|
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ce.area.withtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ce.area.withtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. Well said. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in : On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ars-overnight/ -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken Um, 35,000 square miles is about 95,600 square kilometers. The units in that graph are in millions of square kilometers - the annual variation during 2008 looks like it was on the order of 6 million square kilometers. Thus, the difference of 35,000 square miles is less than two percent of the annual variation last year. Indeed, it looks like the average annual area of sea ice since 2005 is between one and one and a half million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average, which means a difference of 35,000 square miles one way or the other really doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the conclusion that the average area of sea ice in 2008 was significantly lower than the 1979- 2000 baseline, and further that the trend over the last decade suggests a steady loss of sea ice. In order to disregard the graph as politically driven, you need to find half a million square miles of ice that was 'adjusted' away each year for the last five years at least. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in m: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway- 500 000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/ But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's reference. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:39:17 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in : On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in : On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in t: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway- 500 000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/ But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's reference. Well, then how about this? http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...ticle13834.htm Good enough for you? |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:39:17 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in m: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in m: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway- 500 000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/ But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's reference. Well, then how about this? http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...Same+Level+as+ 1979/articl e13834.htm Good enough for you? That is the article that started this whole thing, and what I thought was the original poster's misinterpretation of the data. It doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the data, or political manipulation thereof. The graph shown on the upper right in that article is the graph of global sea ice area from 1979-present available from the University of Illinois cryosphere website (link posted above). Take a good look at the graph (you can click on it to enlarge it in the dailytech article). The upper dark blue line is the total area of sea ice on the planet (daily data); the upper light blue line is the daily average sea ice cover calculated for the 21 year period 1979-2000 (the baseline); the lower red line is just the difference between the daily value and the baseline value. Now, as I read the graph, it is true that on 1 January, 1980, and 1 January, 2009 the total sea ice area on Earth was the same, give or take a few thousand square miles. In fact, the sea ice area was above average for the early part of 2008. I am not arguing that. But take a look at the lower red line, and look at the trend over the last five years. Heck, take a look at the dark blue line (the raw data) - notice the maximum sea ice extent. Between 1979 and 2000 the annual maximum sea ice extent was over 22 million square kilometers each year, sometimes by a million square kilometers, while in five of the last eight years the annual maximum was less than 22 million square kilometers, and only just barely above 22 million for the other three. To me, this suggests that something is happening to reduce the area of sea ice over the last ten years - not all at once, and not every day, but certainly on average it seems to me that something is going on. Just look at the data. The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet next week. Alarmism is stupid. But I think it is equally silly to ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points. (Note: I have no vested interest in this topic - I no skin in the game whatsoever. I just have a purely intellectual interest in what is going on, and I like data. I'd also like to know how to fit and install a breasthook and whether I should use thole pins or oarlocks for the skiff that is taking shape in the garage, and what weeks of sub-freezing temperatures will do to the cure of PL Premium polyurethane adhesive and its subsequent bond strength...) |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 5:41*pm, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Prove that to me. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 6, 7:22*am, Jim Willemin wrote:
Just look at the data. *The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet next week. *Alarmism is stupid. *But I think it is equally silly to ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points. Looking at, and presenting, the data in the absence of scientific understanding of surrounding factors is what got us into this mess in the first place. There has been a warming trend with increased sunspot activity, which is the primary driver of the increase of temps and loss of ice. Sunspot activity is now at it's 11 year low cycle, and we see an increase in ice formation. Many scientist have tried to point this out, only to get shouted down by the alarmists. But I can certainly see how looking at just one data point could lead some to jump to a conclusion, especially when that conclusion is driven by monetary or political factors. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com