate. Nor, as I'm aware, have you qualified your claims that today's relatively recent GW/CC is "natural" caused rather than principally being linked to anthropogenic sources. Of course, you could directly show I'm incorrect here, right?

.

For someone whom claims to be answering questions, you are again displaying "sidestepping", no need to answer anything when avoiding seems to your choice.

And after sidestepping, you claim to be "answering" questions, and then make the claim to impose demands on other posters.

I'll wait for another sidestep from you.

I should really just ignore these attempts from your part.

about that "answering questions" and side-stepping thingee you speak to... I did answer questions within that series you put forward. And I stopped after a few highlighting that I'd now answered a few of yours and would await you to answer one of mine... one that you ignored previously. Let me try it again and see just who is "sidestepping": what's your definition of alarmist, give examples of scientists you label accordingly and those you don't (and why you don't). You won't once again... sidestep... that request, will you?

.

waldo · June 12, 2015

1) Those two states you gave me were noted in my original post. South Carolina and South Dakota did not set new records - they tied older ones. Oddly enough, three states recorded their coldest temperatures ever since 1998 - Maine, Illinois, Oklahoma.

you didn't identify any states by name. Again, for what its worth: SC is definitely a new record... but yes, you are correct about South Dakota tying an earlier record. But as I highlighted, the bulk of those respective U.S. states earlier records are associated with the 1930s. I challenged you to speak to that period's warming (the causes of it) and, if you're inclined, attempt to draw a parallel to today's relatively recent warming. Of course, we've had this dance before, right? I can appreciate why you don't want to revisit that topic of 30s warming again, right?

.

2) I'm aware there are legitimate reasons for adjusting temperatures. Time of day is a no-brainer - but you'd think that over hundreds/thousands of stations, there would be just as many "early readings" as there would be "later readings" and thus become almost a wash. But it really does appear that every time "adjustments" are heralded, recent averages increase and older ones decrease.....or is that just my imagination at play? Can you show me any articles/studies where adjustments have caused substantial cooling?

re: TOB... in regards your, as you say, "you would think"... that doesn't apply for systematic wholesale decisions made to change the time readings were made... and that's principally the focus of TOB

can I show you? Sure, the adjustment for 'Urban Heat Effect' (applied in regards monthly mean minimum temperature) removes a warming bias in the data.

.

So again, don't you find it odd that in this 21st century we haven't set any high-temperature records in any of the 50 states yet we've got some States with the coldest? After all, this is the decade that contains most of the "hottest years on record" and have regularly experienced "extreme weather".

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

you seem to be all over the map with your start points; first 1998, then 20 years ago... and now, in this 21st century... so, not quite a full 15 years yet is your latest starting reference point! You know you've got yourself into difficulty in the past over trends, particularly short(er) term trending intervals that don't reflect upon the proper (or more complete) time associated with climate analysis, right? But I digress...

again, what part of the contiguous U.S. accounting for only 1.5% of the earth's surface do you not get? What part of regional versus global attachments do you not get? What part of weather versus climate do you not get?

and again, you're fixated on a single day, state-wide overall, record high temperature. For what your narrow focus is really worth, one can quite easily show that within any particular U.S. state, there are many, many occurrences of a particular station within a state recording it's highest temperature ever... not a state record, but a station record within that state. Of course, this is just me taking your regional focus to another granular level. In any case, in line with my repeated reference to your regional localized (1.5% of the earth's surface) focus, come back to me/us when you have a look globally at extreme temperature records during your 'ever-shifting' starting points.

.

waldo · June 12, 2015

Antarctic sea ice "reaches a record maximum".....whatever that means.

Truth is they have no idea why. Lots of guesses though.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

"whatever that means"??? Odd that you would presume to speak to something you don't know what it means. Notwithstanding the attempts by deniers to leverage Antarctic sea-ice extent increases, the increases are quite nominal... but more pointedly, it simply melts away as Antarctic sea-ice regularly melts (almost to its entirety) each year as a part of the regular freeze-melt cycle. And no, there are reasons for the increase over the last few years... a part of which is absolutely tied to a global warming influence; specifically:

scientific based reasons why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice:

2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice

On Guard for Thee · June 12, 2015

"whatever that means"??? Odd that you would presume to speak to something you don't know what it means. Notwithstanding the attempts by deniers to leverage Antarctic sea-ice extent increases, the increases are quite nominal... but more pointedly, it simply melts away as Antarctic sea-ice regularly melts (almost to its entirety) each year as a part of the regular freeze-melt cycle. And no, there are reasons for the increase over the last few years... a part of which is absolutely tied to a global warming influence; specifically:

scientific based reasons why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice:

2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice

Although it has been explained previously in this thread, I guess its just too confusing for some folks to wrap their heads around the fact that GW in certain areas, creates an increase in sea ice.

WWWTT · June 12, 2015

"no it wasn't"... what? Identified to you? Sorry, I've noted it several times, showcasing that you're speaking to a reference (TRF - Terrestrial Reference Frame) that has introduced a discrepancy of 0.45mm in an application usage (actually, 0.47mm). And I've drawn repeated attention to you leveraging upon a ~~0.45~~ 0.47mm discrepancy/uncertainty in a discussion on ice-sheet melting where measurements are made in meters magnitude. Do you understand "orders of magnitude"?

you say that I need to point out to you where I've come up with the ~~0.45~~ 0.47mm number... that I'm "dodging something". I've not dodged anything... nothing, not a thing. Are you telling me that you don't actually read your own supplied linked references? Are you telling me you're simply one of those guys who latches upon a denier blog 'title headline'... and runs with it? Per your supplied linked reference, that 0.47mm discrepancy reflects upon using satellite altimeter measurement in an applied use... so, again, as orders of magnitude, do you finally get what negligible attachment a 0.47mm discrepancy example brings when ice-sheet measurements reflect upon meters magnitude?

Ya the reason why I asked you to make some references is because you are not reading what is in the link

The measurement you are doubting is in regards to "sea level rise".

But for some reason, you are implying that it is the amount of ice melting.

WWWTT

WWWTT · June 12, 2015

no, there's nothing false in what I stated...

.

Until someone takes the time to verify your claims.

WWWTT

Keepitsimple · June 12, 2015

and again, you're fixated on a single day, state-wide overall, record high temperature. For what your narrow focus is really worth, one can quite easily show that within any particular U.S. state, there are many, many occurrences of a particular station within a state recording it's highest temperature ever... not a state record, but a station record within that state. Of course, this is just me taking your regional focus to another granular level. In any case, in line with my repeated reference to your regional localized (1.5% of the earth's surface) focus, come back to me/us when you have a look globally at extreme temperature records during your 'ever-shifting' starting points.

.

Geez - don't get your shorts in a knot again - you'll blow a gasket......I just found it very odd that the hottest years on record are the most recent ones - yet no State heat records have been set - while three cold records have. I'm just one of those everyday, high school science guys.. I look at things pragmatically......especially predictions and resulting observations. As for the US representing just a small amount of the Globe's surface.....sure.....but that small amount just happens to have the most extensive, accurate, historical temperature measurement system......by far.

bush_cheney2004 · June 12, 2015

Basically, the alarmist strategy is to frame any and all climate change as warming due to forcing from "anthropogenic" emissions, even when the data inform us of cooling. The worshipped models have no provision for cooling, only warming. Since the data sets won't always cooperate, they are tweaked to make things just right. An over reliance on data from the U.S. and U.S. agencies further skews the perspective and analyses. The "dung heap" "denier nation" is also the climate change data hegemon...no irony in that.

Michael Hardner · June 13, 2015

Show us this "cooling" BC. The claim that all of the world's data has been fixed to show something that isn't happening amounts to a conspiracy theory.