Summer Arctic Ice

[fbrissette]

It probably is a tabloid but the data is from CryoSat a European satellite imaging that infers/measures ice thickness. It's been operational for three to four years. Here's another snapshot for Oct, its clear that ice thickness and extent has been growing since 2010.

Why it's depicted in tabloid manner is telling, I blame the media for polarizing this issue. Where by the liberal media has been lapping it up on any hint of AGW and this is usually from modeling studies by professor pursuing tenure and research grants. Unfortunately, the group of tenure p.

Were talking climate here like in 30-year average ! 4 years don't make a trend.

And stop it with the tenure thing. You will not find any leading climate scientist (or any leading scientist for a matter of fact) that is not tenured.

Funding cuts in climate science mostly affect PhDs, PDFs and some of the research staff. Tenure is actually not that difficult to get in most universities. And certainly not difficult enough that scientists would resort to academic fraud (as you seem to imply) to get it.

 

[jack97]

What about these graphs? I see a lot of pauses in the temperature anomaly, NH sea ice anomaly and ocean heat content.

The only place where AGW is occurring is in the computer models, the only way to stop this warming is to stop the simulations.

IMHO these graphs all show a clear warming trend, but I'm sure you'll disagree... There is a lot of natural variability in there of course. That's why climate is defined as a 30-year average by the WMO.

Yep the graphs do show a warming trend but it does show a pause (aka hiatus) a true scientist would always question various hypothesis and consider why the pause occurs given the monotonically increasing trend of man made CO2 emission....

Given the pause with OHC anomaly, the heat hiding in the ocean has been re considered by some of the prominent oceanographers in the field such as Wunsch. BTW, please bring up Tung's latest paper with the heat at 0 -2000m.... we can debate that as well.

 

[jack97]

Were talking climate here like in 30-year average ! 4 years don't make a trend.

Yep again, ice thickness measurements are limited to determine a trend. However it shows the doom and gloom predictions of no more ice cap made by climate scientists back in 2007 is wrong. I'm sure you can find these past predictions in the Guardian, a tabloid for the greenies.

And stop it with the tenure thing. You will not find any leading climate scientist (or any leading scientist for a matter of fact) that is not tenured.

Funding cuts in climate science mostly affect PhDs, PDFs and some of the research staff. Tenure is actually not that difficult to get in most universities. And certainly not difficult enough that scientists would resort to academic fraud (as you seem to imply) to get it.

I'm talking about the two levels of job security in this field. Tenure and securing research funds. And yes, tenure is a easily obtainable when the school can support it however when there are less classes to teach or when the funds dries up that's where tenure is difficult. I have personally seen young associate professors go through this cycle.

Fund cuts not only effects the research, it effects the administrators and other colleges that need this aid. IIRC, only 40-50% of government funded research goes to the actual research and the other goes to this overhead. That's why most universities will promote or give tenure to scientist that can secure the funds.

 

[jack97]

Can you provide an example of this anger? I haven't seen one, that I can recall.

Below is a vid not about anger but about how corrupt or misguided this field has become, 3 min sound bites from Lindzen, a chaired prof from MIT. This guy has seen it all since the 1960s.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Yep the graphs do show a warming trend but it does show a pause (aka hiatus) a true scientist would always question various hypothesis and consider why the pause occurs given the monotonically increasing trend of man made CO2 emission....

I reject both the commonly used terms, "pause" and "hiatus".

The very use of the terms "pause" and "hiatus" is both simultaneously arrogant & mindbogglingly unscientific.

The terms were coined by the man-made Global Warming crew and both denote that they are 100% infallibly correct in their theory, and that the reason they're "currently wrong" is only a brief blip, even though they cant friggin' explain it to any satisfaction. Our theory isn't wrong, it's just that we've "paused" in being correct, but we'll be right again in X number of years, that much is 100% certain. Oh, by the way, please keep the donations and grant dollars coming in until we can show you we're "right" again.

The most amusing bit to me is that not only should there not be a "pause" in Global Warming if their theory was correct, but given CO2 has increased even MORE than they estimated, the earth should currently be even warmer than they originally predicted.

 

[fbrissette]

I reject both the commonly used terms, "pause" and "hiatus".

The very use of the terms "pause" and "hiatus" is both simultaneously arrogant & mindbogglingly unscientific.

The terms were coined by the man-made Global Warming crew and both denote that they are 100% infallibly correct in their theory, and that the reason they're "currently wrong" is only a brief blip, even though they cant friggin' explain it to any satisfaction. Our theory isn't wrong, it's just that we've "paused" in being correct, but we'll be right again in X number of years, that much is 100% certain. Oh, by the way, please keep the donations and grant dollars coming in until we can show you we're "right" again.

The most amusing bit to me is that not only should there not be a "pause" in Global Warming if their theory was correct, but given CO2 has increased even MORE than they estimated, the earth should currently be even warmer than they originally predicted.

Your rant above really outlines your ignorance and pre-conceived ideas about the whole topic. I will only coment on the last bit (which I put in bold above) and which you keep repeating. All climate models (and I mean ALL) show 'pauses' and 'hiatus' of up to 20 years in ALL continuous 100-year run climate change. That is because in the short term (<20 years), natural variability is stronger than the climate change signal. If you take the ensemble mean (the mean of all models) like the IPCC does (and which is a mistake IMO), you are left with ONLY the climate change signal since the natural variability of decoupled model will averaged out.

Natural variability is why climate is defined as a 30-year average !!!

To expect temperatures to increase in a linear fashion is dumb and stupid and testify to a lack of understanding of the role of natural variability.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Your rant above really outlines your ignorance and pre-conceived ideas about the whole topic. I will only coment on the last bit (which I put in bold above) and which you keep repeating. All climate models (and I mean ALL) show 'pauses' and 'hiatus' of up to 20 years in ALL continuous 100-year run climate change. That is because in the short term (<20 years), natural variability is stronger than the climate change signal. If you take the ensemble mean (the mean of all models) like the IPCC does (and which is a mistake IMO), you are left with ONLY the climate change signal since the natural variability of decoupled model will averaged out.

Natural variability is why climate is defined as a 30-year average !!!

To expect temperatures to increase in a linear fashion is dumb and stupid and testify to a lack of understanding of the role of natural variability.

I would partially agree with you (minus the assumed arrogance) until the bolded. Thirty-years is an absolutely absurd micro-flash in time even for minor variability. Almost as moronic as boasting of "all-time record low ice levels", regarding records which have only been kept for 35 years on a 4,500,000,000 year old planet. Though if you do subscribe to a "30 year" average, you'd better hope for a warming change relatively soon - or, well.... then it will be "40 years" I guess, if not, maybe "50 years". And I'm sure you're aware the "pause" is approaching 20 years in your "up to" statement? Regardless, it doesn't matter, the man-created Global Warming crowd will just move the goalposts and seek to explain-away why their hypothesis isn't working. They can never be wrong, they just need more "time" to be correct.

 

[fbrissette]

I would partially agree with you (minus the assumed arrogance) until the bolded. Thirty-years is an absolutely absurd micro-flash in time even for minor variability. Almost as moronic as boasting of "all-time record low ice levels", regarding records which have only been kept for 35 years on a 4,500,000,000 year old planet. Though if you do subscribe to a "30 year" average, you'd better hope for a warming change relatively soon - or, well.... then it will be "40 years" I guess, if not, maybe "50 years". And I'm sure you're aware the "pause" is approaching 20 years in your "up to" statement? Regardless, it doesn't matter, the man-created Global Warming crowd will just move the goalposts and seek to explain-away why their hypothesis isn't working. They can never be wrong, they just need more "time" to be correct.

The 30-year average is the accepted definition set by the WMO and has been so for a very long time (prior to the climate change debate). It is somewhat arbitrary (although there are compelling reasons for such a choice) and it will not change in the near future.

Natural variability is normally defined with respect to the above definition of climate and makes a lot of sense for many reasons, and has been set before the climate change debate.

Natural variability does indeed occur on time scales much longer than 30 years (e.g. the main 26000 years Milankovitch cycle). However, changes due to such cycles would be undetectable over a 20-year period.

A 20-year 'pause' (that we are indeed approaching) would be on the long-end. Anything longer would be more difficult to explain in terms of natural variability, as seen in our short historical record and as simulated by climate models.

Science-wise, I think the 'pause' has been beneficial since it has forced scientists to look much harder at the climate system.

As a water-resources engineer, I strongly believe that adaptation to natural variability would be a lot more useful than to climate change. Yet, for every natural variability study, you'll find 50 studies on climate change. Climate change research is sexier, that much I am willing to admit.

 

[jack97]

A 20-year 'pause' (that we are indeed approaching) would be on the long-end. Anything longer would be more difficult to explain in terms of natural variability, as seen in our short historical record and as simulated by climate models.

Latest paper published in a peer reviewed journal in statistics shows pauses for the following temperature anomaly data sets;

RSS (troposhere) 26 years
UAH (troposhere) 16 years
HADCRUT4 (surface) 19 years

if one is interested in the statistic method, here's the author's web page which links it to the paper.

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html



Perhaps its time to move the goal post (again).

 

[jack97]

I reject both the commonly used terms, "pause" and "hiatus".

The very use of the terms "pause" and "hiatus" is both simultaneously arrogant & mindbogglingly unscientific.

The terms were coined by the man-made Global Warming crew and both denote that they are 100% infallibly correct in their theory, and that the reason they're "currently wrong" is only a brief blip, even though they cant friggin' explain it to any satisfaction. Our theory isn't wrong, it's just that we've "paused" in being correct, but we'll be right again in X number of years, that much is 100% certain. Oh, by the way, please keep the donations and grant dollars coming in until we can show you we're "right" again.

The most amusing bit to me is that not only should there not be a "pause" in Global Warming if their theory was correct, but given CO2 has increased even MORE than they estimated, the earth should currently be even warmer than they originally predicted.

haha.... the pause may be a peak. Any top rate scientist has to consider that possibility given the lack of evidence that CO2 has caused the temp increase.

 

[fbrissette]

Latest paper published in a peer reviewed journal in statistics shows pauses for the following temperature anomaly data sets;

RSS (troposhere) 26 years
UAH (troposhere) 16 years
HADCRUT4 (surface) 19 years

if one is interested in the statistic method, here's the author's web page which links it to the paper.

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html



Perhaps its time to move the goal post (again).

Your failure to continuously misunderstand journal papers never ceases to amaze me.

 

[jack97]

Your failure to continuously misunderstand journal papers never ceases to amaze me.

ok... showing your arrogance again, so explain my misunderstanding.


the cut and paste of his link is here... where is it that I mis understood?

I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used. R Code to generate the graphs, tables and results is here.

 

[fbrissette]

ok... showing your arrogance again, so explain my misunderstanding.


the cut and paste of his link is here... where is it that I mis understood?

I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used. R Code to generate the graphs, tables and results is here.

Look, seriously, it would take a fairly long message to outline everything that is wrong with the paper you are citing, and honestly, I'm not sure you have the tools nor the will to acknowledge these explanations. So I'm not gonna go into science and I will simply comment on the paper:

The so called 'peer reviewed' paper you are citing was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, a journal published by a group called Scientific Research Publishing. Sounds good so far ?

It is an open access journal from a well know 'predatory publisher'. You are likely not familiar with this so go read a little on the topic. I'm giving you wikipedia references but you'll find ample references with a google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

What this means is that you pay and your paper will be published within 1 week (online) without any peer-review. Publishing such a paper is now pretty much considered a credibility suicide.

The truth is that unless you're well-versed in the process of writing/reviewing science papers, it has become very difficult to separate good journals from bad ones. And the journal above is not even bad, it is a scam. This has been good for a while to boost publication records but the scam is now widely known and granting agencies now specifically ask to indicate open access journal on academic CVs for this exact reason. This widespread scam (we're talking tens of thousands of journals) is pretty much killing the few existing legit open-access journals.

For you to cite this paper simply indicates that you are unable to separate good journal from bad ones. And while there are exceptions, good science is almost always published in good journals.

If this is 'important' work, why was it published in a fraudulent journal ?

 

[jack97]

Look, seriously, it would take a fairly long message to outline everything that is wrong with the paper you are citing, and honestly, I'm not sure you have the tools nor the will to acknowledge these explanations. So I'm not gonna go into science and I will simply comment on the paper:

The so called 'peer reviewed' paper you are citing was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, a journal published by a group called Scientific Research Publishing. Sounds good so far ?

It is an open access journal from a well know 'predatory publisher'. You are likely not familiar with this so go read a little on the topic. I'm giving you wikipedia references but you'll find ample references with a google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

What this means is that you pay and your paper will be published within 1 week (online) without any peer-review. Publishing such a paper is now pretty much considered a credibility suicide.

The truth is that unless you're well-versed in the process of writing/reviewing science papers, it has become very difficult to separate good journals from bad ones. And the journal above is not even bad, it is a scam. This has been good for a while to boost publication records but the scam is now widely known and granting agencies now specifically ask to indicate open access journal on academic CVs for this exact reason. This widespread scam (we're talking tens of thousands of journals) is pretty much killing the few existing legit open-access journals.

For you to cite this paper simply indicates that you are unable to separate good journal from bad ones. And while there are exceptions, good science is almost always published in good journals.

If this is 'important' work, why was it published in a fraudulent journal ?

Other non open journals are corrupt themselves with their review process. There's a fake review system which corrupts the publishing process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/



McKitrick's papers will time tested as done with the traditional process. His code and method is free for all to scrutinized. Can't say the same for some climate research paper cited in non open journals.

 

[jack97]

latest report from environmental public works committee, US senate minority. It has claims by the doom and gloom alarmist where they are debunked by observations and experiments. Claims and debunked material has been mostly generated by testimony given to congress and are referenced given that they are on the record.

Some good laughs about some acceleration of temps, how our children will never seen snow again and how sea levels will swamp our society. And those poor polar bears with no sea ice to walk on.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=3f33b3c9-a28b-4f6c-a663-50c7d02fda24

 

[fbrissette]

latest report from environmental public works committee, US senate minority. It has claims by the doom and gloom alarmist where they are debunked by observations and experiments. Claims and debunked material has been mostly generated by testimony given to congress and are referenced given that they are on the record.

Some good laughs about some acceleration of temps, how our children will never seen snow again and how sea levels will swamp our society. And those poor polar bears with no sea ice to walk on.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=3f33b3c9-a28b-4f6c-a663-50c7d02fda24

This report is idiotic and on par with many of Al Gore idiotic claims.

Can't you see that ???

 

[jack97]

This report is idiotic and on par with many of Al Gore idiotic claims.

Can't you see that ???

Care to expand on the ad hominem remark? What part of the senate minority report is as idiotic as the many Al Gore claims?