North pole to melt this year?

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

I also trust statisticians to tell the difference between noise and a trend.

The Link

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Do you have any contrary evidence?

What is wrong with this chart?

And are you questioning the scientific validity of statistics? How? I get that you want to be contrarian or don't want to "believe", but the validity (or increase in probability) of statistics requires something more than "I don't want to believe", doesn't it?

 

[mop]

in other news...the next week should be quite interesting...we have already had 2 "up" days for arctic ice, but then yesterday was a rather large "down" day with 50,000 lost.....so i am very curious to see what is coming next. last year, i believe the lowest point of the melt season was on september 13th......

 

[pasotex]

We are already well within the red zone on the chart that I just posted.

It should be somewhat above the red dot, but well within the zone that was statistically predicted earlier in the year. I wonder how a mathmatician was able to do that?

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

No, it doesn't. I can check the math and I understand zany things like mean, standard deviation, linear regression, and p-value.

Do you understand these things? If you do, please tell me how the chart is "wrong"?

 

[pasotex]

mop,

Do you use JAXA for the daily tracking?

We are at 5.25 km sq as of 9/3/2010 right?

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

1979 was when we began satellite observation of arctic sea ice extent. You can also match this trend with ocean and land temperature rises as well as CO2 rises.

Is the decline statistically significant? If it is not, please explain why.

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

paso, I have traditionally used JAXA, but recently I have been checking DMI daily too because i find that 30% concentration is a bit more significant. Regardless, both seem to be decent sources for sea ice extent. And yes...we are about 10 days ahead of last years' low at 5,249,000, but this year is already to 5,245,000. Last year lost about 130,000 more after September 3rd. My guess is that this year will lose a bit less than that, so i am guessing about 100,000 below last year which is still about 900,000 above 2007's low extent.

 

[mop]

actually coel....considering that the earth was cooling from about 1940 to 1979....it is reasonable to assert that it may not be terribly significant at all that the arctic has melted for the past 30 years while the earth was warming.....the question is what is next? we were primarily in negative PDO's (and other MDO's as well) until 1979 but went primarily positive since then. at least the PDO runs in what appears to be a sinusoidal wave function of about 60 year increments for the entire period. if that's true....then we are due to switch back and in fact it appears we did in 2007....which is coinciding quite nicely with the 900,000 gain in sea ice extent we have observed since then (this year notwithstanding).......the intensity and severity of this year's arctic winter and next summer's melt off (or lack thereof) could have very interesting implications for future understandings......but for now we can say that 2 out of the last 3 years have seen an increase and we know that this year we are due for quite a cold winter in the northern hemisphere after just finishing a very cold winter in the southern hemisphere.

 

[mop]

wow...this year could be more dramatically low than i am predicting...it went another 60,000 down today. i suspect it is the negative AO that is causing both compaction and swirling the ice out into the warmer waters of the Bering sea...but regardless, that is quite a drop for this late in the season.

 

[pasotex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

This is the 20th century GISS temp data. Was there cooling between 1940 and 1975 or a pause caused by aerosols?

 

[pasotex]

btw the summer arctic sea ice is significantly lower now than in the 1950's (approximately 50% lower) and it is the lowest it has been since at least 1497 (because the Northwest Passage is free of ice) and probably since 6,000-8,500 years ago (when the earth's orbit brought more sunlight to the arctic in the summer)

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

You did not answer my question. Do you want to actually answer it or just keep playing silly games?

You also should not use a word like noise if you do not understand what it is and is not. Since you are claiming the statistical trend in the data from 1979 until the present is noise, please tell us why it is noise and should be disregarded. You should keep in mind that summer sea ice extent is a finite number and it has to shrink a certain amount for the Northwest Passage to be opened.

We have satellite data from 1979 until the present concerning summer ice extent. We have actual observations of summer ice extent from 1497 until the present. Does this mean something or is it more convenient to just ignore it?

 

[pasotex]

I sort of like this question better: when, if ever, will the trend become statistically significant for you? What do you need? Do you need data for the past 4.5 billion years?

We have gone from 9 million square kilometers in 1900 to about 4.3 million square kilometers in 2007. Does it ever become statistically significant or should we just all sit around with our heads up our *** until it all melts because we just don't have enough data?

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

guys it is important to remember that our data before 1979 is much lesser in quality and extent. to pretend we know things about the decades before 1979 that we don't know is not helpful. we have pieces of information that go both ways. for instance the pictures of an ice free North Pole (gasp! that has 'never happened" in the past 20 million years or whatever the claim was) from the 40's and 50's would lead us to believe that in fact the arctic ice has been lesser in extent than it is now.

 

[pasotex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Coelacanth, I really want to understand how you can look at the graphs provided by Pasotex and not be convinced that our climate is changing. It isn't the science - as I've said before, a vast majority of climate scientists agree with this interpretation. It has to be something else. You're an intelligent man. What is so important to you to cause you to ignore strong evidence?

 

[mop]

mcbrett.....i got that from looking at the data...it isn't a controversial statement. heck, we still have a great dearth of even basic weather stations in the arctic circle compared to the rest of the world...but without satellite, how in the heck do you think we know what the overall extent was? unless we were sending planes weekly and photographing the entire arctic circle i don't see how we could. at any rate, instead of arguing about it, why don't you just show me how i am wrong? where is the good data of sea ice extent before 1979 brett?

oh...and as for the carbon trading thread...i didn't think it got any traction...after a couple of days it seemed that almost no one had responded...i will go there right now and catch up. thanks for the heads up.

 

[pasotex]

fwiw, I generally agree with mop that the data prior to 1979 is not as good as the data after that date

I do not think we agree on the interpretation of the data before and after that date, but he is generally correct that the quality is not nearly so good before the satellites.