- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The latest on Global Warming
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:08 am to Iosh
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:08 am to Iosh
quote:Your "paper" is yet another example of "if the numbers don't work, 'average' them until they do".
Speaking of not current research, it's a ten-year old paper using a single measurement source of only the portion of the EAIS above the 81st parallel! Glad to see we're reaching back to trends that are by now older than the span they measured in a thread titled "the latest on GW." (PS: This is the fourth paper cited in the paper I linked. It's really quite good. Alas, you aren't interested in science, you're only interested in ammunition. Even if the ammunition is low-caliber, steel-cased bullshite.)
quote:
The technique-specific estimates agree with these mean values to within their respective uncertainties in all four ice-sheet regions and for the AIS as a whole. The only exception is the LA estimate of the combined AIS and GrIS mass imbalance, which is, at 140 ± 133 Gt year-1, more positive than the mean value and only marginally beyond the 1-sigma uncertainty range of the respective values. Although the uncertainties of any one particular method are sometimes large, the combination of methods considerably improves the certainty of ice-sheet mass balance estimates.
e.g. from your "paper" . . .
quote:Those would be results AFTER the paper I cited. Correct?
The APIS now accounts for around 25% of all mass losses from Antarctic regions that are in a state of negative mass balance, despite occupying just 4% of the continental area. In contrast, the EAIS, which occupies over 75% of Antarctica, was in approximate balance throughout the 1990s. Although the EAIS has experienced mass gains during the final years of our survey
But don't take my word for it.
This is from your paper.
quote:That wording is almost laughable.
Both satellite altimeter data sets highlight the lower reaches of the Cook and Totten Glaciers as regions of ice dynamical mass loss (15, 77), but neither signal is large in comparison with the wider EAIS mass trend. Overall, snowfall-driven mass gains in East Antarctica, notably the anomalous event in Dronning Maud Land during 2009 (Fig. 2), have reduced the rate at which Antarctic ice losses have increased over time
A massively obese woman has been losing weight, albeit slowly. So she sees a nutritionist hoping to make better progress. He puts her on a green-tea and ice cream weight-loss program. He guarantees it will not fail. When she returns 20# heavier, he is undeterred and proclaims the program a success. Regarding her weight gain he says, "it seems the ice cream 'has reduced the rate at which your weight loss has increased'."
quote:No shite!
For the EAIS, our mass change estimates exhibit an unsatisfactory spread, with results from the IOM and LA techniques falling consistently lower and higher than the mean value we have derived (table S2). Although the average signal of EAIS imbalance is relatively small, such a large divergence is a matter of concern;
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 6:26 am
2
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:43 am to NC_Tigah
NC_Tigah - are you suggesting that the rising sea level is due entirely to ice melt from the northern pole?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 2:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your "paper" is yet another example of "if the numbers don't work, 'average' them until they do".
I'm unclear on both the provenance of the scare quotes around "paper" and "average" (is it not a paper? is there some skulduggery with their math?) and on how any of the stuff you quoted affects the conclusion.
Your position appears to be that scientists, when faced with disparate results from disparate measurement methods, should not do ensemble estimates while presenting appropriate caveats for uncertainty and outliers. Instead, they should... what? Ignore the two techniques showing balance and the one technique showing loss in favor of the one technique showing gains?
Even though that technique is explicitly the only one outside the overall sigma bars? And even then, they didn't throw it out, they just presented the caveat. It's still included in all the estimates, which is why the EAIS shows a net positive, albeit one swallowed by the sigma.
But then again, you surely aren't much for caveats, given that two of your quotes from the paper are chopped off mid-sentence.
quote:
In contrast, the EAIS, which occupies over 75% of Antarctica, was in approximate balance throughout the 1990s. Although the EAIS has experienced mass gains during the final years of our survey (Table 1 and Fig. 5), our reconciled data set is too short to determine whether they were caused by natural fluctuations that are a common feature of Antarctic ice-core records (90) or long-term increases in precipitation that are a common feature of global and regional climate model projections (91–93). Both satellite altimeter data sets highlight the lower reaches of the Cook and Totten Glaciers as regions of ice dynamical mass loss (15, 77), but neither signal is large in comparison with the wider EAIS mass trend. Overall, snowfall-driven mass gains in East Antarctica, notably the anomalous event in Dronning Maud Land during 2009 (Fig. 2), have reduced the rate at which Antarctic ice losses have increased over time, but the EAIS record is too short to determine whether this is a long-term trend.
And again, that EAIS paper you are citing showing +40Gt/yr is old. It relies on old models and old forecasts for snowfall data to interpret its elevation changes. And, well, Zwally (who you are relying on to show overall gains exceeding losses, right up until the pod people got him) was not the biggest fan of how Davis interpreted his radar altimetry:
LINK (page 521).
But of course, none of this matters to you. That paper says the thing you need it to say. So does Zwally's presentation. So you will gyrate and stretch so that Zwally was a lucid realtalker during the presentation but a bullshitter on the above paper and in the reconciliation paper. Al Gore dropped a dump truck full of grant money at his house or something. And the Davis et al EAIS study is the One True Study of EAIS balance. Never mind any of the other studies cited in the reconciliation paper, which is explicitly supposed to be an ensemble estimate. Never mind that it uses those icky models. Never mind that its long-term trend clearly shows a downward inflection starting in 2001. It says the thing you need! Period!
AGW skepticism teaches the way of the knife, chopping off quotes, caveats, and subsequent developments, and saying "there, it's complete because it ended here!"
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 2:36 pm to Iosh
OH NO THE POD PEOPLE GOT DAVIS TOO
LINK
So both of your WUWT-sourced numbers have been explicitly revised downward by their authors in later papers.
I look forward to your citation of Rasool and Schneider 1971 in the next GW thread!
LINK
quote:
Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4 ± 61 Gt yr-1.
So both of your WUWT-sourced numbers have been explicitly revised downward by their authors in later papers.
I look forward to your citation of Rasool and Schneider 1971 in the next GW thread!
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 3:59 pm to Zach
I'd like to see a comparative analysis using statistically reliable data on global warming and its correlation to global give-a-damn.
...including the attitudes of penguins as well.
Some will argue anything if it means they make a buck.
ETA: BTW, I liked the article about Dana Carvey on the same page.
...including the attitudes of penguins as well.
Some will argue anything if it means they make a buck.
ETA: BTW, I liked the article about Dana Carvey on the same page.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:43 pm to Porky
Carvey and a lot of other comedians won't mock him because he's black.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:52 pm to Zach
coped w/out kind permission:
Adrian Vance
9:41 PM on 6/7/2014
When will this insanity stop? I am an independent physical scientist not working for government or a grant. The facts are very simple:
CO2 is a "trace gas" in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all "global warming." CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Micheal Mann erased to make his "hockey stick" was several degrees warmer than anything "global warmers" fear. It was the longest recorded time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all. The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD. Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as "saving the planet."
Adrian Vance
9:41 PM on 6/7/2014
When will this insanity stop? I am an independent physical scientist not working for government or a grant. The facts are very simple:
CO2 is a "trace gas" in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all "global warming." CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Micheal Mann erased to make his "hockey stick" was several degrees warmer than anything "global warmers" fear. It was the longest recorded time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all. The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD. Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as "saving the planet."
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:03 pm to Jagd Tiger
And so it goes. You painstakingly debunk an argument, and "Squirrel!"
And were I so inclined to take the bait, derail the thread, and engage these terrible, misunderstood, and positively ancient talking points (hint: there are a lot more and newer hockey sticks than Mann '98) you can bet your arse that in a week, someone who probably posted in this thread will come around making the same dumb arguments about Antarctica.
And were I so inclined to take the bait, derail the thread, and engage these terrible, misunderstood, and positively ancient talking points (hint: there are a lot more and newer hockey sticks than Mann '98) you can bet your arse that in a week, someone who probably posted in this thread will come around making the same dumb arguments about Antarctica.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:50 pm to Iosh
quote:It is YOUR paper. It is YOUR source. Indeed it does say what I need it to say.
But of course, none of this matters to you. That paper says the thing you need it to say.
As is the case with you, it tries not to, but it does.
It says it in words.
It says it in graphics.
Then it attempts to minimize the findings.
Sorry that bothers you.
If it's any consolation, it bothers me too.
Albeit for a different reason.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:53 pm to Iosh
quote:
So both of your WUWT-sourced numbers have been explicitly revised downward by their authors in later papers.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:32 pm to Jagd Tiger
quote:
coped w/out kind permission: Adrian Vance 9:41 PM on 6/7/2014 When will this insanity stop? I am an independent physical scientist not working for government or a grant. The facts are very simple: CO2 is a "trace gas" in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all "global warming." CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy? The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Micheal Mann erased to make his "hockey stick" was several degrees warmer than anything "global warmers" fear. It was the longest recorded time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all. The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept. Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD. Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as "saving the planet."
You come on here with this crap trying to debunk GW stating facts and sh!t, someone needs to lend this man a copy of "An Inconvenient Truth". Ol Al was all over GW/climate change years ago, please read the book and join the drones, errrr, enlightened masses.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 11:14 pm to NC_Tigah
WELL NC_Tigah? Where's the rising sea level coming from?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is YOUR paper. It is YOUR source. Indeed it does say what I need it to say.
As is the case with you, it tries not to, but it does.
It says it in words.
It says it in graphics.
Then it attempts to minimize the findings.
What it says, multiple times, is that the 2009 DML snowfall increase is not yet known to be an outlier or a long-term trend.
Notice how the Y-axis on the figure you cite is a measurement of mass change, while the conclusion is stated in terms of mass change per year? Notice how the pre-2009 EAIS curve is a near-zero sinusoid? The 200 Gt worth of anomalous snowfall they are referring to in DML in 2009, divided among the 20-year observation window, that you are accusing them of "minimizing," is what accounts for most of the slight positive EAIS trend in the first place. (Pop quiz: 200 divided by 20!)
LINK
Figure S1 is a very stark illustration of just how weak the 2009 increase in the figure you're trumpeting is stacked up against the cumulative 20 years of steady WAIS losses. It doesn't even cancel out the APIS.
In no way, shape, or form can you interpret this paper to show that gains are exceeding losses. If the title were "reconciled estimate of ice sheet mass balances, 2009-2011" then you'd maybe have an argument. Instead you're just showing continued illiteracy by repeatedly posting a figure totally consistent with the conclusion and out of context, because... it's a line that goes up near the end and that's somehow an argument in and of itself? Relying on computer models wasn't ironic enough for you?
Now, can we expect a 200 Gt/yr rate of gain in the EAIS to continue, or was 2009 an outlier? Well, let's check the latest Cryo-Sat 2 data:
LINK
quote:
Between 2010 and 2013, we estimate that West Antarctica, East Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by -134±27, -3±36, and -23±18 Gt yr-1, respectively (Table 1).
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 3:05 am
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:30 am to Zach
Can we drink this arctic ice you speak of? Is this ice creating enough of a usable water source to meet the growing demand being applied to the already stressed water supply?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 10:32 am to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
quote:
Can we drink this arctic ice you speak of? Is this ice creating enough of a usable water source to meet the growing demand being applied to the already stressed water supply?
When land ice melts and flows off the land mixes with seawater.
So, no.
(though counter-intuitively the melting land ice lowers the salinity of the sea water and makes more sea ice form than would otherwise. An effect I think the denialists do not appreciate).
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 10:34 am
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News