Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Observational and Visual Astronomy

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 12-05-2014, 10:07 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenb View Post
T minus 10...
Yes, well, sorry, but it irks me when tobacco-lobby like distortions continue to get re-hashed over and over again and often go unchallenged because people often don't actually read the source data.....
  #22  
Old 12-05-2014, 10:23 PM
stephenb's Avatar
stephenb (Stephen)
Registered User

stephenb is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: all over the shop...
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Yes, well, sorry, but it irks me when tobacco-lobby like distortions continue to get re-hashed over and over again and often go unchallenged because people often don't actually read the source data.....
Fair enough Peter
  #23  
Old 12-05-2014, 11:22 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Where did you get that from???

Section 2, Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

page 162,

states the temperature increase for: "the 2003– 2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C "

They also stress:

"Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends"

You can spin that into a zero, but you'd be misrepresenting the facts.

Where did I get this from?
Well, one can spend four or five minutes doing the following.
Search for "5th Assessment Report" in Google, and one finds the Assessment report here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

One then types "Hiatus" into the search box, which delivers these two documents which address the Hiatus (well, try make excuses for it anyway - but admit it they do in fact do).
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...ner15paris.pdf
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._Chapter09.pdf

One then waits a couple of minutes while the files are downloaded. Then one uses the Adobe Find feature, and types in "Hiatus" to read all about the Hiatus you claim I made up when I said the IPCC said there was one.

There you can read stuff like,
"Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend
over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8;
Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is
estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2
Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11
ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern-
Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012))
."

So you read 0.78 degrees increase over 2003-2012 in the report, and I read 0.04 degrees per decade over 1998-2012 in the report, in a section on the Hiatus.

As I said, if you don't like the IPCC addressing "the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" in their report, go complain to them.
Regards,
Renato
  #24  
Old 12-05-2014, 11:51 PM
andyc's Avatar
andyc (Andy)
Registered User

andyc is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Thanks. Nice to see someone else who remembers them.

Curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, that was the time that coincided with the increase in the earth's temperature.

And curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, ever since the big sunspot groups have dried up in the late 1990s, the earth's temperature has entered a pause, a hiatus - has failed to increase.
Regards,
Renato

With due apologies for raising it, but Renato, do you realise that the total heat content of Earth has continued to rise unabated over the past 15 years? The "Earth's temperature" is not just the air (2%), but also the oceans (93%), land (2%) and cryosphere (2%). Ignore the oceans, and you ignore almost all the heat that Earth is accumulating due to our enhancement of the greenhouse effect. And the oceans have warmed most in the past 15 years. That enhanced heat trapping effect is the byproduct of a top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance brought about by infrared absorption and emission at the wavelength of a certain familiar, but non-condensing triatomic molecule. As astronomers, we should be familiar with the spectral fingerprinting possible due to spectroscopy, which directly confirms this enhanced effect. And extra atmospheric insulation means the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms up, an effect not possible if it were simply the Sun wot done it. It ain't the sun!

Back on topic, the Sun has been much quieter than the last solar max that I saw, but there have been a few excellent spot groups to view. You just have to be more patient than in previous decades. It's not a promising thought for visual solar observing if the Sun were to go into a prolonged quiet phase, where this could be as good as it gets for decades . But that wouldn't change the energy balance by enough watts per square metre to put much of a dent in our warming of the planet.
  #25  
Old 13-05-2014, 01:33 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc View Post
With due apologies for raising it, but Renato, do you realise that the total heat content of Earth has continued to rise unabated over the past 15 years? The "Earth's temperature" is not just the air (2%), but also the oceans (93%), land (2%) and cryosphere (2%). Ignore the oceans, and you ignore almost all the heat that Earth is accumulating due to our enhancement of the greenhouse effect. And the oceans have warmed most in the past 15 years. That enhanced heat trapping effect is the byproduct of a top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance brought about by infrared absorption and emission at the wavelength of a certain familiar, but non-condensing triatomic molecule. As astronomers, we should be familiar with the spectral fingerprinting possible due to spectroscopy, which directly confirms this enhanced effect. And extra atmospheric insulation means the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms up, an effect not possible if it were simply the Sun wot done it. It ain't the sun!

Back on topic, the Sun has been much quieter than the last solar max that I saw, but there have been a few excellent spot groups to view. You just have to be more patient than in previous decades. It's not a promising thought for visual solar observing if the Sun were to go into a prolonged quiet phase, where this could be as good as it gets for decades . But that wouldn't change the energy balance by enough watts per square metre to put much of a dent in our warming of the planet.
Hi Andy,
The good thing about this climate debate is that most of the actual data is available just by Googling. One can read blogger sites like Skeptical Science which claims that the earth is warming at the rate of dozens Hiroshima bombs every second, and start getting scared when they point out effects on the Arctic ice as evidence of their point. Only problem occurs when one then Googles and checks the global sea ice anomaly. Which shows that earth's sea ice is of right now - at record levels. The Arctic has recovered from its lows (it didn't disappear by last year, as many had predicted), and Antarctic sea ice (which is far greater than the Arctic's) just keeps getting bigger. Anyhow, if you check the IPCC 5th Assessment report, they can't figure out why the Antarctic ice just keeps getting bigger, contrary to all predictions of theory.

As for the effect of the sun on temperature, the still unproven theory (from some group in Scandinavia) about the sun's possible role in earth's temperature changes relates to the effect of the solar wind. With an inactive sun, more cosmic rays hit the earth leading to cloud formation at lower levels, and results in a cooler earth. When solar winds predominate from a very active sun, those particles result in clouds forming at higher levels, leading to a warmer earth. (I read that in American Sky&Telescope some years back). I expect it will be some time before that theory is either proven or dis-proven.

But I didn't really want to start a debate about this. What the skeptics were calling a "Pause" since 1998 (for which they were much derided) has now been acknowledged by the IPCC, and they call it an "Hiatus".
Its existence is not debatable anymore.

Anyhow, I still miss the decent sunspots of the early to mid 80s. And I really miss the summer of 1987/1988 - where down here in Melbourne, I got a suntan in the first week of September, Carlton won the premiership on 30 September in 30C heat, and it was beach weather from September through till the very end of May. I even went to the beach on the second of June. By way of contrast, we only had a month and a half of beach weather this year.
Cheers,
Renato
  #26  
Old 13-05-2014, 04:11 AM
JB80's Avatar
JB80 (Jarrod)
Aussie abroad.

JB80 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Alicante, Spain.
Posts: 1,156
This thread makes me sad.

Mainly because I think the Sun is awesome, it's probably the most dynamic and ever changing subject an astronomer can ever view.
  #27  
Old 13-05-2014, 08:47 AM
Pinwheel's Avatar
Pinwheel (Doug)
Registered User

Pinwheel is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wimmera victoria
Posts: 512
Who's to say that these temperature rises aren't some normal cycle that occurs say every 15-20 thousand years. It wasn't that long ago geologically speaking that earth ended an ice-age that covered the equator.
  #28  
Old 13-05-2014, 09:43 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Where did I get this from?

So you read 0.78 degrees increase over 2003-2012 in the report, and I read 0.04 degrees per decade over 1998-2012 in the report, in a section on the Hiatus.

Regards,
Renato
For those who want to read it. the latest report (not some draft or summary) is here:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...er02_FINAL.pdf

Indeed they state the over this short period the trend (0.04 to 0.11 degrees to be accurate) has slowed, it is however still positive.

They also state:

"Even with this “hiatus” in global mean surface temperature trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of global mean surface temperature"

Further, the IPCC report has high confidence that with further increases of greenhouses gasses, falls in aerosols, higher solar forcing will see this slowing/hiatus disappear in the near term (the oceans can only suck up so much).

As for the "boring" Sun.... I'll soon post my H-alpha system's view of today's anything but quiescent sun.
  #29  
Old 13-05-2014, 10:13 AM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB80 View Post
Mainly because I think the Sun is awesome, it's probably the most dynamic and ever changing subject an astronomer can ever view.
Agreed, though it would be nice if it was a binary

Cheers
Steffen.
  #30  
Old 13-05-2014, 12:10 PM
MortonH's Avatar
MortonH
Deprived of starlight

MortonH is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
Agreed, though it would be nice if it was a binary

Cheers
Steffen.

It is, isn't it?
  #31  
Old 13-05-2014, 12:12 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
For those who want to read it. the latest report (not some draft or summary) is here:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...er02_FINAL.pdf

Indeed they state the over this short period the trend (0.04 to 0.11 degrees to be accurate) has slowed, it is however still positive.

They also state:

"Even with this “hiatus” in global mean surface temperature trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of global mean surface temperature"

Further, the IPCC report has high confidence that with further increases of greenhouses gasses, falls in aerosols, higher solar forcing will see this slowing/hiatus disappear in the near term (the oceans can only suck up so much).
Wow - you said I spoke rubbish. You said 2GB spoke rubbish. You said the IPCC said no such a thing about "The Hiatus". You cited some wild warming figure which turned out to bear no basis to current reality. And in a post to another member you deride me for not going to the raw source

So I do the work for you and give you links to the even more raw source at the exact same site that you cited, and demonstrate that
a. it is actually you who was totally unaware of what the world's temperature has been doing since 1998, and
b. that the IPCC has indeed acknowledged the "Hiatus" (Dr. Pauchuri apparently slipped up in Melbourne last year and called it a Pause, which was reported in The Australian), and
c. that a temperature increase of 0.72C over nine years would indeed be worrying, except that the rate is 0.04C per decade by Hadcrut4 (the measure they use the most). If you look at the graph below, you'll see that by cherry picking you can get something like 0.7C warming around that period. But that is as relevant as my saying that from that graph from 2006 to 2008, there was a 0.65C cooling (which there was).

The 0.04C per decade figure is so small, that even scientists who are proponents of AGW acknowledge that it is statistically insignificant.

But you respond by dismissing my links from the exact same site without any reason, and instead choose to cite their speculations about future falls in aerosols and higher solar forcings.

Below is a graph of the satellite record. As can be seen, the anomaly for April 2014 is 0.19C.

If you draw a line from 1979 to now, and choose that as you warming trend, then temperatures are increasing. But, if you draw a line from 1998 to now, there is no significant change in temperatures. And observing the latter line, shows that citing several years as among the hottest on record is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the trend.
Regards,
Renato




http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...il_2014_v5.png

Last edited by Renato1; 13-05-2014 at 12:32 PM.
  #32  
Old 13-05-2014, 01:00 PM
astroron's Avatar
astroron (Ron)
Supernova Searcher

astroron is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,313
(Quote)
They can't figure out why the Antarctic ice just keeps getting bigger, contrary to all predictions of theory.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
Cheers
  #33  
Old 13-05-2014, 03:19 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Wow - you said I spoke rubbish. You said 2GB spoke rubbish.
True..and I'm still of the same opinion on this matter...and the sun being boring. (life on earth would get pretty exciting, albeit for a short time, without it )


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
You said the IPCC said no such a thing about "The Hiatus". You cited some wild warming figure which turned out to bear no basis to current reality. And in a post to another member you deride me for not going to the raw source
I didn't deride you. But it helps if we are all looking at the same original source document.

Page 162 in the Executive Summary:"The total
increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–
2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C
and the total increase between
the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections,
1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single
longest dataset available"

....no basis to reality? really? which bit did I make up??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
So I do the work for you
You didn't, I read the IPCC report long before your post, about the sun being boring, apparently based on a sample of one (probably dodgy copy of) a PST.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
a. it is actually you who was totally unaware of what the world's temperature has been doing since 1998, and
b. that the IPCC has indeed acknowledged the "Hiatus" (Dr. Pauchuri apparently slipped up in Melbourne last year and called it a Pause, which was reported in The Australian), and
c. that a temperature increase of 0.72C over nine years would indeed be worrying, except that the rate is 0.04C per decade by Hadcrut4 (the measure they use the most). If you look at the graph below, you'll see that by cherry picking you can get something like 0.7C warming around that period. But that is as relevant as my saying that from that graph from 2006 to 2008, there was a 0.65C cooling (which there was).

The 0.04C per decade figure is so small, that even scientists who are proponents of AGW acknowledge that it is statistically insignificant.
Climate change looks at long term trends, not short term variability.

To quote the IPCC introduction on page 164:
"the climate comprises a variety of space- and timescales: from the diurnal cycle, to interannual variability such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), to multi- decadal variations. ‘Climate change’ refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period of time"

Reduced to its absurd conclusion, your argument would suggest the Australian climate is getting colder ( despite the fact we are running into winter).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post

But you respond by dismissing my links from the exact same site without any reason, and instead choose to cite their speculations about future falls in aerosols and higher solar forcings.
You are cherry picking the document in a manner that totally ignores its overall conclusion.

If pressed for time, I invite all to read the executive summary.

It overwhelmingly states greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, warming is occurring, and even with the current "slow down" (even you admit the figure is not negative) the deep oceans are getting warmer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
........... citing several years as among the hottest on record is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the trend.
Regards,
Renato
It has everything to do with the long term trend....the longest of which, since instrumental records were kept, is undeniably up.

Are you seriously suggesting greenhouse is not a real physical process?

Despite Mercury getting 4x the solar flux from the Sun as Venus, the latter
is 40 degrees hotter thanks to greenhouse.

Humans activities emit about 10 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere every year...and the number is rising.

I do however recall the tobacco industry also saying in a similar manner 20 smokes a day couldn't possibly hurt anyone.....

P.S.
If you don't believe a species can change a planetary atmosphere.... might be a good to time
to regard plants with some awe... the 21% of oxygen in the air we breathe, is due their discovery of photosynthesis some 3.5 billion years ago.

Last edited by Peter Ward; 13-05-2014 at 04:35 PM. Reason: typos, clarification
  #34  
Old 13-05-2014, 04:41 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
True..and I'm still of the same opinion on this matter...and the sun being boring. (life on earth would get pretty exciting, albeit for a short time, without it )




I didn't deride you. But it helps if we are all looking at the same original source document.

Page 162 in the Executive Summary:"The total
increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–
2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C
and the total increase between
the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections,
1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single
longest dataset available"

....no basis to reality? really? which bit did I make up??



You didn't, I read the IPCC report long before your post, about the sun being boring, apparently based on a sample of one (probably dodgy copy of) a PST.




Climate change looks at long term trends, not short term variability.

To quote the IPCC introduction on page 164:
"the climate comprises a variety of space- and timescales: from the diurnal cycle, to interannual variability such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), to multi- decadal variations. ‘Climate change’ refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period of time"

Reduced to its absurd conclusion, your argument would suggest the Australian climate is getting colder ( despite the fact we are running into winter).



You are cherry picking the document in a manner that totally ignores its overall conclusion.

If pressed for time, I invite all to read the executive summary.

It overwhelmingly states greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, warming is occurring, and even with the current "slow down" (even you admit the figure is not negative) the deep oceans are getting warmer.



It has everything to do with the long term trend....the longest of which, since instrumental records were kept, is undeniably up.

Are you seriously suggesting greenhouse is not a real physical process?

Despite Mercury getting 4x the solar flux from the Sun as Venus, the latter
is 40 degrees hotter thanks to greenhouse.

Humans activities emit about 10 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere every year...and the number is rising.

I do however recall the tobacco industry also saying in a similar manner 20 smokes a day couldn't possibly hurt anyone.....
Let's see, I said,
"And curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, ever since the big sunspot groups have dried up in the late 1990s, the earth's temperature has entered a pause, a hiatus - has failed to increase."

You said
"What utter rubbish."

I quoted the IPCC,
"Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years.
For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11
"

You now still refuse to believe a Hiatus exists, saying that your statement about my statement being rubbish is still true, and decide to go into a homily about Global Warming and long term trends over short term trends and the planets.

A classic attempted snow job and attempt at diversion from your first factually incorrect and unsupported statement.

Do you admit the existence of the Hiatus, or do you chose to remain in denial?
Regards,
Renato
  #35  
Old 13-05-2014, 04:49 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by astroron View Post
(Quote)
They can't figure out why the Antarctic ice just keeps getting bigger, contrary to all predictions of theory.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
Cheers
Thanks but that's a prediction for the future.

Current reality is,
"In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Who'd have thought that a hot atmosphere coupled with a hot ocean would lead to more sea ice? Plenty of future research projects there.
Regards,
Renato
  #36  
Old 13-05-2014, 05:52 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Let's see, I said,
"And curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, ever since the big sunspot groups have dried up in the late 1990s, the earth's temperature has entered a pause, a hiatus - has failed to increase."

You said
"What utter rubbish."
Yes. What about a positive number, even a cherry picked 0.04 don't you get?

Wait 500 years..or at least well past an election cycle....you get 2 degrees...wait 5,000..or roughly recorded human history... and you get 20 degrees.... I would think a run of 70C degree days would kill most flora/fauna. Let it run a little longer and we can make a cup of tea....just leave the kettle outside for a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
I quoted the IPCC,
"Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years.
For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11
"
The executive summary, which I've quoted directly, twice now, includes sources other than Hadley, and indicates a much higher figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post

You now still refuse to believe a Hiatus exists, saying that your statement about my statement being rubbish is still true, and decide to go into a homily about Global Warming and long term trends over short term trends and the planets.
Again, the 15 years Hadley data is positive. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a homily or fantasy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
A classic attempted snow job and attempt at diversion from your first factually incorrect and unsupported statement.
So the IPCC executive statement is wrong? I think not.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Do you admit the existence of the Hiatus, or do you chose to remain in denial?
Regards,
Renato
Critical thought. Give it a try.
  #37  
Old 13-05-2014, 06:28 PM
astroron's Avatar
astroron (Ron)
Supernova Searcher

astroron is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Thanks but that's a prediction for the future.

Current reality is,
"In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Who'd have thought that a hot atmosphere coupled with a hot ocean would lead to more sea ice? Plenty of future research projects there.
Regards,
Renato
From what I read it is happening NOW.

"We present observational evidence that a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat; it has passed the point of no return," the agency glaciologist explained.

Like the Thwaites, Smith, Haynes, Pope, Smith and Kohler Glaciers in this region - the PIG has been thinning rapidly.
And its grounding line - the zone where the glacier enters the sea and lifts up and floats - has also reversed tens of km over recent decades.

"There is now little doubt that this sector of West Antarctica is in a state of rapid retreat, and the burning question is whether and how soon this retreat might escalate into irreversible collapse. Thankfully, we now have an array of satellites capable of detecting the tell-tale signs, and their observations will allow us to monitor the progress and establish which particular scenario Thwaites Glacier will follow.

Just a few quotes to show it is just not a future predicion but is happening as we speak.
Cheers
  #38  
Old 13-05-2014, 07:35 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Yes. What about a positive number, even a cherry picked 0.04 don't you get?

Wait 500 years..or at least well past an election cycle....you get 2 degrees...wait 5,000..or roughly recorded human history... and you get 20 degrees.... I would think a run of 70C degree days would kill most flora/fauna. Let it run a little longer and we can make a cup of tea....just leave the kettle outside for a bit.



The executive summary, which I've quoted directly, twice now, includes sources other than Hadley, and indicates a much higher figure.



Again, the 15 years Hadley data is positive. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a homily or fantasy.




So the IPCC executive statement is wrong? I think not.






Critical thought. Give it a try.
Again, you have unequivocally stated what I said about the Hiatus was rubbish.

And again you choose to waltz around the issue, without providing any supporting information (leaving it to me to go find it, because you are too slack?). You even call Hadcrut4 data, which together with Hadcrut3 has pretty much been the main driver of the warming debate, cherry picked - even though the IPCC cites it. Astonishing.

And again you refuse to unequivocally acknowledge or deny the existence of an Hiatus - something that is unequivocally acknowledged by the IPCC. They invented the term.

So what is your problem?

Why do you not say "I do not believe it, and where the term Hiatus was first created and used - in the IPCC documents - is rubbish"?

Or "I do believe it, but it really doesn't matter - and I apologise for saying what you said was rubbish?"

I look forward to your next waltz around this.
Regards,
Renato

Last edited by Renato1; 13-05-2014 at 07:46 PM.
  #39  
Old 13-05-2014, 07:46 PM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by astroron View Post
From what I read it is happening NOW.

"We present observational evidence that a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat; it has passed the point of no return," the agency glaciologist explained.

Like the Thwaites, Smith, Haynes, Pope, Smith and Kohler Glaciers in this region - the PIG has been thinning rapidly.
And its grounding line - the zone where the glacier enters the sea and lifts up and floats - has also reversed tens of km over recent decades.

"There is now little doubt that this sector of West Antarctica is in a state of rapid retreat, and the burning question is whether and how soon this retreat might escalate into irreversible collapse. Thankfully, we now have an array of satellites capable of detecting the tell-tale signs, and their observations will allow us to monitor the progress and establish which particular scenario Thwaites Glacier will follow.

Just a few quotes to show it is just not a future predicion but is happening as we speak.
Cheers
From what you cited,
"and the burning question is whether and how soon this retreat might escalate into irreversible collapse."
That is a prediction or fear of what may happen in the future.

One side of Antarctica loses some ice, the other side grows an unprecedented amount of it.
Regards,
Renato
  #40  
Old 13-05-2014, 09:09 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Again, you have unequivocally stated what I said about the Hiatus was rubbish.

And again you choose to waltz around the issue, without providing any supporting information (leaving it to me to go find it, because you are too slack?). You even call Hadcrut4 data, which together with Hadcrut3 has pretty much been the main driver of the warming debate, cherry picked - even though the IPCC cites it. Astonishing.

And again you refuse to unequivocally acknowledge or deny the existence of an Hiatus - something that is unequivocally acknowledged by the IPCC. They invented the term.

So what is your problem?

Why do you not say "I do not believe it, and where the term Hiatus was first created and used - in the IPCC documents - is rubbish"?

Or "I do believe it, but it really doesn't matter - and I apologise for saying what you said was rubbish?"

I look forward to your next waltz around this.
Regards,
Renato
My problem is I can do just a little math. As for being slack...yep..I really haven't got the time to run you through my somewhat ancient and dog-eared undergrad Physics tome, Resnick & Halliday.

You have ignored the previous 130 years of data, and have just focused on the last 15, (an incorrect assumption as stated in the IPCC4 preamble)

A pause/hiatus would be zero.

Hence the "rubbish" statement from me, as a positive number, as much as you want to say otherwise, just isn't zero. Capish?

But assuming we just look at 15 years and Hadcrut 4 decadal data is now the new "norm" at just 0.04 degrees... (which I still maintain is a rubbish number)

....the consequences are not good.

No math required, just do the arithmetic

Humanity has been using written forms for about 6000 years.

The blink of an eye in geological scales. But, let's go forward an equivalent timespan.

600 decades x 0.04 degrees per decade = 24 degrees, making the average temperature a balmy 38 degrees C

Record highs would then be 80 degrees or so....

But taking the IPCC4 view (chapter 2, top page 162) derived from independent datasets, from 1880 to 2012 their "best estimate" trend figure is 0.78 degrees per decade.

But let's not go forward 6000 years...and say go forward about the same time as Ramesses II was building most of the Egyptian monuments in the past....say 1300 years

130 decades x 0.78 = 101 degrees C

I invite others to draw their own conclusions. I'm done with this.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement