Jones: No Warming For 15 Years

[seedload]

When the IPCC comes out with estimates they will be low end at the 95% confidence level. Don't believe me? Wait until AR5. You believe the Climate Skeptic over scientists.

"If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR"

Didn't you reference a paper that said this? Now these scientists are wrong? Sea level will rise almost an order of magnitude more than this? You don't believe these scientists that you previously referenced yet I am being instructed by you to believe scientists unquestionably. You are confused.

BTW, you are right that I mixed you up with chrismb in reference to the use of short term sea level rise observations from satellites. Not a lie, just more evidence that your confusion is confusing me.

regards

[chrismb]

BTW, you are right that I mixed you up with chrismb in reference to the use of short term sea level rise observations from satellites. Not a lie, just more evidence that your confusion is confusing me.

{eh?... did someone wake me up?! }

I have confidence in the indications that sea levels are going up because it is to my mind the most consistenty reliable data collected for the last few hundred years. People have really needed to know where the tides are going to come up to, relative to the quays they build! Very solid data , that.

And what it shows is that it has been rising steadily for hundreds of years.

Climate change? yeah, definitely. (The planet is in a state of 'constant variable-flux'.) Man made??.... We are as ants on the back of an elephant.

[wwb]

Wasn't it you who said that the trend in sea level rise is going up based on a short period of observation in satellite data tacked on to longer periods of observation by tide gauges etc.?

I said that? Where did I say that? I stated that sea level rise is going to probably go up, based on personal opinion, because no one predicted the west antarctic ice sheet would lose mass, therefore the models were lowballing or not even considering it.

Isn't it you that used this supposed upward trend as justification for sea level rise well above even the IPCC claims. Now you are telling someone else not to use short trends.

That is personal opinion, not scientific observation, since the numbers were very low I am inclined to believe it's worse, since the data we did have did not predict it at the level it occurred.

When the IPCC comes out with estimates they will be low end at the 95% confidence level. Don't believe me? Wait until AR5. You believe the Climate Skeptic over scientists.

Apparently, skeptics can't use short trends but supporters can.

Lies.

Apparently, skeptics can't use high side estimates, but supporters can.

Lies.

Apparently, short periods of cooling don't mean anything but short periods of extra warming are significant.

Lies. Significant is too strong here. I post the warming trends as an amusing practice since that is tactic used by denialists.

You are confused, Josh. You confuse me.

You're a liar, your lies are obvious.

Antarctic Sea ice mass is not declining:

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/ ... c-ice.html

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg

[Josh Cryer]

seedload, science is not static and IPCC AR4 states explicitly that they do not discuss possible sea level rise with regards to dynamical ice flow. I am certain you already know this, though.

wwb, sea ice is not the same as land ice mass. I admitted I typed the wrong type of ice (because denialists like to put sea ice in the same camp as land ice).

Antarctica is losing massive ice volume.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/stor ... sheet.jpeg

(Too big to post inline.)

The problem is non-linear.

But there does appear to be a lower bound where neither Greenland or Antarctica can lose enough land ice to cause more than 2 meters of sea level rise by the end of the century (that is not to say that melt simply stops on Jan 1st at 12AM on 2100). We didn't predict this would happen. We thought Antarctica was safe as early as 5 years ago. The Antarctica melt is relatively new data. (Science is not static.)

[MSimon]

Yeah. That 340 mm by 2100 is scary. About 13 1/2 inches.

Fortunately by 2100 we will be off fossil fuels.

[MSimon]

Josh says:

Science is not static.

Neither are scare stories ginned up for funding.

[MSimon]

OK. Arctic ice is not declining. Glad we have established that.

It's the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That's why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.

But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... rming.html

At last 10 years with no ice worries.

What is truly wonderful is that there is an answer for every thing and the answer is always the same. Controlling authority.

[seedload]

seedload, science is not static and IPCC AR4 states explicitly that they do not discuss possible sea level rise with regards to dynamical ice flow. I am certain you already know this, though.

Yes, science is not static, it is full of wrong claims later regarded as ridiculous despite the contemporary support for the idea.

JoshI don't really understand what your statement applies to. My statement was that you previously referenced a scientist who agrees with the IPCC about sea level rise. You referenced this scientist because he was noting the acceleration of sea level rise and you were using this as evidence of your non-linear supposition. Yet this scientist, even when saying it is non-linear increasing acceleration, still predicts an order of magnitude less sea level rise than you do.

The problem is non-linear.

The problem is only non-linear if the theory is correct. And non-linear does not necessary mean catastrophic anyway. Parables about grains of wheat on a chess board aren't necessary to explain this to me (FYI).

Before you go off calling me a liar or likening me to a holocast denier again, let me re-state my position.

* Recent temperature rise is not unpresidented.
* Recent rates of sea level rise is not unpresidented.
* Since the above two trends are not unpresidented, they cannot be used as evidence of AGW.
* The theory of man-made CO2 induced warming has merit.
* However, strong positive feedbacks are necessary for AGW theory to be a problem.
* The science that supports these strong possitive feedbacks is lacking.

I don't think these statements are unreasonable in any way. Here are some other things I believe that may help you out when talking to me.

* Calling someone a "liar" is a huge step up in language from calling someone "confused".
* Refering to me as a "denier" is very personally insulting to me. You know the origins and intention of that term and I have personal reasons to be very offended by that language.
* If you check my posts, I believe that you will find that I tend to use the term "supporter" when talking about people who support AGW such as yourself. I thing this is fair and reasonable.
* I did not start out a skeptic. I started out as a supporter. My mind changed.
* I do not support every idea that comes along that is opposed to AGW theory just because. I have chastised people for doing so on this board in the past.
* I read Real Climate pretty regularly.
* I personally don't believe that the title 'scientist' means much, especially in climate science. Not all scientists are created equal. I will leave it up to you to figure out where I think climate scientists fall in the pecking order of scientists. That is just a personal opinion, akin to my belief that lots of weak engineers end up working for the government rather than for private industry.
* That said, you should remember that there are skeptics who are scientists. And that there are skeptics who are professionals with real world experience in things like statistics for doing real world things like making money for the company by using their skills. Dismissing them as not being real scientists is a bad idea. So, just resorting to your standard... "he's a scientist" defense doesn't really have much meaning to me, for what it is worth.
* Finally, I would like you to know that one of the most profound things I have done to help shape my opinion of the state of climate science and on climate scientists themselves was to learn 'R' and to use it to follow the process and data of the Mann08 multiproxy reconstruction. This experience brought about a couple of realizations in me. (1) Mann is either intentionally dishonest or an idiot and (2) those that defend this shit paper are either underinformed, intentially dishonest, or idiots.

Your descriptions of me have been off by quite a bit at times. Hopefully, this helps you understand better who I am and what I believe.

[wwb]

seedload, science is not static and IPCC AR4 states explicitly that they do not discuss possible sea level rise with regards to dynamical ice flow. I am certain you already know this, though.

wwb, sea ice is not the same as land ice mass. I admitted I typed the wrong type of ice (because denialists like to put sea ice in the same camp as land ice).

Antarctica is losing massive ice volume.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/stor ... sheet.jpeg

(Too big to post inline.)

The problem is non-linear.

But there does appear to be a lower bound where neither Greenland or Antarctica can lose enough land ice to cause more than 2 meters of sea level rise by the end of the century (that is not to say that melt simply stops on Jan 1st at 12AM on 2100). We didn't predict this would happen. We thought Antarctica was safe as early as 5 years ago. The Antarctica melt is relatively new data. (Science is not static.)

I'm sorry I must have misspoke, The land and sea ice in the Antarctic is not loosing mass. Did you read the link from a eco site. "So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing? The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no." Just picking the western sea ice "peninsula", stick out to react to more wave action ect..., is a joke.

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, you are a liar, and I have no respect for you since you distorted Jones' statements and lied about what he actually said. I don't respect outright liars.

The very link you posted to support your claim that "Arctic ice is not declining. Glad we have established that" discusses sea ice.

The image I posted shows total ice mass is down. Significantly.




seedload, your inability to look at The Climate Skeptic's claims critically makes you a denier. Your making claims that I said something when I didn't makes you a liar.


wwb, the article you posted is lying in that quote. Antarctica has net ice mass loss. That is fact. In the very link you posted Ed Ring admits it in the comments, downplays it, and doesn't correct his lie. If I made a statement like that and a commentator told me that I was wrong, I would fix it.

Disinformation indeed, Robert. You state “Overall the mass balance of ice in antarctica which has implications for sea level rise, shows a reduction in ice by 25 cubic kilometers of ice each year.”

The total ice mass of Antarctica is well over 20 MILLION cubic kilometers. Your statement regarding 25 km3 of net ice loss is phrased as though this is a large amount of ice and therefore we should be concerned. But even if Antarctica is displaying a net loss of 25 km3 per year, this is a negligible quantity – it is well within margins for error. It is such a minute quantity of ice relative to the total ice mass of Antarctica that it has no significance whatsoever.

God I hate dishonesty.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0222.shtml

[taniwha]

Dishonesty? Are you sure? It looks more like confusion between rate and acceleration. On both sides. Or maybe the article you linked to is wrong and is treating rate as acceleration.

As for the mention of sea ice in the article itself (not the comments), it's used only as an indication of sea temperatures being colder and thus fostering sea ice formation. Of course, this will make no difference if the land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate.

However, if the surrounding water is cold enough to foster sea ice formation at rates higher than normal, why is the land ice, which is in places that should be even colder, decreasing?

Then there's the question of if the land ice really is, at net, decreasing.

There's also the matter of does it really matter if the western ice is decreasing faster than the eastern ice is increasing. From my understanding, the western ice is relatively insignificant.

About 3000Gt of ice need to melt to raise sea levels by 1cm.

>>> 6370**2*4*pi*0.6*(0.01/1000)
3059.4261826907446

That's Earth's radius in km (6370) in 4πr^2 for the surface area, and setting the ocean surface to 60% (I know it's higher, but that means more ice needs to melt). Then 1cm=0.01m and there are 1000 meters in a km. 1km^3 is 1Gt of water and thus 1Gt of ice (a bit more than 1km^3 of ice, though).

>>> 25*100**2/2
125000
>>> 25*100**2/2/3059.4261826907446
40.857334851616962

Using a rate of 300Gt/y, that's 1mm/y or 10cm/century. Using an acceleration of 25Gt/y^2, that puts the start of melting to 1998 (simple constant acceleration: probably wrong). Putting that into the standard constant acceleration formula (d=(at^2)/2) puts the sea levels in 2098 at about 40cm (125000Gt) above their 1998 levels, assuming a constant acceleration. For non-constant, all bets are off.

However, using a constant rate of 25Gt/y, that puts the sea level rise at 0.008cm/y, or about 0.8cm above current levels in 100 years (8mm/century). That's less than the ripple caused by a gentle breeze.

Which is it? I don't know.

Am I concerned? Moderately. If all the ice melts, the oceans will rise by about 50m (by my BOtE calculations). A lot of land is below 50m.

Do I think humans are to blame? No. Nor do I think humans can do anything to stop it. All we can do is move above the high tide line. Or start living on or in the sea.

Do I think there actually will be a problem? I don't really know, but my bets are on a coming ice age caused by increased moisture in the air leading to increased land mass in the norther hemisphere (where out side of Greenland, there is currently very little permanent land ice).

Do I think humans can do anything about that? Sure, cover the ice in soot so it absorbs heat and melts. However, whether we should do so is another matter for which I have no answer. It might cause more problems than it solves.

[MSimon]

You know Josh if you keep this sort of thing up I might ask to have you banned.

It is getting to the point that everybody is a liar but you. That is one of the signs of severe mental illness. You don't want to go there.

You might want to consider starting a board and talking to yourself. Then you will be sure to get the truth.

BTW I presented evidence for my point. You may dispute the evidence. That hardly makes me a liar. And note the evidence given also talked about arctic sea ice decline a point you admitted earlier was probably not happening. So I though we had established that and could go on to the Antarctic. In fact I made that very point (if you had been paying attention). Well I was wrong.

With you nothing is established.

May I add that your sense of desperation weakens your argument. Severely.

[Betruger]

May I add that your sense of desperation weakens your argument. Severely.

Just take a break Josh. Whatever's really getting on your nerves should have your attention before arguing about the weather over the internet. If your arguments and the facts check out, when you come back with a clear head, they'll speak for themselves. No use trying too hard.

[TDPerk]

There is no unusual warming:

http://www.bestinclass.dk/index.php/201 ... l-warming/

What we have to fear from the climate is an ice age:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-bi ... re-swings/

AGW theory requires that human produced CO2 is a molecule magically more able to produce global warming than naturally occurring CO2. AGW theory requires you to believe that every measure of temperature and proxy of temperature which disagrees with it is wrong.

AGW is not science, it is a religion, and the witch doctor just got caught speaking out through the mask of the idol.

[MSimon]

We don't use witch doctors in the modern world. We use humbugs and Doctors of Science. See Oz, Wizard of.