tacoman25

Mother Nature can be such a buzz kill.

Runaway hyperbole feedbacks!

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I would be greatly interested in such evidence. I hope you are not referring to anecdotal reports of submarines surfacing at the north poll etc.

Studies that actually compiled airplane recon and ship data come to a very different conclusion. The highest years of the early 80s might have been similar to the lowest years of the 40s:

Also I don't want to hear the same old dismissal of these studies because they look too "flat". As you go back farther on the graph the data is smoothed because there is less data and more uncertainty. To reduce uncertainty they combine data from multiple years. Thus it represents the multi-year average well, but doesn't capture all the annual variability. The data is smoothed. That doesn't make it "wrong" or "suspicious" as you and others have suggested.

 

 

 

The honest answer is that it's an apples to oranges comparison, and no one knows for sure how extent from the first half of the 20th century compares to the satellite era. The graph above is one educated guess, but far from the only estimate. This post goes into great detail on the difficulties of comparing sea ice extent measurements back then to now: https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/ You may not agree with the conclusion, but the reasoning is thorough and well laid out.

What we do know for sure is that the Arctic has gone through cyclical warming and cooling periods that are much more variable than lower latitudes. In the 1980s, the Arctic was in one of its cooler phases, and given the amount of AGW to that point and total variation that the Arctic climate sees naturally, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that some of the warm phases of the Arctic earlier in the 20th century were probably warmer than the final cool phase of the 20th century. Ice extent typically follows temperature, to a certain degree.

11 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Well I wouldn't say that. But as the climate warms we're going to see more and more extreme anomalies like this.

We're so far below even the modern average for the date. And what so often gets forgot in discussions of sea ice is that 1980-2000 is not "average" or normal for sea ice. There's strong evidence that there was lots more sea ice earlier in the century. The highest years of the early 1980s might be a little closer to an early 20th century normal.

This is somewhat true, but it really depends on what part of the 20th century you're talking about. There's evidence that the 1980s probably had close to or higher extent than the 1940s-1950s, and perhaps the 1920s as well.

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

troll

One words posts are lame. Repeating the same one word post is even more lame.

I've been here long enough, you should know I'm not a troll. Sometimes I just like to bring a slightly different perspective to the echo chamber. Sometimes that includes the lighter side of things.

8 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

troll

Is joking illegal here?

Setting up for record gains in December!

3 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Sea ice volume now tanking into record low territory (as of the end of Oct) on PIOMAS. I would suspect that the lack of FDD is continuing to eat away at SIV gains.

Gotta wonder if there's a bit of "climate flickering" going on here. I thought the ridiculous +SAT anomalies would have started to back off by now.

"Climate flickering"...like the climate is about to shut off?

Worth pointing out, this ridiculous warmth in the Arctic is also resulting in one of the coldest falls on record for much of Eurasia. Temps in parts of Russia are expected to 40-50 degrees below normal this week, with another record-breaking cold wave on the way for Asia next week.

On 11/11/2016 at 9:30 AM, Mallow said:

 

I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.

I didn't call anyone out specifically. That wasn't the intent. Just the inconsistence in the general message. It was not based on an assumption, but very clear memories of people claiming the summer min is by far the most important thing to track. 

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

OK let's try it again. What exactly are you trying to say?

So far all I've heard is talk of previous "fall peaks" (IE back to historical averages) and "record fast re-freezes" (an inherent result of the faster decline in summer) and I have no idea what they have to do with the current 3+ standard deviation record and how people dismissed this (allegedly) positive data but are hypocritically not dismissing this negative record. 
And those are quotes.

I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary.

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

 

It seems like you are confused about what you are trying to say. You say one thing and then 2 posts later say you didn't say it.

No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand.

Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Nobody has ever claimed that. I do remember people including myself saying that the trend in summer is more significant than the trend in winter because global warming is expected to cause greater declines in summer sea ice. But that's different.

And you did reference "record fastest refreeze" or "high point in the fall" in relation to their significance vs a record low summer min. One is irrelevant and the other is a an apples to orange comparison.

Sorry man, you were just reading too much into what I said. Made a couple of false assumptions.

And you can say nobody claimed that, but I absolutely know they did. Defend yourself sure, but it's silly to say no one here said that. And I'm not a liar.

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

First of all, the rate is really not relevant at all. Since the decline is expected/predicted (by climate models) and observed to be fastest in summer, the rate of ice growth in fall will continue to grow.

That's why I'm sure when you've mentioned it, I and others have dismissed you.

Second, we've never had a real "high point in the fall" anytime recently. Some years have been higher than others which I suppose has some very slight immeasurable benefit in slowing the decline. But none have been 3SD above the mean, as we are currently 3+ SD below the mean. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a "high point" (which is really just a temporary return to average) to a 3+ standard deviation drop below the mean.

Plus the fact that sea ice extent is a much less comprehensive metric than volume. And we've never had a meaningful volume recovery. Extent has to be taken in the context of near perpetually decreasing volume.

I don't remember anybody saying "what happens in winter is not as important as summer." If we actually saw some serious volume growth in winter, that would be significant. We've had some recent years with better volume in winter than others. And that has been discussed extensively.

Anyways, I'm done. I don't really have an interest in debating the "significance" of individual extent days. The trend is clear.

Whole bunch of straw men here. I never claimed the rate was signficant, or high points in the fall, or dismissed volume decline.

I simply pointed out that some people on here have claimed in the past that the summer minimum, the max amount of open water, is what matters most. Inconsistent with current claims that record low extent in early November is just as significant as a record low min.

1 hour ago, qr7121 said:

i've been here since forever.. you are a denier... unacceptable

sometimes vicki has the best and most accurate GIFs

By definition, a "denier" is one who denies something. In this context, global warming. Which I never have denied.

So, get your facts straight and don't call me a liar. That is unacceptable.

Pretty sad that if someone even points out an inconsistency or questions something on here, the witch hunt is on.

5 minutes ago, qr7121 said:

100% true... liar

I don't think you've been on this site nearly as long as I have. I have never once denied global warming. 

So you 100% don't know what you're talking about. And I don't appreciate being called a liar.

10 hours ago, A-L-E-K said:

He's a denier, soooo

100% false.

On 11/4/2016 at 9:43 AM, skierinvermont said:

As I said before, the main problem is part of your previous post was simply false. There has not been record high sea ice extent in the fall anytime recently. There have been many record lows, including this fall.

If there had been, that would be significant, but it still wouldn't mean much of anything in the big picture. Likewise, I don't think anybody here is saying a record low min on 11/4/2016 means much of anything in the big picture, but the trend certainly does.

It seems, as usual, you are more interested in semantics and playing "gotcha" than the actual issue.

I never said there was. Read it again. I said record fastest freeze, or a high point in the fall, I never said record high extent.

You're actually the one playing "gotcha" here, but on a misunderstanding.

My point was that several times on here we were told that the summer min is the most important thing, not what happens in fall, winter, etc. But now we have people, probably some of the same ones, claiming this is just as significant as a record low min.

53 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I don't believe we have ever reached a record high sea ice extent in fall in the last 10 years. That is false. What's impressive is not the rate of refreeze but the fact that we are now well below the previous record for the date. The slow rate of re-freeze would not be all that impressive were we starting at a more normal minimum. But we started at a near-record low minimum and followed it with slow re-freeze to produce a record low extent for this date that is far below the previous record. In other words, highly anomalous.

So no, there is no inconsistency. Your post kind of comes off like you are looking for one where there isn't anything.

I specifically remember members on here claiming, for one reason or another, that the summer min is WAY more meaningful than anything in the fall/winter.

I'm afraid you don't speak for everyone, so no, you cannot claim there is no inconsistency.

A little bit of inconsistency going on in this thread. In recent years when we set a record for fastest fall freeze-up, or reached a high point for that part of the fall, we were told it was meaningless, the min is what really matters.

Now we have a people saying record low ice 2 months past the min is just as meaningful as a record min. 

If fracking is driving the rise in CH4 since 2010, then what was driving the faster rise from the mid 1980s to early 1990s?

Solar make up for the rest?

I know it's a very weak cycle, but aren't we at solar max right now?

 

One month?  It's not one month.  It's 6 months.  And it's not just 2013.  2012 had the record and 2011 before that for the year. 

 

The first 3 months of this spiked to 14.1 and the most recent 3 months is at 12.5.  That is way above the previous record year of 2012.   Soon in terms of a year means 2014 or 2015 to me.  but I expect Sept-Dec on GISS to be record setting. 

 2000   5.856500     2001   4.117000     2002   6.788750     2003   9.951750     2004   10.24050     2005   8.411750     2006   10.43025     2007   9.478500     2008   10.05225     2009   10.12600     2010   10.36725     2011   10.86900     2012   10.94075

Not for global temperatures, which is what you implied you were referring to.

Because the upper oceans are carrying more heat than anytime before on our records.  This year has seen a a jump higher. 

 

It doesn't have to be 2013.  I didn't say a word about 2013.  You did. 

You said we are "about to" see record warming. Just because one month has had record upper ocean heat content according to that source does not prove that. If not this year, then are you saying 2014 will be a record warm year? Or are you just talking about GISS temps for a month or two?

Fixed.  2010 is now the warmest year in HadCRUT4- unless something changed recently.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/first-look-at-hadcrut4.html

Ah, ok that's something that has changed then. But I believe it's only barely warmer than 1998, and not as warm as the GISS anomaly. And 2013 certainly will not be that warm, so it doesn't change my point to Friv - where is he coming up with the statement that we're "about to see warming past previous records"?

We are in a cool period now.  We just haven't seen any cooling.  We are about to see warming at least in the temperature record start climbing past previous records With the PDO and solar in the tank.  It was only a matter of time before the Earths heat intake imbalance would grow faster.  GHG forcing growth is still growing fast. 

 

How much and how fast is impossible to determine right now. 

 

 

For RSS, UAH, and HadCRU, 1998 is still the warmest year on record. And 2013 certainly won't surpass it.

Much prefer taco's rating.  To me, words like alarmist, skeptic, denier (in AGW context) are part of the vernacular and relate mainly to opinions being held.  Words like arrogant, confused, misled, stupid seem far more heavily loaded and pejorative.  Also, I think there's an unintentional oversight in that the above ratings apply those extra-loaded words only to #4 and below, and that skier would agree that the extreme alarmist camp includes folks to whom some/all of those words might apply.

Bingo.