North pole to melt this year?

by the way...here is a graph of PIPS ice thickness. you can see that it has indeed come a long ways in the past few years.

pipsapr12011.jpg
 
GT...you confuse my take away from the paper with your own personal pet need for every study related to GW to be alarmist. i was merely pointing out that contrary to what we have been told by many (including you just recently) the rate of sea level rise has NOT been increasing. that is a very legitimate take away from that paper. in fact, that paper points out that the rate has actually decreased slightly in the past 80 years. i did not mischaracterize even remotely. i very carefully reported the primary result that the paper showed. the fact that the paper's authors gave a hat tip to AGW has no bearing on the actual science of the study. the data shows that the rate of sea level rise has remained flat.

the truth is that you are disappointed by this study because it does not confirm your strong bias for AGW. in fact, it somewhat flies in the face of it. because of that, you couldn't even read my original comment on it correctly but misunderstood me. now you are trying to redeem your poor reading of my post and it isn't working.

the fact that you misread my post and are now desperately trying to spin my intentions etc is your own personal issues and does not reflect the reality of what happened in this exchange. you should put it to rest.

put another way...are you saying that the rate of sea level rise is increasing?
 
Bottom line - the paper shows sea levels are increasing. According to the author the rate of increase is congruent with the IPCC models.

texasflag.gif
 
sea levels have been increasing at the same rate for like 250 years right GT? how is that in any way indicative of AGW? in fact, post industrial revolution we have seen sea level rates decrease a tad.

you have a very hard time admitting when you are wrong don't you GT?
 
while this time of year isn't terribly important, it is interesting to note that according to IJIS the arctic sea ice extent has moved into 5th place of 9, just over 2004 today. lots of melt left....but it is intriguing to watch how long this year is taking to start its more dramatic downturn. i am particularly interested because Joe Bastardi predicted a late spring and therefore a shorter melt season resulting in a higher ice extent in September than we have seen in 4 years.
 
hornpharmd....what do you think about the PIPS graph i showed that revealed a great deal of gain in thickness over the past 3 years? and out of curiosity, what was so significant and interesting about the two facts you put forth? could you spell it out to us?
 
The graph says very little to me. Do you have a link to scientists from that organization that have a statement regarding ice thickness and recovery as I have given you with NSIDC?

The march sea ice extent was tied for the 2nd lowest in satellite record or since 1979. If you don't think that is significant then I can't help you.
 
so hornpharmd....what you are saying is that since the PDO switched to postive (near the end of the 70's) and the satellite record began.....we have seen northern hemisphere ice melt? since the PDO is a 60 year cycle and we just finished the positive cycle (many believe it switched in 2007 actually), is there anything about these facts that should surprise us at all? not as far as i can tell...in fact, this is exactly what we should expect.

now, if the PDO indeed switched to negative like many are saying, then we should see northern hemisphere ice began to recover....if the NAO switches back to negative in the next 5 to 10 years (which it is due to in that timeframe) this northern ice growth should increase even more so. the PIPS shows that the ice has thickened (not sure why i need a scientist to back me on that when the graph clearly shows it is the case, but if that's what you need to understand anything, be my guess at having a scientist explain it to you) and since the PDO allegedly switched in 2007 we have seen at least some recovery and the Antarctic has begun to lose some ice.....also something that is expected from the PDO switch.

as for the March Sea Ice extent....i am not at all sure why the sea ice extent is more significant than the PIPS thickness which shows that the volume of ice has been growing for the past 4 years now. that seems far more significant don't you think?
 
haven't linked to the sea ice extent in a while....but it is interesting to see how it has been slow to start its downturn in the past week. not terribly significant, but may suggest a shorter melt season if this keeps up for another month.....

IJIS
 
i will do my best GT and Paso....
wink.gif


but my suspicion is that we will have MANY interesting things between now and then to keep us busy on this discussion.
 
GT, I have no problem with scientists making educated guesses based upon the evidence. That seems a very necessary function of your role as scientists. What I struggle with is the tendency, particularly swirling around this issue, for crazy overstated predictions to be thrown out there under "may" category that for the most part have completely failed to manifest. How many absurd shock claims do we have to endure before it is reasonable to begin to question the entire enterprise as it pertains to the question of climate change? For instance, what do you specifically think about the claim by the UN in 2005 that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate change refugees? It seems that if this were a legitimate claim, then we would be able to point to at least some fraction of that number having been true in order to establish that the original estimate was a reasonable scientific estimate based upon the available evidence. But we don't have any clear cases of "climate refugees" do we? I mean not any more than we have always had due to tornadoes, hurricanes etc. Do we have any verified cases of climate refugees?

By the way, for all of your talk about civil discourse, you sure struggle with being civil don't you? How do students respond to this sort of treatment of their ideas? Is that ok at your university?
 
GT...you have just opened up "science" to ANY claim within the "realm of possibility?" are you sure you want to do that? It is POSSIBLE that a yet unseen asteroid hits earth and wipes out all life.....it is POSSIBLE that a virus takes out all of mankind....etc etc ad nauseum. My question is what is the standard we use for what is shared with the public as a legitimate concern and what isn't? The original claim was "between 50 million and 200 million climate refugees" by 2010. Instead? We have not one confirmed climate refugee that can be clearly linked to AGW. Do you think every scientist in every area of research should release their similar concerns with the public? What purpose does this serve?
 
On this issue, I have to agree with MOP. When a statement like 50 million climate refugees is thrown out there, it is rightly taken very, very seriously. If they had missed the estimate by 10% or 20% or even 50% that is debatable. But when it misses absolutely completely, then that is just ********. Maybe it is not the fault of the scientists, but these predictions are then politicized and used to make policy decisions. Lots and lots of money can change hands as a result. 50 million people is a drastic dire prediction. The actual was ZERO.

Obviously this is only a prediction and not all of the science behind GW. However, in any field known to man, if someone's science/models/predicitons missed this badly, we would be absolutely foolish not to seriously question the underlying science that generated the prediction.

This goes along with your back and forth with MOP on sea level rising. Surely you will not question that the AGW camp predicted much more rapid sea level rising than was occuring in pre-industrial time. This was all over the place. The latest studies say that rate of the sea level rise is not accelerating, but is actually decreasing. This goes against every model/prediction made with regards to the rate of sea level rising. Like the above example, not only have the seas not risen any faster than they were rising in the pre-industrial time but they are rising slower now. Complete bust by the predicitions/models.

There is off by a little but generally true and there is off by a lot but maybe true and there is off by a whole lot so maybe not true and then there is off by so much the predictions look like lunacy. We have lunacy levels on a lot of these predictions.
 
What tends to happen is that a group of scientists file a report that suggests effects will range from moderate to dramatic, then the bureaucrat who summarizes that report reports the upper end prediction. Then MOP and his ilk blame the scientist for the stress placed on the worst-case scenario. Again, the scientist would be remiss to not report the range of possible out-comes.

A good example of this idiocy is the polar ice melt that is the topic of the thread. The data suggested that an ice-free pole could occur as early as 2008 but that was one extreme of scenarios that were consistent the model. The media jumped on the extreme figure and MOP jumped on the media's coat-tails. The original report said that an early date for an ice-free pole was one scenario that was consistent with the data and with the model.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top