Waist deep in AGW

[IntLibber]

Quoting a chart created by a radical Creationist skeptic!?! What has this world come to?

Ever since I found that I've been tracking it pretty much daily. I actually made a post on DU to continue tracking it.

It's a shame that other instruments don't have daily tracking that I know of (though the UAH graph is about one to two days behind, it is updated daily).

I'm glad it comes from UAH since UAH presents the lowest temperature increase of all the records (though it is in line with IPCC best estimate of .13C / decade).

BTW, if you're wondering, yes I still intend to reply to The Climate Skeptic. He gets paid for it, I don't. And I got bored of AGW discussion for awhile there. Still not really "in" to it at the moment.

IPCC best estimate is far more than 0.13 per decade, firstly. They are projecting 3.6-4.0 C for the 21st century, ergo the past decade should have recorded a 0.36-0.40 warming over the 0.58 warming of the 20th century. Instead anomaly is down to 0.38, a drop of 0.20C since 2000...

[Josh Cryer]

IPCC best estimate is far more than 0.13 per decade, firstly.

There's a difference between projection and measurement. You can guess which one I'm referring to since you clearly don't know.

They are projecting 3.6-4.0 C for the 21st century, ergo the past decade should have recorded a 0.36-0.40 warming over the 0.58 warming of the 20th century.

You are picking high end scenarios.

[seedload]

You are picking high end scenarios.

You act as if this is not appropriate while at the same time claiming three meters of ocean rise in the next century yourself - clearly a high end scenario. You confuse me, Josh. How can you personally use a high end scenario when trying the scare the uninitiated in other forums while objecting to their use here? Or are you in the ends justify the means camp of Gore, the IPPC, and others?

[KitemanSA]

Still don't get it, hunh?

Josh Cryer likes to "Josh" people and likes to "Cry" wolf, he's a wolf "Cryer". "Josh Cryer" likes to spend its time wasting this forum's time Joshing people Crying wolf.

[MSimon]

High end? Low end?

I predict No End to scenarios as long as the scare stories keep the money flowing.

[Josh Cryer]

You act as if this is not appropriate while at the same time claiming three meters of ocean rise in the next century yourself - clearly a high end scenario.

Sea level is not well understood, temperature rise is to a good extent. The error bars on temperature increase are low. The error bars on sea level rise are big. Satellites say 3.0 mm / yr. Tide gauge measurements are from 1.0 mm to 1.4 mm / yr. Thermal expansion is estimated to be 0.3 to 0.8 mm/yr.

You confuse me, Josh. How can you personally use a high end scenario when trying the scare the uninitiated in other forums while objecting to their use here? Or are you in the ends justify the means camp of Gore, the IPPC, and others?

2 meters would be high end to IPCC AR4, certainly, it would be inconceivable. IPCC AR5? It will probably have reports ranging from between 1-5 meters (until 2200).

And then, when they do this, you'll cry and whine even though the "most likely" (95% confidence level) will be very conservative.

Due to kinematic constraints I know that it is physically impossible to go over 2 meters by 2100.

[MSimon]

3.0 mm a year = 30 cm in 100 years.

Rates are going to have to increase significantly to get up to 300 cm in 100 years. Or even 200 cm.

And then you have the error bars on the satellite measurement of 3.5 cm. So it will take about 20 years to confirm a 3.5 cm/decade rise.

Remember - the satellite sends out a pulse and then the pulse spreads to cover 100s of sq. km. of ocean. and then the pulse returns. All the while the pieces are all moving in relation to each other. To correct for all that the positions and motions must be exactly accounted for.

And don't forget atmospheric adjustments.

[Josh Cryer]

I'm genuinely surprised that the North American snow pack didn't bring temps down to below the UAH satellite record. That's just remarkable, since the albedo of the northern hemisphere was changed so much.

[seedload]

2 meters would be high end to IPCC AR4, certainly, it would be inconceivable. IPCC AR5? It will probably have reports ranging from between 1-5 meters (until 2200).

And then, when they do this, you'll cry and whine even though the "most likely" (95% confidence level) will be very conservative.

Due to kinematic constraints I know that it is physically impossible to go over 2 meters by 2100.

Josh, it is you that has said three meters before. You have claimed two meters as a minimum! Now you say that more than two meters is impossible. Yet, you previously said that five meters was a possibility. You are confused and you are confusing me. You can claim that pointing out your inconsistency is crying or whining if you want, but I don't think so. You can claim that others using high values is wrong while doing so yourself is OK if you want, but I don't think so. You can keep defending that which is becoming increasingly more indefensible, but I don't think that is wise.

For example:

what will be the state of this planet due to global warming in 100 years time?

At least a 2 meter sea level rise due to ice cap runoff, possibly as high as 5 meters. 3.0C global temperature rise.

Now more that two meters is impossible. I have always thought that you were trying to be reasonable but that we just disagreed. Now I wonder if you need to take a moment to try to come to terms with your own lines of BS.

[Josh Cryer]

I wasn't aware in Oct of 2009 that more than 2 meters wasn't possible by 2100. So the "minimum of 2 meters" would absolutely be at the high end of the estimate. But global warming doesn't magically end in 2100, and sea ice will continue to melt. I'm not sure if the 3 meter estimate was tied to a date, and I certainly should not have tied 5 meters to a date.

I still maintain that, given the uncertainties in data measurement and given that all projections, all models, did not predict the massive ice melt, that we'll probably be at the high end of current approximations, and that the IPCC will probably have much higher estimates than 2 meters when they project out beyond 2100.

[taniwha]

Sea ice can melt all it wants, and at most, the sea levels will drop. Sea ice melting is a complete and utter non-issue. It is a non-issue because ice floats on water, and anything that floats displaces water of equivalent volume to the floating object's mass. This means that the water in sea ice is already included in sea levels. Sea levels dropping due to sea ice melting would be due to the different densities of salt water and fresh water.

If you don't believe me, try this:
1) partially fill a glass with water.
2) put some ice in it (but not enough that the ice is touching the bottom).
3) mark the current water level.
4) allow the ice to melt.
5) note the water level.

For 2, if the ice is touching the bottom of the glass, then it is the glass supporting the ice, not the water. It must be the water that is supporting the ice for the experiment to replicate sea ice. To get a more accurate experiment, dissolve some salt in the water (or get actual sea water if you can).

In fact, one potential effect of sea ice melting is increased land ice due to increased surface area for evaporation, which provides moisture for snow fall, and when snow doesn't melt, it builds up and turns to ice. Hello Mr. Glacier.

[seedload]

I wasn't aware in Oct of 2009 that more than 2 meters wasn't possible by 2100. So the "minimum of 2 meters" would absolutely be at the high end of the estimate. But global warming doesn't magically end in 2100, and sea ice will continue to melt. I'm not sure if the 3 meter estimate was tied to a date, and I certainly should not have tied 5 meters to a date.

Fine. You were wrong.

You are now wrong again by talking about sea ice melt changing sea levels.

I still maintain that, given the uncertainties in data measurement and given that all projections, all models, did not predict the massive ice melt, that we'll probably be at the high end of current approximations, and that the IPCC will probably have much higher estimates than 2 meters when they project out beyond 2100.

I have no doubt that the IPPC will predict something dire. It is their job.

[Josh Cryer]

Oh god you guys know I didn't mean sea ice but rather land ice at the poles. God you people are nitpicky and don't actually care about reasoned discussion.

[Josh Cryer]

I have no doubt that the IPPC will predict something dire. It is their job.

They will post many scenarios, just as they did in the past, and those scenarios will be all over the board. The one with the 95% confidence level will not be dire. Just as the .13 C / decade is in line with satellite projections.

[taniwha]

Oh god you guys know I didn't mean sea ice but rather land ice at the poles. God you people are nitpicky and don't actually care about reasoned discussion.

Josh, no we do not know that. All we know is what you say. That is the only way we have of knowing what you mean. To have a reasoned discussion, one absolutely must be nitpicky, because a reasoned discussion requires accurate communication, and accurate communication requires being nitpicky.

You made a huge mistake (very fatal to your argument). You made it even worse with your response. You have negated everything you have ever said on this site because you have just now stated that what you have written may or may not be what you mean, and that we must guess which it is. A simple "I'm sorry, I meant land ice" would have actually made some repairs to your position.

You can no longer be trusted with anything you say, but not because you made the mistake.