Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 4. (Read 7373 times)

Ok, how much "dampening" do you expect?

Or would the small amount of ice melting more and more quickly be more of an indicator that the system's overall temperature was increasing?

Wow, you really missed the point.

The major problems in the paper, however, invalidate it _far_ before they get to that point:

• They misapply a test for non-stationary series (with unit roots), and falsely conclude that temperature and forcing are non-stationary.
• Based on that error, they differentiate (difference) both until their erroneous test shows stationary series.
• Proper testing shows both temperature and forcing lack unit roots, are therefore stationary, and _time series regression is therefore the proper method_ rather than differencing. Even using the unit root they apply (ADF), on appropriate data (1975 on, linear trend with variation around it), the unit root is strongly rejected.
• Therefore: Their paper is not even wrong.
• Note: this means their paper does not support or falsify either the AGW _or their null hypothesis_ - you can conclude NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that regard due to invalid techniques, and the initial error regarding unit root identification. There is no support there for your claims regarding their null hypothesis, no matter how you rephrase it.
• As is, any usage of this paper to rebut AGW and/or CO2 correlation with global temperatures should be considered pre-failed. Said attempts to do so should also be considered credibility seppuku.

Proper analysis, with time series regression, has been done by multiple investigators - ALL of them have found causal links between greenhouse gas forcing and temperature.

Heh. That's quite an image. But the point was not that the sea ice would be able to maintain an equilibrium of 32°. The point was that the melting of the ice would serve to dampen any heating effect.

However, when spread over the area  covered by Arctic sea ice, the additional energy required to melt this much sea ice is actually quite small. It corresponds to about 0.4 Wm-2 . That’s like leaving a very small and dim flashlight bulb continuously burning on every square meter of ice.

We are also not talking about a little bit of water...

Ice:

Water:

So using 2012 numbers and just polar sea ice we have a ratio of 385,294:1 in favor of water. Mean numbers since 1979 give us 45,644:1.

If we add in Greenland and the Antarctic Ice in the water (along with all other water-borne ice) you still "only" get 620,000 km3 (2005 numbers, fun paper to read: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html) for a ratio of 2112:1 in favor of water.

Even if we dump every last icicle and snowball in the ocean and clear every mountain and continent of all ice, we still only get down to 44:1 water to ice ratio.

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

THIS is why I'm sure FirstAscent was positively giddy when that analogy was used, it is so ridiculous if you look at the numbers that it beggars belief.

Thanks for the laugh guys,

Scrybe

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

Dude, we are not talking about a little bit of ice.  While the ice-in-a-glass analogy has obvious flaws, the effect would certainly have a dampening effect upon the global averages, for no other reason than the area that is 'local' to the polar ice does make up a significant portion of the globe, and cannot much exceed 32 degrees F lest the melting of the ice absorb that heat.

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.  Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September.  The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure.  Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011  trend.

"The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"

An environmentalist apologises for opposing GM and talks about how learning about Global Warming have demanded a science literacy that his anti-GM views could not survive. Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 http://buff.ly/TMDkzT

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)

Conniption fit in 3...2...1...

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.

Various groups have fought back. This is including Russian hackers, who published a huge database of UK government, scientific and university emails depicting the fixing of data to sell Global Warming, er Climate Change (as if it never changed on its own). And while taking hit after hit, the beast, like Al Qaida, will not die. As a matter of fact, the beast is on a steady come back, as it is quite useful during the down times recession. The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming "studies", which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation, as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.

Amongst the newest claims of pending disasters, is a cry that icepacks are now melting at three times the rate of the 1990s, even though there has not been any significant warming in the past 20 years. Greenland's icepack melt off, has been linked to volcanic activity under the ice, heating it. Must be the magmamen and their SUVs. These facts, however, do not faze the Gia crowd and their Elite/Governmental backers. The fact that a super storm hit the NE US is also being played as evidence of GW. Thank God that before GW no such things ever happened. How are they to explain that Russia and Eastern Europe are projected to have the coldest winter in 20 years? Oh, but I doubt my Western readers are even aware of that.

Now, with their economies in a spiral of debt laden, non-manufacturing recession (if not out and out depression), the Elites, who sense they are loosing their grip or toe hold on key economic regions outside their home regions, are once again calling out their inquisitors of Global Warming and sending them towards the developing world.

The first salvo has been fired by a British Warming dandy named Lord Nicholas Stern of Brantford, who as an academic at Whitehall, has made a career and quite a bit of money off of this scam. Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist and author of the landmark Stern review of the economics of climate change, was a close associate of Gordon Brown and the Leftists, who with the Tory counterparts and in parallel to the American Democrats/Republicans set up the grand and self destructive economic schemes that have plunged their own nations and many many others into the abyss of poverty.

The good Lord Stern, in commentary on why countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil, in other words, the BRICs, have to pony up cash and depress their own growth, made this statement for the Guardian paper: "It's a brutal arithmetic - the changing structure of the world's economy has been dramatic. That is something developing countries will have to face up to,"

His premise is that even if you take out the deindustrialized West, run away Global Warming will not stop due to the industrialized world. Its now all the fault of those raising themselves up for the destruction of the world, from the phantom joke of GW. Lord Stern tried to assure that the opening salvo was not a salvo, by stating: "I am not pointing the finger at the developing world, just looking at what is necessary. I am not accusing or proposing, just calculating what is needed [to meet scientific estimates of the emissions cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change]". More like a calculated accusation.  After all, this is not some light weight of the GIA cult, but the movement's chief economist who enjoyed the ear of the UK government: a perfect tool of the Western Elites.

Expect the cries to get louder and more shrill in the months to follow.

Stanislav Mishin

The article originally appears on author's blog, Mat Rodina

Ice albedo feedback loops positively accelerate warming. A larger polar cap reflects heat back into space. Minus polar caps (or polar caps of diminishing size), more heat is absorbed into the oceans. Same goes for glacial ice sheets.

They should publish the reviewers' comments to the manuscript.

before this get any more painful and embarrassing:

the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.

Do you know why it would?

You omitted the last sentence:

On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

I really don't entertain questions that you might take seriously, given they are derived from your silly statement.

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

Oh goody! So, what happens when we're all gathered up? Do we get a train ride?

Are you ever going to answer those questions?