North pole to melt this year?

very clearly down. this is about the only trend in AGW theory that actually fits the theory. don't look for trends in droughts, floods, hurricanes, temperature or anything else, because the data is not matching the models.

Almost to 17 years of no warming. But what does any of that mean to a true believer like yourself paso?
 
Uh oh! Now Der Spiegel has been influenced by me. Seems they are agreeing with me that there has been no rise in temperatures for the past 15 years. Man, maybe I SHOULD be a lobbyist! I am so good at this I am convincing a German news weekly with almost 1,000,000 readers to take my view of things. It couldn't possibly be that they are looking at the data and coming to the same conclusions as me could it?

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
funny you should mention it. I just went back to about 18 months ago (somewhere around page 80) where Paso blustered his way through like 4 weeks of calling me out on statistics. I admitted quite early that I was not trained in trends or trend lines and asked him to do the math for me and tell me the trend according to HadCrut 3 from 1997-2011. He kept changing the dates, pointing to studies that used other dates and declaring victory over and over even though we kept saying the same thing. Bevo jumped in and acted as if Paso had clearly answered our questions ("our" being me and Ag With Kids) but he kept not answering it. It was quite amazing. You could definitely see his training was as a lawyer as he used ad hominem and misdirection repeatedly. The most hilarious part is that after accusing me of only linking to blogs and not knowing what I was talking about, he linked us to an IDENTICAL graph from the IDENTICAL site to which I had posted to weeks earlier in the discussion.

Funny enough, here it is 18 months later and the trend has not changed. At the current rate of rise, based on the past 16.5 years it would take about 200 years for the temperature to go up 1 degree Celsius, but somehow he believes that the temperature has continued to rise unabated. Of course his newer claim is to mention the oceans over and over as often as possible in spite of scant and sketchy means of evaluation of that metric.

Here is the last 16.5 years of warming according to the 4 most trusted data sets. This includes 2 satellite sets (one which shows some warming, one which shows slight cooling) and 2 ground based data sets (both which show very slight warming)

16.5 years of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"

Even more interesting in some respects, is a look at the past 11.5 years:



The past 11.5 years of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"
 
to be a bit more precise:

at the current rate of warming the next Century would bring approximately:

1 degree of warming according to the GISS dataset
0.5 degree of warming in the HadCrut 3 dataset
0.4 degrees of cooling in the RSS dataset
1.1 degree of warming according to the UAH dataset

On the other hand, if the trends from the past 11.5 years continue over the next 100 years we would have about 0.7 degrees of cooling in 3 sets and about 0.4 degrees of warming in one set. This millennium has not been kind to the warmists!

here is the past 12.5 years of "warming" taking us back to day 1 of this milleniu:

All of the "warming" this millenium

But don't worry, next week the AR5 report comes out and it will assure us all that the warming has continued unabated and it is all "worse than we thought!"
 
That German article about the politics of the release of the IPCC report was revealing. It appears that the scientists know that the whole house of cards is built on lies, but they just don't care about truth anymore.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

What is astonishing is how passionate the worship leaders for the IPCC religion are..."What, support is fading? Why, then, go on the personal attack against any person or fact in our way!"
 
we are basically 3 months away from 17 years of flat temperatures in 2 out of 4 data sets and only slight warming (far less than predicted) in the other 2 sets. I still think that about 24 months from now, should we be at the same basic place, we will see a floodgate of skepticism unleashed. I think many scientists who are scared of the Inquisition type responses up to now are flying under the radar, but when 20 years is on the horizon, I suspect many will be emboldened and stop playing it safe with regards to their doubts. I have seen a steady increase in the number of peer-reviewed studies willing to question the consensus position and I expect that to increase, but 20 years seems symbolic in a bigger way than any number under that.

Also, if we experience the continued cooling we have seen in the past 11.5 years since this millennium began, we could see the starting date for the flat line stretch backwards to before 1997. In other words, while we are currently at the precipice of 17 years, if the next two years continue the cooling trend we have seen over the past 11.5 years, we could reach 20 years in less than 3 years' time.
 
In watching this unfold, I wasn't ever worried because I knew ups and downs would happen to ruin their predictive models over any significant length of time. What really interests me was the embarrassing release of the private emails from the scientists at the heart of the "movement". I had friends try to dismiss it and say "well read in context, they aren't that bad." So I read them in context, someone posted longer versions trying to defend them. It just made it worse. In context there was no even handedness. It looked to me like pure cover-up strategy. Instead of "thank goodness maybe this disaster isn't happening" it was "oh no this data is a disaster for us career-wise, how do we bury it?". It was sickening. I can't get over how this wasn't career ruining for these folks. It would be in any other industry, you would NEVER be taken seriously again.
 
I agree Battleship. the excuses were VERY lame. Certainly some skeptics made too much of them, or tried to make them say things they didn't, but the biggest thing about them is that they showed that the scientists involved were ROOTING for a climate catastrophe.
 
What is the latest, mop? Here we are in October. What is the summary from the latest data-sets how this past year stacks up?
 
zork, it was an unusually cold summer in the Arctic so there was a very significant rebound. we ended the melt season at around 2005/2006 levels, which is still low historically, but unexpected as last year was the lowest level on record going back to 1979.

Of course, this is only AREA, so that doesn't tell us volume, which would obviously be the more important metric. Still, it was a surprising year. This was, after all, the year when it was all supposed to melt away according to predictions which began this thread (or was that 2012?). anyways, here is a link:

15% extent graph

30% extent graph

For the record, I still maintain that Arctic sea ice loss is probably the best argument for rapid global warming, but then again, the Antarctic is at or near all time records and we have been in a warm PDO for MOST of the time since the satellites came on record. Regardless, the ice loss has been profound. It will be interesting to see if the PDO switching to the negative phase 5 years ago and the AMO due to switch any day now, will lead to the Arctic rebound that I expect based upon my readings.
 
during all of the tempest in a teapot over the Arctic Ice, people forget that the Antarctic Sea Ice keeps breaking new records for extent:

antarctic-sea-ice-oct-17-2013-extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_regular.png


Antarctic Sea Ice extent at all time high in the satellite era
 
So while the Arctic has been steadily declining over the past few decades, the Antarctic has grown. This year, it reached an all time high during the satellite era while the Arctic came in at 6th lowest. Now I know what the first response of "true believers" will be…something like "but what about the VOLUME??"

well according to the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany:

"Even if there are no large area long-term measurements of sea ice thickness in the Antarctic, we conclude from various studies that the total volume of the Antarctic sea ice has grown over the last years."

So there you have it…while the Arctic declines, the Antarctic has gotten fuller. I suspect this trend is going to reverse in both cases. I think the Antarctic will start shrinking while the Arctic begins to recover.
 
How many times do you need to be wrong about this?

Arctic sea ice loss is more than three times the Antarctic sea ice gains.

Additionally, what are volume trends of both? The Antarctic contains significant amounts of land ice (in fact most of the land ice on earth). What is the overall volume trend.

You really do just make stuff up again and again and again.
 
Why was 1980 chosen to begin the trend line? If 2006 was chosen as the starting point, we would quickly be entering an ice age. If 1997 to 2007 were chosen we would soon be devoid of ice.
confused.gif
 
satellite data begins in 1980 (I believe it is 1979 actually)

and why would you cherry pick a more recent date when calculating a trend?
 
Short-term trends are useless. And yes 30 yr trends are just as useless as 20 year trends. Look at your own data to prove it to yourself. What is the confidence level of the 30 years of data predicting the ice extent 1000 years from now?
 
Seriously?

The Arctic sea ice will be gone in the summer in the next 20 to 50 years. I defer to the IPCC on the confidence level (I believe it is high meaning 95%). Trend is obvious and ominous.

Knock yourself out:

The Link
 
Where in the 102 page document are you referring? I couldn't find the confidence levels of long-term projections using data sets that began in 1980.
 
the more the IPCC and the AGW crowd gets it wrong, the more shrill pasotex becomes. in the 6 years i have been on here talking about this, nothing has gone the way paso and his crowd have said it would. temperatures have been flat for 17 years now, Antarctic ice has GROWN and the volume of Antarctic Sea Ice according to the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, has also GROWN. But the truth is that we just don't have any great ways to measure the volume yet and the best ones we do have only give us a few years of data.

Here is the 30 year graph of global sea ice and bear in mind that the Antarctic has 90% of ALL ice on the planet, including all mountain glaciers, Greenland and the Arctic. So if the Antarctic is fine and all the rest of the ice on the planet melts, we are only down 10%. We are talking about percentage points here in terms of melting and it is all quite expected since the PDO and the AMO have been positive. The PDO switched 5 years ago and the AMO will switch in the next 2 years so we shall see what happens once the cycle is in a negative phase.

global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
 
to be fair, the one area where things HAVE gone the way that the alarmists like Paso have predicted is in Arctic Sea Ice. It has indeed continued to decline in terms of trending downward despite this year's relatively impressive recovery. but that one area hardly makes up for false predictions (projections) regarding hurricanes, droughts, temperature etc.
 
If the volume of arctic ice in 2013 is up 50% over the same period in 2012, then I would imagine that the 2 year trend is pointing up. Extrapolating, I could see an ice age in our future.
 
I remember the warmists predicting a few years back that the arctic would be ice free by 2013. Obviously these alarmist predictions were just plain wrong. Which also casts reasonable doubt on the other alarmist predictions and warnings that they continue to screech forth.
 
You guys are energizer bunnies of denial ...

What is the statistically significant trend on arctic sea ice volume?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top