Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not just focusing on the 2006 loss but the continued loss over the last 3 decades, still the loss for 2006 is still dramatic. The main concern is the consistent loss over 30 years and monthly fluctuations. Sea ice is critical and any loss can speed up the melting process since it acts as a reflector of heat. Their conclusions don't match their assessments of data, I disagree. What would be an acceptable loss of sea ice, 5% per decade, 10%? What would be an acceptable carbon level, 400 ppM? Looking at all the information, sea ice loss, rising sea levels, increased temperatures and CO2, their conclusions seem valid.
You do realize that oceanic oscillations last for as much as 60 years right?
30 years of directional movement in temperature is really just a blip.
I think your point is that any short term loss is acceptable and that we are overreacting considering the long term trend. I disagree; we don’t always have the luxury of more time to study. If you don’t have any threshold where you are willing to take action, and it sure sounds that way, then eventually you may reach a point when it is too late. Do you want to wait 20 years, a hundred years or until the CO2 levels go to 700 ppM?
We do have records of the past, your argument now sounds a bit "urgent" in the face of the facts. This is the problem with the field at the moment. Short term loss means nothing without context. As I said, we have records of previous loss and satellite data has only been available for a short period of time. Many of the claims are made on models. Models are useful tools for certain purposes, but are extremely limited. When you watch the arguments made by some climate scientists, they flip back and forth between model predictions and reality which confuses the issues. Models are not definitive, in fact, models are consistently wrong. The predictions of urgency are based on models, not consistent observational trends. In some cases, observational trends are discarded to promote modeled trends.
I understand your position and fear of the unknown, but acting on such is more dangerous than not, especially when the science can not properly explain even a relevant portion of its findings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12
Even if you doubt the climate predictions and NASA’s numbers there are many good health reasons, energy independence to reduce CO2 levels.
I don't have to doubt their predictions, their predictions have been consistently wrong to date. Making changes based on failed models is folly. As for changes specifically, sure, its always good to be cleaner, more efficient, and independent. I am all for that, but that isn't the issue, the issue is regulations, taxes, and schemes that are detrimental to a functional society. The failed models are used to present urgency, to promote fear that misleads people so they will consider the severity of the changes purposed rather than immediately combat them.
We have a small understanding of the climate, but we do know that these regulations will create hardships and stress on our economy and lifestyles. Creating such hardship based on something we do not know is simply irresponsible. This is why the urgency and ominous predictions are pushed. People will then weight the issue misinformed thinking that economic hardship is at least better than the planet imploding. It is not science, its politics manipulating science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12
The artic was certainly not warmer in the 1920’s based on observations, where did you get that information? Do you know the Larsen Ice shelf recently collapsed that has been in existence fro over 400 years? That loss in 2002 was over a 1000 square miles. Below is a chart of the average global temperature.
The Larsen ice shelf is in Antarctica, not the arctic. Antarctica has been showing growth compared to the arctic. Also, a common occurrence during poles (not always consistent, but enough to note) is that while one is melting, the other is growing.
I hope you are not using NASA Cyrosphere 2009 video tour as evidence, that thing is misleading and you really need to pay attention to the facts they use (what is data and what is fill in between the data), when they use them (records used at the wrong time to show emphasis of occurrence) , and how they apply them. Also note they never mention volcanic activity in the area. They also don't specifically attribute the shelf breaking as evidence to AGW, though some are very quick to pick that assumption up and run with it (something you are doing).
Also, there is research that has suggested the ice break up may have other contributors, more specifically waves.
Lastly, as for where I gained the information for warming in the early 20th century?
Quote:
Bengtsson, L., Semenov, V.A., and Johannessen, O.M. (2004), “The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism”, Journal of Climate, Vol. 17, pp. 4045-4057.
Birkeland, B.J. (1930), „Temperaturvariationen auf Spitzbergen“, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Vol.47, pp. 234-236.
Brooks, C.E.P., (1938); “The Warming Arctic”, The Meteorological Magazine, Vol.73, pp.29-32.
Brönnimann, S., Ewen, T., Luterbacher, J., Diaz, H. F., Stolarski, R. S. and Neu, U. (2008) “A Focus on the Climate During the Past 100 Years”; Springer, Dordrecht.
Those are a few, but there are many more references to the point. Also, three are some historical collections of the eye witness and journals of the time if you would like information on those as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12
I think we are going in circles because of your basic mistrust of NASA, it is doubtful there is any way to get around that.
I simply won't take their word for it and that is what it appears that you would like me to do. As I said, NASA is not in a position to demand such trust in authority, they have already been caught in some bad political positions with misleading statements and involvements.
I am not refusing to accept the data they provide (when I think it is wrong, I will provide evidence of such), I am simply refusing to accept their conclusions because they are simply opinions as to what they "believe" is happening, what will happen, and why it is happening. They can not provide evidence of this without relying on models, models to which have consistently been wrong compared to observational data.
There is nothing unreasonable about such a position.
We don't change our life drastically because the weatherman states on Monday that it will be heavy rain on the weekend. We wait and watch to see if their predictions are evident before we change our plans.
Climate models are simply weather models that have to account for many more variables (many of which they do not fully understand) and we all know how successful a weatherman's model is outside of a 24 hour period. You can't expect me to simply take their claims on authority, especially when they have been wrong consistently on their predictions. That would be foolish, and very unscientific. In fact, it is something more common in political realms than science.
As for your model, can you please provide the sources for it so I can see what station data they use?
You are aware with the current problems with the surface stations? This was a big issue related to the CRU data. The networks are highly suspect in not only their calibrations, but in the manner to which the data is collected and stored. NASA temperature data is horrible. read into the CEI and their FOI request suits, the reason for the FOI is because NASA's data is showing oddities similar to that of CRU.
If you can provide the sources for your graph, it would be appreciated. (sources as in the data sets they used and the methodology they apply). Good luck with that, if the CEI can't get it, I doubt you can. Though you may surprise me.
There is no question it was warmer and CO2 levels were higher in our distant history but it was not a great place to live, I don't think that is the debate.
Please provide your links on temperature and sea level.
Why wouldn't it be? You spent several pages discussing "dramatic" drops in ice levels, increasing temperatures and you think that placing this all in perspective is not the debate? It is exactly the debate. You even told me that the growth I showed wasn't significant of anything, yet you kept focusing on the decline and implying the steady loss was significant of something.
If history shows that our fluctuation, decline in ice or rise in temperature, etc... are insignificant compared to what it has been in the past, then does that not suck all of the wind out of a position?
That is, unless you are making the argument that those levels in history are unlivable, which you seem to suggest with "not a great place to live" and you base this on what? Also, this is not an argument made by those you are citing. They omit past records and rely on recent trends combined with predictive models to make their claim.
You do realize the MWP is a thorn in the side of many AGW proponents and they have even resorted to using unsound methods to lessen it or even remove it from their focus?
It is fine that you use NASA and want to rely on official organizations because you think you will be safe in their assessments, but read deeper into the issues. They aren't that safe and in some (especially with the CRU), they are devious. Not only has some of the research been caught using unsound statistical methods (never used anywhere in statistical practice), but they have also been caught breaking basic mathematical principals.
for instance, this is a graph from the AR4,
Do you see a problem with it?
The IPCC didn't and it made it through the review process. Why would that be? Just a simple miss, a basic mistake or is it the fact that it shows the slope increasing to promote a bias? This is the kind of garbage science being pushed. You have to pay attention to the details. This is why the methodology and data is constantly requested when such claims are made and a possible reason they refuse to supply their work.
There is no question it was warmer and CO2 levels were higher in our distant history but it was not a great place to live, I don't think that is the debate.
Please provide your links on temperature and sea level.
do you know when the Midieval Warming Period was? Cuz in terms of it being a "great place to live"
Climate wise it was wonderful. Greenland was nice and green. Ice Land was nice and warm. They were making great wine in York England...
Now I suspect that none of us would like to live in Midieval Europe what with no soap and tooth brushes and all, but the climate was just fine.... thank you very much. And warmer than it is right now.
You don't seem to want to answer the question, what is your threshold that would make you change your mind? By the way Ferd did not supply any reference other than his statement.
do a search. ive posted dozens of links and im tired of posting links.
I was not speaking to the Medieval period, it was the past history(Mesozoic era +/-) when CO2 levels were elevated, that was the discussion. For the 3rd time no one disagrees that CO2 levels and the earth was warmer in past history. The Mesozoic period +/- was not a very good place to live, tempratures were extremely warm and there where no ice caps. Assuming you are not worried about man made climate change maybe you should be worried if that is part of the earths cycle, or is the idea just to prove that man made changes are not to blame.
ahh but you replied to me and I was speaking of the MWP. and it was warmer then than it is now.
You don't seem to want to answer the question, what is your threshold that would make you change your mind? By the way Ferd did not supply any reference other than his statement.
You asked me what levels are acceptable. I do not know, do you? I know that the evidence presented by your citations do not know, though they would imply such by the display, yet this brings us back to the method of display and that which one chooses to focus on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
