Sea ice volume is pretty self-explanatory. It’s harder to measure than sea ice extent. Rather than just a satellite photo, measurements are also taken from underneath with submarine radar. However, the USA has been monitoring this from Cold War days, because ice thickness helps determine where submarines can surface. New highly-accurate satellites make for more accurate data, because scientists can compare the difference is the height of the ice cap above sea level vs the radar data taken from below, and compare the difference.
Based on 1979 (the first year in which reliable satellite data became available), the floating Arctic ice cap has shrunk as follows:
sea ice extent: 45% loss of ice
sea ice volume: 72% loss of ice
I’ll let those figures speak for themselves.
Of course, never mind what NASA, the European and Japanese space agencies are finding with their satellites. Fred has his own more reliable sources of information:
[quote]Based on 1979 (the first year in which reliable satellite data became available), the floating Arctic ice cap has shrunk as follows:
sea ice extent: 45% loss of ice
sea ice volume: 72% loss of ice
I’ll let those figures speak for themselves.[/quote]
Yes, and by letting those numbers speak for themselves, youare looking at what? 45 percent loss of ice from 1979? the year that just happened to follow a multiyear very VERY cold snap? so, assuming that 1979, itself, was an outlier and assuming that 2012 is reprentative of a new warming trend, what do you really have? 10-15 percent loss of sea ice from a more standard benchmark?
Yes, DO let those figures speak for themselves… they will do so more convincingly than your apparent effort?
for crying out loud, it’s a fraking model. models just need to prove that the trend exists, it doesn’t have to be 100% to the decimal accurate to be true.
take weather forecasts, take baseball sabermetrics, they are not 100% accurate, but accurate enough to allow us to make intelligent decisions. Just cause the weather report is not 100% right, doesn’t mean when it says a typhoon is coming I wouldn’t bring an umbrella.
what we are arguing here is that the amount of CO2 emissions only caused 0.7ºC increase as opposed to projected 1.2ºC. How is the 0.5 degree different in anyway disprove that the emission of CO2 is associated with climate change. It simply means that there are other complex factors that the model has not accounted for, including the effects of polar ice melting. The temperature is still rising sharply in a manner not seen previously. Besides sometime around 2008 CO2 emission really was under control, except that now it’s back on its exponential growth trend again.
The effects of climate change is pretty obvious, if you live in Taiwan or any parts of southeast asia for the past 20 years, you’d see the “change”.
Don’t forget that the author of the article posted in the OP also argues that there’s no link between passive smoking and cancer despite all medical evidence to the contrary. He’s either more knowledgeable than all medical scientists and all climate scientists or he’s full of it. Looking at the number of basic errors in the posted article, it’s pretty easy to see the guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
How’s that homework going Mr Smith? I see too much posting and not enough studying going on.
Are you sure that you want to be saying this? I will give you a chance to recant. This is NOT what the global warming alarmists stance is.
Really? You have temperatures and CO2 levels measured from ice cores and so we know what the temperatures were and what the CO2 concentrations were and they have PROVEN to be 0.7 degrees warmer IF we ASSUME that there is a DIRECT connection and that the CO2 caused the warming. SINCE that model has proved to be the correct indicator, WHY would the model be tweaked to predict 1.2 degrees warming rather than 0.7? That is a factor of FOUR and overstates the possible effect of CO2 increases on temperature by a minimum of 67%.
Oh this really is too delicious. NOW, the global warming alarmists want to incorporate OTHER factors? Are you sure that this is REALLY what you want to do? Because if it is then we reopen the sunspots and numerous other hypotheses that also gain entry by your requested latitude. This was all vociferously and vehemently denied by your past global warming alarmists. I am not sure that they will take kindly to you opening this door yet again…
No, it isn’t. Temperatures have risen much more than this in the past and frequently so.
Hah! Really? So prove it.
Great! Where’s your link? :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
The effects of climate change is pretty obvious, if you live in Taiwan or any parts of southeast asia for the past 20 years, you’d see the “change”.
Excellent. So why don’t you point out those basic errors for us. I mean they are so basic that it will be like kid’s play to you, right? So what are the basic errors?
This from someone who doesn’t know the difference between formula parameters and predicted temperature increases from various scenarios of CO2 emissions? Puhleeze…
So, we have 100 years of temperature and CO2 results… Did they or did they not lead to a 0.7 C increase in temperature NOT a 1.2 C increase? Yes or no? IF the former, then why are the computer models still forcing exaggerated results (by a factor of four or 67 percent)?
Homework? Yeah. Maybe I can contact that world-famous climate scientist in Australia to give me remedial classes. He seems to be good at remedial teaching… that apparently is about all you got out of “studying with a world-class climatologist.” Paints a pretty picture, doesn’t it? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Excellent. So why don’t you point out those basic errors for us. I mean they are so basic that it will be like kid’s play to you, right? So what are the basic errors?
Unlike Steve Milloy, the author there who points out some of the errors is an actual climatologist. Hell, he even did his PhD under one of the names in your other copy/paste article.
For average global temperature, changes are in the decimals, any discrepancies will seem large if you do factors like that. Scientific models, especially ones related to weather, is a statistical estimation, they usually involve more than one hypothesis and try to match to the actual result by recursion. The concern here isn’t which sets of hypothesis generated which number, the trend shows that under any hypothesis the increase of CO2 increases average global temperature significantly.
if you insist the numbers are tweaked, do you at least agree that with the 0.7 degrees increase, it still prove that CO2 contributes to global climate change, and if so, do you agree that there is a upper limit of how much CO2 we can continue to put into the atomo?
[quote=“fred smith”]
Hah! Really? So prove it.[/quote]
Fred, do you actually have any scientific background? Did you pass high school science? Do you have a degree in a ‘hard’ science or one that relies heavily on statistics (eg., psychology or economics)? In other words, do you have even the faintest clue what you’re talking about in these rants about science? If you don’t even understand basic scientific tools like statistical significance or confidence intervals (‘error bars’) - which you clearly don’t - you’re just wasting everyone’s time and bandwidth, including yours.
Hah! Look at all the bright lights on this forum and seriously? you question my intelligence? Shall we do an online IQ test? Look at current success, professional or academic? Really? Do you REALLY want to go there…
CF Images: Thanks for the link. Let me look it over and respond later.
I note, however, that your cut and paste response has made life easy for you. You still have not explained how you personally did not seem to understand the difference between formulas and what they measure and how the graphs that you provided merely reflected various forecasts of temperature increases based on CO2 scenarios using an accepted formula. Also, were you unsure about current climate change? I mean are you suggesting that NO climate change has occurred or is occurring now and that all of the “action” will take place in 50 to 100 years? Because again, that is all based on the scenarios that predict vastly higher increases in CO2 increases in the earth’s atmophere based on population and economic development factors. You get that, right? Because you certainly did not seem to last night. Are you changing your mind from last night’s diatribe?
Shall I thus in the words of Finley question your understanding of SCIENCE? Funny that he did not because your post clearly exemplified the inability to think about these things with any understanding. So, hey, Finley, what about CF Images? going to take him to the wood shed for not even being able to read a graph?
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
In the words of CF Images quoted source… I guess I have nothing else for CF Images but this… oh the irony… LEARN TO READ!!!
You asked me to show what I was suggesting about the second half of the century. I did. And that is all I ever planned to do.
The rest is you essentially talking to yourself. Because I’m no longer interested in discussing science with someone who has no basic knowledge and refuses to learn.
Anyway, I’m not questioning your intelligence. In your better moments, you’re obviously a smart guy. If you have some genuine academic/professional credentials, list 'em out. I’m genuinely interested.
I didn’t questions CFI’s qualifications because he quite obviously does have a science education - IIRC it was he who went to the trouble of explaining some from-the-ground-up science to you in other posts a while back, and you just hahahaha’d.
Well, if I was good enough to get through advanced math, chemistry and physics at a top high school and manage above average at a very competitive college, I think that I can stand on my own. I also write extensively on electronics products and technology so I think that I can manage to keep up but I cannot and will not pretend to be able to independently verify the calculations in question. I think that I have enough, therefore, to stand on my own and I disagree that CF Images has explained anything of any kind. He never seems to be able to stand back and question things on his own, does he? I mean we all cut and paste from our favorite sites but I think that I can and have made challenges based on my understanding of the variables.
Again, if I am the one who is requiring “homework,” why is it that the IPCC climate change assessments from 1995 to 2007 are all increasingly less dire and not more so? Why are they frequently toned down? I will assume that challenges by people like me has kept them honest. AND remember, all the scientific discussion is great until we get to the part of who will pay what and to what ends… then, NO ONE has been able to point with any confidence to anything that can be achieved through specific measures. They all talk about reducing CO2 emissons but they can never really explain how this PRACTICABLY can be done. Non? So while we can enjoy the esoteric debates about inputs and weightings… when it really comes down to the “doing” or implementation… well, I think that the silence of all the world’s leaders is deafening, non?
Getting late. Busy day tomorrow but I do promise that I am really going to try to get through CF Images post and determine whether it answers the questions or conflates the issues… but given that his post is from a CLIMATOLOGIST… I shall live in great hope… great hope…
Actually, give me a day or two or a bit more. Two trips and one visit to the dentist for a root canal… sigh… old age and declining body parts… bring on the climate change… let it be over sooner rather than later…
