Climate change another name for Weather

[Julia]

Hey man, what you write to your grandkids is for you to sort out - I can't help you...
btw, If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety

I doubt that Calliope has any difficulty in communicating with his grandchildren. And if he did, it's probably further doubtful he'd be seeking your assistance.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

You must have read the Crikey.com article about Windschuttle, g.g. Made him look just a little silly, did it not?
When reading it, I thought of this thread. So easy to prey on people's vulnerability to be seen to be embracing the most popular whim of the times.

Yes Julia, I'm a Quadrant reader and dreaded when the windbag took over.

He is a man on a mission.

I avoid men on a mission.

Having said that 2020 would keep Windschuttle busy for a year or so checking all his footnotes and youtubes with just one article !!

gg

 

[2020hindsight]

I doubt that Calliope has any difficulty in communicating with his grandchildren. And if he did, it's probably further doubtful he'd be seeking your assistance.

lol
likewise Julia
I dont really need your assistance in that matter either

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

The CC deniers continue to trot out obfuscation and junk science.
Here's yet another recent example of their spin: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
The linked report contains no analysis and readers might get the impression that nothing has changed.
Yet anyone following this thread will know that the situation in North and South Poles is very, very different.

Red,
Your scrutiny is as strong as ever. But here is what I have a problem with from the link above and below:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000

 

[rederob]

Red,
Your scrutiny is as strong as ever. But here is what I have a problem with from the link above and below:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

An explanation of the difference between the regions is here: http://www.nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
Cherry picking in this article is a high art form.
Look carefully at the chart of the "anomaly"; bet you didn't before you posted to me. Notice that the annual trend in 2008 was for the anomaly to be negative for a significant period, while in 1979 the anomaly was mostly positive: Clear an distinctive differences between the data sets. Statistical "coincidence" might fool some people, but don't let it fool you.

 

[2020hindsight]

Just to put you out of your misery: Arctic ice is receding overall, and quickly.
Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly.
West Antarctic sheet ice is decreasing, East Antarctic sheet ice may be in balance, or increasing slightly - depends who you read and their methodology.

Rob
Whilst I suspect your caveat "depends who you read etc" is relevant, I would disagree with your claim (I think) that there's no doubt that Antarctic seaice is increasing "firmly" ... (I assume you mean significantly).

Here's what NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) say about the alleged trend (see the graph btw, the mean of years 2001-2008 are below average for instance). "not statistically significant" :-

http://www.nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent are characterized by fairly large variations from year to year. The monthly average extent can vary by as much as 1 million square kilometers (386,102 square miles) from the year-to-year monthly average. The area covered by antarctic sea ice has shown a small (not statistically significant) increasing trend.

Of course there is no doubt about the Arctic :-

The annual average extent of arctic sea ice has slightly decreased by approximately 3 percent per decade over the last 25 years, which corresponds to an area of approximately 750,000 square kilometers (289,576 square miles). ... The Septembers of 2002 to 2004 showed dramatically lower arctic ice extent. This trend is a major sign of climate change in the polar regions and may be an indicator of the effects of global warming.

The other comment you make about the WAIS decreasing also highlights the fact that some areas are potentially very relevant indeed.

This from wiki :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet

Potential collapse of the WAIS
Large parts of the WAIS sit on a reverse-sloping bed below sea level. The reverse slope, and the low isostatic head, means that the ice sheet is theoretically unstable: a small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire WAIS leading to rapid disintegration. Current computer models do not include the physics necessary to simulate this process, and observations do not provide guidance, so predictions as to its rate of retreat remain uncertain. This has been known for decades.

In January 2006, in a UK government-commissioned report, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that this huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by at least 5 metres (16 ft). Estimates by others have ranged from 6 to 15 m (20–50 ft).

...
Rapley said, "Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet that rest on bedrock below sea level have begun to discharge ice fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise. Understanding the reason for this change is urgent in order to be able to predict how much ice may ultimately be discharged and over what timescale. Current computer models do not include the effect of liquid water on ice sheet sliding and flow, and so provide only conservative estimates of future behaviour." [5]

Note that he (Rapley) believes the IPCC should be more concerned ( not less) :-

Rapley said a previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report playing down worries about the ice sheet's stability should be revised. "The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change," he wrote. "I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern." [4]. Note that the IPCC report did not use the words "slumbering giant".

 

[2020hindsight]

here is what I have a problem with from the link above and below:
...
"the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000"

Why would that be a problem snake? (assuming I understand that you have a problem with the datum of 1979-2000).

Sure they have the option to change the datum from 1979-2000 to 1979-2008 (to give a 30 year period), but the data would potentially become confused (two alternative reference points) , and in any case recent changes in Arctic ice extent appear to be accelerating.

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#1979average

Why do you use the 1979–2000 average for comparisons?

NSIDC scientists use the 1979 to 2000 average because it provides a consistent baseline for year-to-year comparisons of sea ice extent. Scientists call this long-term average over a data series a “climatology.” If we were to recalculate the climatology every year to incorporate the most recent year of data, we couldn’t meaningfully compare between recent years. To borrow a common phrase, we would be comparing apples and oranges.

The problem with relying on a sliding average becomes clear over time, when we try to compare new years of data with previous years. For example, if we rely on a standard, unchanging climatology like 1979 to 2000, we can easily and clearly compare September 2007 and September 2008 with each other. However, if we were to use the sliding climatology of 1979 to 2006 for September 2007, and the sliding climatology of 1979 to 2007 for September 2008, we would no longer be comparing “apples to apples” when we compared the two years to climatology.

Finally, some scientists point out that since 2000, sea ice has declined precipitously. While you can do an average over any period, it is better to do so over a stable period, either a period of relatively flat change or cyclical change with little overall trend. If you include a strong increasing or decreasing trend when you calculate an average, you probably will not have a representative average.

That said, NSIDC has recently considered revisiting the 1979 to 2000 average. With the close of the 2008 season, we now have thirty years of Arctic sea ice data. A thirty-year time series is a widely accepted scientific standard for a climatology because it is long enough to encompass most cyclical patterns of natural variation. The problem, however, is that we would have to deal with the potential confusion caused any time that a standard is changed. The graphs would look different to the general public and would require a great deal of explanation.

For another graphical presentation :-

For those who are interested in comparing the thirty-year decline in Arctic sea ice extent to something different than the 1979 to 2000 average, the NOAA Arctic Report Card 2008: Sea Ice offers a graph showing groups of five-year averages from 1979 to 2008. What one immediately notices is that the overarching story remains the same: Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages.

To give you an idea of how fast it is changing - how's this for a near-perfect "rainbow" (upside down whatever).

Note how the change "per set of 5 years" a couple of decades ago is now sometimes swamped by the change per year.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

 

[wayneL]

5 year averages.

Traders know better. Raw data is what's important.

Take a trip up to ice today matey.

 

[2020hindsight]

I repeat
"Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages."

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

5 year averages.

Traders know better. Raw data is what's important.

Take a trip up to ice today matey.

I repeat
"Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages."

I'd agree Wayne, any TA knows that the raw data is the essential element in these calculations.

gg

 

[wayneL]

I repeat
"Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages."

Averages are very average at spotting turns in trend... no matter how you calculate them.

I repeat, take a trip up to ice today matey.

 

[spooly74]

Mitigation or Adaption?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously.

Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual.

The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).

The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

 

[2020hindsight]

Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

pretty much in agreement with what's been posted already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
PS Lately there appears to be an acceleration (almost 3mm/year).

 

[spooly74]

pretty much in agreement with what's been posted already.

PS Lately there appears to be an acceleration (almost 3mm/year).

I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century

PS: Lately there has been no acceleration.
1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
2003-2008 (2.5mm/y) - that's ~20% lower.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/se...te-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/

 

[wayneL]

I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century

PS: Lately there has been no acceleration.
1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
2003-2008 (2.5mm/y) - that's ~20% lower.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/se...te-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/

Good site there spooly. Smart guy, honest, someone with integrity.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Good site there spooly. Smart guy, honest, someone with integrity.

Ah integrity.

Integers.

Mathematics.

One of the few sense experiences one can trust, not totally. I jest.

At least if we ain't going to use reason we can use mathematics.

gg

 

[2020hindsight]

I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century

PS: Lately there has been no acceleration.
1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
2003-2008 (2.5mm/y) - that's ~20% lower.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/se...te-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/

hey spooly , you just said the average for the century is 1.7mm / yr.
I would say it's a fair comment that 3mm / year, (and 2.5 for that matter) are an acceleration.

Unless of course we're pretending it's monotonic (which is ridiculous)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic

I have always enjoyed this analogy to chaotic-behaviour–but-still-predictable-to-an-extent as it applies to weather. (There was a great website linked to NewScientist, but it seems to have expired somehow). Here by the way is a similar youtube of this behaviour. Note how the pendulum tends to end up balanced by forces around the central magnets. - but still varies from "diceroll" to "diceroill" (hanging close to vertical). :-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PznoBqEmU4M&feature=related
embedded:-
magnetic pendulum

Whilst they don’t show what would happen if you add changing conditions / forcing functions etc, it is equivalent to tilting the table. Dead simple to imagine. Obviously the pendulum would then end up centred on magnets further down the slope.

Here's NewScientist on this :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641

Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable

You cannot predict the exact path a ball will take as it bounces through a pinball machine. But you can predict that the average score will change if the entire machine is tilted.

Similarly, while we cannot predict the weather in a particular place and on a particular day in 100 years time, we can be sure that on average it will be far warmer if greenhouse gases continue to rise.

While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, ...

It goes on to say "as this demonstration neatly illustrates." - but the link ( as I mentioned) seems to have expired. It was better than this youtube, and included the effect of tilting.

PS One of the comments attached to that NewScientist article tries to argue that it's like coinflips . The question is, what is the effect of adding a bit of lead to the "head" side of the coin?

 

[Knobby22]

There is a theory, I think I read it in New Scientist, that Carbon Dioxide is very ineffective as a global warming gas and the effect from C02 is already tapering off. The real cause of global warming is methane.

Supporting facts to this theory are the mini ice age which occurred after the plague and depopulated the earth and the fact as shown by your global warming graph that sea levels rose as farming became more intensive.

Anyone else seen this article:? It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[2020hindsight]

Knobby - here's NewScientist on the relative importance of GHG's.:-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Of course, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emitted by humans. And many, such as methane, are far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule.

While methane persists for only about a decade before breaking down, other gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), can persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands years. Per molecule, their warming effect is thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. (Production of CFCs in now banned in most of the world, but because of their ozone destroying properties, not greenhouse properties.)

But the overall quantities of these other gases are tiny. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity.

Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise.

What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.

other myths addressed here :-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

 

[mayk]

There is a theory, I think I read it in New Scientist, that Carbon Dioxide is very ineffective as a global warming gas and the effect from C02 is already tapering off. The real cause of global warming is methane.

Supporting facts to this theory are the mini ice age which occurred after the plague and depopulated the earth and the fact as shown by your global warming graph that sea levels rose as farming became more intensive.

Anyone else seen this article:? It makes a lot of sense to me.

I am again amused, it seemed, first it was global warming, then it changed into climate change, now it must be Methane. I wonder what is next.