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.
2012 set an all time record, the best you can say is this year won't break any records, FOX news cherry picked a record setting year for comparison?
Great to play with numbers, hopefully you aren't a mutual fund manager, we had 2 lousy years in a row but we had a 60% increase this year, all good.
Quote:
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual
"minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean
than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink
until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will
break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained
decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the
last several decades.
“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what
matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10
years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”
Watching the summertime dynamics of the Arctic ice cap has gained considerable attention in recent years as the size of the minimum extent has been diminishing – rapidly. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.
KEY WORD is "present" halting of global warming. Lastly, where are you making the jump to "we may be going into cooling cycle". In the full text he goes onto to say an increase of ~0.5C will likely occur.
Yes, the paper does suppose such (remember, we are looking at past trends and suggesting a similar pattern), but it also states that this is a recovery from the little ice age which shows to be 1.0C cooler than we are now. As the temps slowly oscillate in this trend, a warming should occur based on the past data, but over the course of 0.5C/100 years. It also mentions the oscillations show cycles of cooling and warming within this overall linear trend to which I was referring. That we may go into a cycle of cooling again similar to the past cycles in the last century that his analysis is based on.
Another interesting point is that in this analysis, there is no justification for C02 being the causation as he mentions that the cooling cycle after 1946 conflicts with this due to the fact that C02 increased greatly at this time while cooling occurred. The hypothesis of CO2 being the warming factor is extremely problematic as he stated.
What does this mean?
Well...
His paper seems to suggest natural cycles within cycles (ie a warming from the little ice age with oscillations of warming and cooling within that linear trend) that do not support the assumption of C02 as a driving factor. It also shows that warming is not accelerating, rather it is a component of a recovery and at a slow pace. More importantly, is that this is based on actual observed data and not models making further assumptions about the system. It really is a simplistic paper, but sometimes things are simple in their behavior.
If you are going to cite the paper as support for your position, you will have to take the good with the bad. Though to be honest, what you thought was "good" for your position is really bad as it contradicts everything the CAGW hypothesis is based on.
One thing of note is that this paper will not be verified to its position for another 10-20 years. At that point, the same analysis can be applied to see if it holds true. That is how science works. You make an observation of an occurrence, suppose and then test it. The test is the test of time. His analysis will either be wrong as it will diverge from observed data, or it will be consistent by observed data. When that occurs, it will not establish his position as correct, it will merely show that it succeeded one of the many tests a hypothesis must go through to establish itself.
If you look on WattsUpWithThat and SkepticalScience there seems to be some controversy in the blogosphere over the quality of the paper (there is the typical juvenile circle-jerk running commentary which seems so characteristic of many of WUWT's posters). The article was published in the first issue of a new open access Journal called "Climate". One of the members of the editorial board resigned over it saying that the quality of the paper was substandard as there was data that didn't appear to be analyzed, the main hypothesis was not tested and would have been falsified if it had been, other statements were not well supported etc and he didn't want his name to be associated with a Journal who would publish a paper which had applied the scientific method so poorly. He said the author could expect rebuttal papers.
I read the paper - it's pretty basic and the author does make some unsupported (or not well supported) assertions which makes his conclusion a bit flaky. It will be interesting to see what happens with this. Rather silly for a new Journal to risk it's reputation because of a failure of the peer-review process in it's first issue. I wonder who the reviewers were and what the review discussions were?
The author made a simple evaluation, it is based on observed data. His conclusions are as follows:
It is likely that both the near linear increase and multi-decadal oscillation are primarily natural
changes. Thus, in order to estimate the effects caused by CO2 over the last two centuries, it is
important to isolate these natural components of climate change from real temperature data.
So he suggests a natural change and cites that due to the evidence, the cause of C02 over the last two centuries must be more properly supported as it fails scientific validation (ie it can not explain the fall in temps when there has been a continued rise in C02).
How is that flaky? I would say it is pretty conservative. He is not stating fact or making a definitive conclusion and as I said, the data evaluation is so simple, there is no "special math" or "assumptive models" in the way of it.
Would you specifically attend to your following claim: "it's pretty basic and the author does make some unsupported (or not well supported) assertions which makes his conclusion a bit flaky"
Can you cite something from the paper specifically and show why it is not supported? The paper is pretty basic as you said, so it should be equally basic to point out the error as you mentioned. Please explain as Dr. Brierley has been unable to specify a contention of any note. Maybe you can do better?
As for the Dr. Brierley throwing a tantrum, claiming it unscientific... yet citing no specific objection to the paper past vague mention, well... I would say he is being very unscientific here, especially when if his claims are true, it should be quite simple for him to falsify the hypothesis of the author. Remember, it only takes a single fact to fail a hypothesis.
Further, I find it odd that he resigns, then runs to Skeptical Science? A site consistently shown to lie, manipulate, and politicize the issues? A site run by a Cook and Nuccetelli whose recent paper was shown to be absolute hokum, filled with inflammatory political language, devious manipulation of data and statistics? Who also recently had their new paper rejected for being basically propaganda?
Why would someone who claims to hold to science, who makes an objection of such take these actions?
There is no risk in publishing a paper unless you are publishing by consensus or faith to a bias. This is what I don't understand about you people. Science is a basic process. Either the paper can be shown to be flawed, or it stands on our current understanding. If a journal applies proper scientific process, there is no risk. There is however risk when you push through papers like they have with many CAGW papers that have been later retracted because they were found to contain numerous obvious errors that imply a "pal review" nature, which by the way Dr. Brierley actions seem to suggest that he is angry that he can not dismiss the paper due to the fact that is goes against his narrative.
Denialists who try to pretend the amount of ice in the nearest slop bucket is an indicator of decades-long global trends make me laugh. I suppose such denialists would walk outside at night and determine the sun doesn't exist for half the time.
Denialists who try to pretend the amount of ice in the nearest slop bucket is an indicator of decades-long global trends make me laugh. I suppose such denialists would walk outside at night and determine the sun doesn't exist for half the time.
/facepalm
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
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.
