There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to the next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for themselves & their money mates.
"Loss of Arctic ice is relevant to **global** warming, but not ice gain in Antarcica. Rather inconsistent" No, it is not inconsistent. If you understood the Earth system you'd quickly realize why that is so.
If the **only** change on the Earth is an expansion of Antarctic sea ice (say 500 k sqkm), there will be no change in assessment of *global temperature*.
If the **only** change on the Earth is an expansion of Arctic sea ice (same area), there will be a change in assessment of *global temperature*.
I need your help on that - please explain it to me.
Antarctica, most of it, is isolated from much of the dynamics of weather and climate from the rest of the Earth because of a very strong Antarctic circumpolar current, and consequently a very strong wind pattern that circumscribes the continent. Antarctica is a very unique place, even from the Arctic for this reason. The southern hemisphere is also very different because of the amount of land mass in the SH versus the north. Furthermore, Antarctica is a desert. cont..
Even considering the above observations. Antarctica can be seen as a virtual thermostat for the Earth, albeit one that responds VERY slowly, and not nearly as quickly as the Arctic. The poles are not in phase with each other. Consistent with observations, Antarctica has lost sea ice, however the glaciers are increasing in mass. This occurs because of a more active precipitation cycle there, consistent with warming.
"isolated from much of the dynamics of weather and climate ... land mass in the SH versus the north"
Yes, I knew that.
"virtual thermostat for the Earth"
Didn't know that (don't know what a *virtual* thermostat is in any case). This seems contradictory as a thermostat *cannot* be isolated from its surroundings.
And you missed the point - if Antarctica is *cooling*, how can that be said to have *no* effect on an assessment of *global* average temperature?
If you read fully and understood what I said, that there's a delay for Antarctica to respond. Antarctica is indeed on the Earth and henceforth cannot possibly be 100% impervious to the rest of the planet.
I understood you perfectly well when you claimed Antarctica follows the rest of the planet. Don't know if I'm convinced by it, and your point was clouded by references to some kind of *virtual thermostat".
But you still have not answered the question: if the only thing that happens is cooling at Antarctica, what impact would that have on an assessment of global mean temperature?
(Hint: it's a simple question about calculating an average. Even *I* know the answer to it.)
Well a seemingly simple question may not have a simple answer. In a broad sense, if cooling in Antarctica is observed, what's causing it? Is it the sun? Is there a change in atmospheric/oceanic patterns? What is the length of this cooling and in response to what factors? If there is a long term cooling trend in Antarctica, probably the Earth is cooling as well.
Mind you, Antarctica is difficult to assess. Currently, Western Antarctica is warming, however the interior of the continent is cooling. Does that make sense? Interestingly there's a growing range of temperatures seen in Antarctica on the whole continent. What's causing it? By the way, it is disinformative to merely claim that since the INTERIOR of Antarctica is cooling and using that to claim the whole Earth is cooling, because that's simply not true.
"it is disinformative to merely claim that since the INTERIOR of Antarctica is cooling and using that to claim the whole Earth is cooling, because that's simply not true"
Agreed - we've got to look at the whole globe.
It is similarly wrong to translate Arctic or Siberian warming into claims of global warming.
And inconsistent to claim recent Arctic ice anomaly trend is evidence of CAGW, whilst ignoring a contrary trend in Antarctica.
@gufpott It is a grave error to think the whole globe is either warming or cooling. All temps are local; a "global average" of 59 will not melt ice anywhere it's below freezing, and certainly not in Antarctica where it's -50; nor does a "global average" mean anything right now to anyone in Iowa where it's -10 below zero. Averages mean nothing. You can have a day that hovers in the 70's for 24 hrs with a higher average than a day that the temp reaches 80 with a low of 60.
We both know which day got hotter, but the irrational warmist will say the higher "average" made the day that hovered in the 70's was hotter. This is nonsense. Only actual temps should count, and if the actual temps aren't getting hotter, then there is no warming. And it's certainly not "global".
I agree. Average global temperature is unphysical. It is about as sensible as the average one-breasted, one testacled human being.
There is some custom and practice in climatology using trends of average temperatures. Frankly I find the whole thing hopelessly flawed for a number of reasons.
But when others make points about global averages, it is often tempting to get drawn in to help them test their own logic. Sorry 'bout that.
The other data sets are essentially a repeat of the discredited HS analysis. The divergence issue is evident in all of them. Briffa so divergent that the IPCC hid the last 30 years.
See what happens when Loehle(2007) creates a reconstruction without the assumption that tree rings record temperature.
Quite amusing, layman? Why do you feel the desire for ad hominems? Is this what you require to elevate yourself in an argument?
Ooooh, all-time high Antarctic ice extent last year? Learn something about the 'geo-physiology' of Antarctica and get back to me and let me know the relevance of your statement.
If you actually read the IPCC report, you'd be aware of the great many data sets that we're analyzed. By you relying on one, Briffa, and using it discredit the science, is ignorant.
Loss of Arctic ice is relevant to **global** warming, but not ice gain in Antarcica. Rather inconsistent, don't you think jffry
On Briffa, perhaps you can explain the scientific rationale for omitting the last 30 years. Until then, why should anybody listen to the IPCC?
Layman should remind you that you are not above others - as you are prone to claim. Look at is as a way to keep your arrogance in check - your credibility will be the better for it in the long term.
Despite the fact that many other data sets support the 'hockey stick', do recall that Arctic ice is receding. I'd find it compelling that no temperature increases result in reduced Arctic ice, if your argument holds. Perhaps your analysis of the data isn't very robust. Son, you have to understand the Earth if you are to understand the data we acquire from it.
Fools will hand their freedoms and their country to the IPCC.................
bfpccbm 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
.
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to the next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for themselves & their money mates.
BOB CARTER
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
"Loss of Arctic ice is relevant to **global** warming, but not ice gain in Antarcica. Rather inconsistent" No, it is not inconsistent. If you understood the Earth system you'd quickly realize why that is so.
Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, lay man.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
" No, it is not inconsistent."
Let's be absolutely clear about this jffry.
If the **only** change on the Earth is an expansion of Antarctic sea ice (say 500 k sqkm), there will be no change in assessment of *global temperature*.
If the **only** change on the Earth is an expansion of Arctic sea ice (same area), there will be a change in assessment of *global temperature*.
I need your help on that - please explain it to me.
gufpott 3 years ago
Antarctica, most of it, is isolated from much of the dynamics of weather and climate from the rest of the Earth because of a very strong Antarctic circumpolar current, and consequently a very strong wind pattern that circumscribes the continent. Antarctica is a very unique place, even from the Arctic for this reason. The southern hemisphere is also very different because of the amount of land mass in the SH versus the north. Furthermore, Antarctica is a desert. cont..
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Even considering the above observations. Antarctica can be seen as a virtual thermostat for the Earth, albeit one that responds VERY slowly, and not nearly as quickly as the Arctic. The poles are not in phase with each other. Consistent with observations, Antarctica has lost sea ice, however the glaciers are increasing in mass. This occurs because of a more active precipitation cycle there, consistent with warming.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Thanks jffry
"isolated from much of the dynamics of weather and climate ... land mass in the SH versus the north"
Yes, I knew that.
"virtual thermostat for the Earth"
Didn't know that (don't know what a *virtual* thermostat is in any case). This seems contradictory as a thermostat *cannot* be isolated from its surroundings.
And you missed the point - if Antarctica is *cooling*, how can that be said to have *no* effect on an assessment of *global* average temperature?
gufpott 3 years ago
If you read fully and understood what I said, that there's a delay for Antarctica to respond. Antarctica is indeed on the Earth and henceforth cannot possibly be 100% impervious to the rest of the planet.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffry
I understood you perfectly well when you claimed Antarctica follows the rest of the planet. Don't know if I'm convinced by it, and your point was clouded by references to some kind of *virtual thermostat".
But you still have not answered the question: if the only thing that happens is cooling at Antarctica, what impact would that have on an assessment of global mean temperature?
(Hint: it's a simple question about calculating an average. Even *I* know the answer to it.)
gufpott 3 years ago
Well a seemingly simple question may not have a simple answer. In a broad sense, if cooling in Antarctica is observed, what's causing it? Is it the sun? Is there a change in atmospheric/oceanic patterns? What is the length of this cooling and in response to what factors? If there is a long term cooling trend in Antarctica, probably the Earth is cooling as well.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Mind you, Antarctica is difficult to assess. Currently, Western Antarctica is warming, however the interior of the continent is cooling. Does that make sense? Interestingly there's a growing range of temperatures seen in Antarctica on the whole continent. What's causing it? By the way, it is disinformative to merely claim that since the INTERIOR of Antarctica is cooling and using that to claim the whole Earth is cooling, because that's simply not true.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
"it is disinformative to merely claim that since the INTERIOR of Antarctica is cooling and using that to claim the whole Earth is cooling, because that's simply not true"
Agreed - we've got to look at the whole globe.
It is similarly wrong to translate Arctic or Siberian warming into claims of global warming.
And inconsistent to claim recent Arctic ice anomaly trend is evidence of CAGW, whilst ignoring a contrary trend in Antarctica.
gufpott 3 years ago
@gufpott It is a grave error to think the whole globe is either warming or cooling. All temps are local; a "global average" of 59 will not melt ice anywhere it's below freezing, and certainly not in Antarctica where it's -50; nor does a "global average" mean anything right now to anyone in Iowa where it's -10 below zero. Averages mean nothing. You can have a day that hovers in the 70's for 24 hrs with a higher average than a day that the temp reaches 80 with a low of 60.
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
We both know which day got hotter, but the irrational warmist will say the higher "average" made the day that hovered in the 70's was hotter. This is nonsense. Only actual temps should count, and if the actual temps aren't getting hotter, then there is no warming. And it's certainly not "global".
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
4TIMESAYEAR
I agree. Average global temperature is unphysical. It is about as sensible as the average one-breasted, one testacled human being.
There is some custom and practice in climatology using trends of average temperatures. Frankly I find the whole thing hopelessly flawed for a number of reasons.
But when others make points about global averages, it is often tempting to get drawn in to help them test their own logic. Sorry 'bout that.
gufpott 2 years ago
I understand - great analogies regarding averages, lol!
anoniab 2 years ago
Layman jffry
Did you notice the all-time-high Antarctic ice extent last year?
arctic. atmos. uiuc. edu/ cryosphere/ IMAGES/ current. anom. south. jpg
The other data sets are essentially a repeat of the discredited HS analysis. The divergence issue is evident in all of them. Briffa so divergent that the IPCC hid the last 30 years.
See what happens when Loehle(2007) creates a reconstruction without the assumption that tree rings record temperature.
gufpott 3 years ago
Quite amusing, layman? Why do you feel the desire for ad hominems? Is this what you require to elevate yourself in an argument?
Ooooh, all-time high Antarctic ice extent last year? Learn something about the 'geo-physiology' of Antarctica and get back to me and let me know the relevance of your statement.
If you actually read the IPCC report, you'd be aware of the great many data sets that we're analyzed. By you relying on one, Briffa, and using it discredit the science, is ignorant.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Loss of Arctic ice is relevant to **global** warming, but not ice gain in Antarcica. Rather inconsistent, don't you think jffry
On Briffa, perhaps you can explain the scientific rationale for omitting the last 30 years. Until then, why should anybody listen to the IPCC?
Layman should remind you that you are not above others - as you are prone to claim. Look at is as a way to keep your arrogance in check - your credibility will be the better for it in the long term.
gufpott 3 years ago
Despite the fact that many other data sets support the 'hockey stick', do recall that Arctic ice is receding. I'd find it compelling that no temperature increases result in reduced Arctic ice, if your argument holds. Perhaps your analysis of the data isn't very robust. Son, you have to understand the Earth if you are to understand the data we acquire from it.
jffryfnt 3 years ago