Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Has Global Warming Peaked?

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 20:29:23

That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.


sorry but it is exactly how we got Plate Tectonics. It started with Alfred Wegener who proposed drifting continents. He was torn apart by his critics and rightfully so at the time, he just didn't have much proof. Move forward to the sixties and some of the young geophysicists working out of Caltech and Berkeley....magnetic striping on the seafloor suggestive of plate motions but not enough there to form a comprehensive theory (I have the book sitting in my shelf that walks through that very neat period of time called Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic reversals by Cox). Move forward to J. Tuzo Wilson who really is credited with the theory of plate tectonics. Wilson had a hard time convincing his peers, there was lots of discussion and lots of pulling apart of the various components of the theory. And even after it was generally accepted (lets say around the late seventies for arguments sake) there were people like Art Meyerhoff (God rest his soul) who continually pointed out some of the problems of that theory (eg: the so-called Benioff zone was not a zone when you looked at it in 3D, it was a scatter plot). Those arguments were all looked at and generally accepted after some discussion and the theory evolved. The period from the mid-seventies through the late eighties was an incredible period of advancement in understanding of earth's tectonic mechanisms and history. Rockman was there at A&M with a few of the scientists I knew quite well who were continually adding and adjusting concepts into that theory. The point being that any questions brought up about the theory were answered, any points that didn't seem to make sense because of new information or reinterpretation of old information caused those involved with pushing the theory forward to adjust it. There was no one out there calling anyone else in the science a denier, skeptical views were welcomed and argued in the open amongst colleagues and not in the press. How do I know this?....well I was there, grad school, teaching and then into the oil industry through that period, I knew many of the key players personally. The history of the evolution of plate tectonic theory bears no comparison whatsoever to what is going on now.
I can't comment directly on the evolution of the theory of relatively other than to state....is there anyone out there in the press calling someone a denier because they are questioning certain aspects of the theory? Are there scientists still looking into aspects of relativity? The answer is yes, just do a perusal of the literature. Are there scientists who feel uncomfortable about questioning aspects of Einsteins theory? The answer is no as far as I can tell. Completely different.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 21:00:16

Your references utterly fail to prove your claim.


Look dipshit this is what I was responding to:

Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic


And I’m afraid that many, many scientists have taken the view that the problems (especially modeling) can be solved through a stochastic approach. Those papers I pointed to (and there are actually scores more) use probabilistic approaches to climate change modeling/projections simply because there are unknowns and a range of those which makes the problem not properly sovlvable through a deterministic approach. As an example the actual uncertainty regarding radiative forcing has not changed since TAR, it is uncertain. To state otherwise flies in the face of tens of scientists who worked on the science portion of TAR, AR4 and AR5. You ramble on about atmospheric physics as if the measurements that have been made have zero error. The only way that a deterministic approach to modeling climate can be used is either as a single projection (with all the assumptions being stated) or if you can show there is zero uncertainty with the measurements. We know for a fact the latter is not true, the IPCC has laid that out in their last two publications and authors such as Curry make a point of this and there are scads of publications that point this out. And the very fact that there is a huge spread on the various climate models tells us the problem is not a deterministic one, otherwise, all of those models would be replicative (and they are certainly not).

But the shill wants you to think that greenhouse gases show intrinsic variability in their effects. No, they do not. The only variation is from surface and cloud albedo in the radiative transfer equations. And as already noted, this variation is not important for surface ice and snow trends and cloud albedo variations are not showing any trends that matter. In fact, the IR trapping by ice clouds (cirrus) in the tropopause region due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation driven increase of atmospheric H2O is significant and acting to amplify the warming. (Ice clouds are mostly transparent to visible light so their albedo effect is not important, but they are effective at trapping IR).


Ok now that you have impressed us with your understanding of atmospheric physics perhaps you can address the actual points I was making rather than trying to change the subject. Did I not say that nobody argues that greenhouse gases have an impact on climate? Yes I did, several times in fact. What I did say that you completely ignore here is HOW MUCH. You don’t bother to argue that all of those studies on ECS/TCS are wrong…..why is that? My guess is because you cannot. No matter all the ramblings you have on atmospheric physics, which nobody here has ever argued against, the issue becomes the uncertainty with respect to how big an impact CO2 has in a complex system, not in a single set of equations as you would like to characterize it but in the real world where it is actually possible to back-calculate the impact of increased greenhouse gases in the system (done by scores of scientists and published). Are you actually trying to argue they are all wrong?

You can see how absurd they are when Exxon spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fund clowns like the resident geology shill as if Exxon is going to keep on pumping oil for the next millenium. Exxon is run by the same desiccated brain cretins that also deny global warming. It is time to treat them as the criminals they are.


This comment pretty much describes what kind of moron you are. You may have an understanding of atmospheric physics but you have absolutely no understanding of the real world. Why would Exxon or any other company for that matter give a flying frig about what anyone like you thinks on this site? Why would they pay anyone to come here and spout their views? They wouldn’t. I would not mind getting paid some of that fictious oil money. , but I’m sorry it doesn’t exist, it never has. And Exxon has made billions of dollars as a corporation and millions for it’s shareholders at the sametime as providing ingrates such as yourself with the energy you need to live the lifestyle you do. Do you actually think you would have a computer to type on if there weren't oil companies looking for oil and gas? Good luck with that. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 02:58:16

by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Cog » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 03:44:16

clif wrote:
by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?


He provided considerable evidence that this is the case. Some of my best friends are dipshits and go on to live kick ass lives. Perhaps you should fill out a hurt feelings report because that is always taken seriously.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 04:34:19

More and more confusion is creeping into GW/CC area.
Now one of co-founders of Greenpeace have called GW/CC to be politically and ideologically driven nonsense and is claiming that human CO2 emissions actually restored historical natural balance and helped to save life from starvation:
https://www.rt.com/news/453382-greenpea ... ming-scam/
I hate to "appeal to authority and believe whatever they say" but entire CC argumentation becomes hopelessly politicized these days and it is more and more confusing as we speak and credibilty is going down because of this political dance around a subject.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 06:10:26

EnergyUnlimited wrote:More and more confusion is creeping into GW/CC area.
Now one of co-founders of Greenpeace have called GW/CC to be politically and ideologically driven nonsense and is claiming that human CO2 emissions actually restored historical natural balance and helped to save life from starvation:
https://www.rt.com/news/453382-greenpea ... ming-scam/
I hate to "appeal to authority and believe whatever they say" but entire CC argumentation becomes hopelessly politicized these days and it is more and more confusing as we speak and credibilty is going down because of this political dance around a subject.


All the more reason to go back to the position I stated on page two of this thread.

But as to the question "Has global warming peaked?" I would not agree with that unless the worlds glaciers stopped retreading and began to gain total mass for a few years. They are an unbiased source untroubled by politics and not in need of a funding source or need to publish.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9857
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Ibon » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 07:20:33

vtsnowedin wrote:All the more reason to go back to the position I stated on page two of this thread.

But as to the question "Has global warming peaked?" I would not agree with that unless the worlds glaciers stopped retreading and began to gain total mass for a few years. They are an unbiased source untroubled by politics and not in need of a funding source or need to publish.


There is more to this wise observation than how it reflects the truth of global warming. It is the base line one should use in all of the greater repercussions human overshoot is having on our mother earth.

There are consequences indisputable regardless of how much humans squirm to rationalize some particular bias.

Funny how reality always wins!
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 10:56:29

clif wrote:
by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?


No it is not. But part of the problem is that so many here indulge in such langeage and the moderation staff is short.

To a large degree the level of discourse should be self moderated, posters should act as adults. And the community needs to determine the level of maturity and civility.

Yes moderators will intervene when necessary, but we went baby sitters.

Set good examples.

Rockdoc123, allow me to remind you such language Deeply undermines your position. But also, knock it off!
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 10:58:50

Cog wrote:
clif wrote:
by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?


He provided considerable evidence that this is the case. Some of my best friends are dipshits and go on to live kick ass lives. Perhaps you should fill out a hurt feelings report because that is always taken seriously.


Cog,

This isn’t about hurt feelings, it’s about civil discourse. You can do it, it seems what you can’t do is to restrain yourself from fanning the flame.

I’m reminded of the comedian, (Randy White?) who when arrested said “I had the right the remain silent, I didn’t have the ability.”
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jawagord » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 11:04:04

rockdoc123 wrote:
That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.

.....I can't comment directly on the evolution of the theory of relatively other than to state....is there anyone out there in the press calling someone a denier because they are questioning certain aspects of the theory? Are there scientists still looking into aspects of relativity? The answer is yes, just do a perusal of the literature. Are there scientists who feel uncomfortable about questioning aspects of Einsteins theory? The answer is no as far as I can tell. Completely different.


Rocdoc you are too well versed in the subject of geology for this group. And I’m sure you know more about these other disciplines than most? Relativity is not my subject either but when holes appear it’s still being challenged, as good science should be, on the other hand doomsday cults require us to look away and unquestioningly drink the koolaid. Can you imagine what 100 years of challenge will do to Climate Science theory!

AP) -- For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party - which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" - has tried to find cracks in his work.

On Thursday, the world's biggest physics lab unveiled a shocking finding: that one type of subatomic particle was clocked going faster than the speed of light. If true - a big if, even the scientists there concede - it could undercut Einstein's theories. Physicist Michio Kaku of City College of New York called it "the biggest challenge to relativity in 100 years."

Antonio Ereditato, who participated in the European experiment as head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics in Bern, knows what is at stake. After his team fielded two hours of technical questions, some a bit sharp, from a skeptical audience Friday, Ereditato had a beer in hand and was asked about the idea that his work was challenging the secular saint of modern physics. "Yes, that's why I'm concerned," he said with a laugh.

Harvard University science historian Peter Galison said Einstein's relativity theories have been challenged and "pushed on as hard as any theory in the history of physical sciences ever" and they have survived.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-einstein-venture.html#jCp
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 11:06:44

Ibon wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:All the more reason to go back to the position I stated on page two of this thread.

But as to the question "Has global warming peaked?" I would not agree with that unless the worlds glaciers stopped retreading and began to gain total mass for a few years. They are an unbiased source untroubled by politics and not in need of a funding source or need to publish.


There is more to this wise observation than how it reflects the truth of global warming. It is the base line one should use in all of the greater repercussions human overshoot is having on our mother earth.

There are consequences indisputable regardless of how much humans squirm to rationalize some particular bias.

Funny how reality always wins!


Exactly, the in onto ertable (incontrovertible), tangible evidence exists. It’s outside, particularly in the North. On merely needs to be open to it.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 11:08:38

Ibon wrote:Funny how reality always wins!

Could you imagine a situation, when reality have lost?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 13:37:15

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Ibon wrote:Funny how reality always wins!

Could you imagine a situation, when reality have lost?

The human mind is a funny thing, it can deny reality. This capability could have had certain evolutionary advantages. Our perception afterall, constitutes alot of "our" reality. But, though we may ignore reality we cannot ignore its consequences. Wanting to believe the "truth" of something can be a very strong force.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 13:52:33

rockdoc123 wrote:Image

I tracked down the source of that graph.
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2016/0 ... _2016-.pdf

That is some Scientific Paper:
more than 1350 peer-reviewed papers
which express reservations about dangerous anthropogenic CO2
warming and/or insist on the natural variability of climate ... Bose-Einstein population factor ... Earth (0.04% of
CO2), the Moon (no atmosphere), Venus (96% of CO2), Mars, Titan (a
moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). ... ocean heat content down to abyssal depths ... tide gauge data ... continuous increase of the Antarctic sea ice area/extent anomaly ... temperature measured by satellite in the low
stratosphere ... change of earth albedo related to aerosols emitted by volcanic eruptions ... CO2 seasonal oscillations measured in 2013 compared to early measurements of 1969 at La Jolla, California ... benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthes

... and much more.
All in 5 pages!
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 16:27:44

I tracked down the source of that graph.
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2016/0 ... _2016-.pdf

That is some Scientific Paper:


The information comes from that paper in figure 1 but the actual graph posted appeared as Figure 7 in:

Scafetta, N, et al, 2017. Natural climate variability, part 2: Interpretation of the post 2000 temperature standstill. Int Jour of Heat and Tech, V35, pp S18-S26. DOI: 10.18280/ijht.35Sp0103

I used that graph as it was immediately handy but perhaps a better one showing the range was made by Nic Lewis (albeit more out of date than Scafetta's as it only includes up to 2013 studies)

Image
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 17:19:41

Rockdock123,

You are following the deniers MO to a tee.

You always cast doubt upon other folks.
You never come up with a credible alternative theory.
Never state what your predictions are, never go out on a limb.

You know I once met a girl who insisted she was a Virgin, demanded we proved her wrong, show who the Daddy was, said test results were wrong, and besides Jesus was of a Virgin birth. But month by month her belly grew.

So what do you think of the assertion that the Arctic ice is melting, the glaciers retreating?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 17:49:55

by jawagord » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:04 pm

rockdoc123 wrote:

That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.


.....I can't comment directly on the evolution of the theory of relatively other than to state....is there anyone out there in the press calling someone a denier because they are questioning certain aspects of the theory? Are there scientists still looking into aspects of relativity? The answer is yes, just do a perusal of the literature. Are there scientists who feel uncomfortable about questioning aspects of Einsteins theory? The answer is no as far as I can tell. Completely different.



Rocdoc you are too well versed in the subject of geology for this group. And I’m sure you know more about these other disciplines than most? Relativity is not my subject either but when holes appear it’s still being challenged, as good science should be, on the other hand doomsday cults require us to look away and unquestioningly drink the koolaid. Can you imagine what 100 years of challenge will do to Climate Science theory!

AP) -- For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party - which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" - has tried to find cracks in his work.

On Thursday, the world's biggest physics lab unveiled a shocking finding: that one type of subatomic particle was clocked going faster than the speed of light. If true - a big if, even the scientists there concede - it could undercut Einstein's theories. Physicist Michio Kaku of City College of New York called it "the biggest challenge to relativity in 100 years."

Antonio Ereditato, who participated in the European experiment as head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics in Bern, knows what is at stake. After his team fielded two hours of technical questions, some a bit sharp, from a skeptical audience Friday, Ereditato had a beer in hand and was asked about the idea that his work was challenging the secular saint of modern physics. "Yes, that's why I'm concerned," he said with a laugh.

Harvard University science historian Peter Galison said Einstein's relativity theories have been challenged and "pushed on as hard as any theory in the history of physical sciences ever" and they have survived.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-einstein-venture.html#jCp


ya know there used to be a radio personality call ed Paul harvey, who used a line;

The rest of the story.......

and here it is;

The supposed faster than speed of light neutrino experiment ...... did NOT prove Einstein's theory wrong at all.

Neutrinos not faster than light

ICARUS experiment contradicts controversial claim. Neutrinos obey nature's speed limit, according to new results from an Italian experiment. The finding, posted to the preprint server arXiv.org, contradicts a rival claim that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light.


And the people making the original claims admitted as such;

https://www.nature.com/news/neutrinos-n ... ht-1.10249

In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly observed neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light. Even before the mistake was discovered, the result was considered anomalous because speeds higher than that of light in a vacuum are generally thought to violate special relativity, a cornerstone of the modern understanding of physics for over a century.

OPERA scientists announced the results of the experiment in September 2011 with the stated intent of promoting further inquiry and debate.<b> Later the team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. </b>The errors were first confirmed by OPERA after a Science Insider report; accounting for these two sources of error eliminated the faster-than-light results.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-th ... no_anomaly

So the only thing actually factual about your post is;

Relativity is not my subject, neither does it seem to be climate science......

Hint when you post a link from 2011 to make some obscure point, make sure the actual science hasn't been updated since with better data even if that data says the original claim was incorrect because of less than rigorous science .....
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 18:38:15

You always cast doubt upon other folks.
You never come up with a credible alternative theory.
Never state what your predictions are, never go out on a limb.


OK. How many times do I have to explain to you how science advances?
Please find for me somewhere where it states that in order to critique some aspect of science you must have an alternative theory? It doesn’t exist because if such a requirement existed science would stand still. Have you ever bothered to read a Discussion published in any scientific journal? The rules generally around such Discussions are you can only address what was put forward in the paper your Discussion refers to, you can critique, make corrections, argue against the math or introduce other references but one thing you cannot do is offer up an alternative theory. Science advances in this manner.

You need to get over this misunderstanding. Not everything in life is immediately explainable, that is why research continues.

So what do you think of the assertion that the Arctic ice is melting, the glaciers retreating?


Exactly what does that have to do with anything? The Arctic ice was melting a long, long time before man could have had any influence, same with glaciers. And you are attempting to correlate this with what? Global temperature? CO2? Correlation doesn’t mean causation.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 19:46:26

You could have just said “I don’t know, we will just have to wait and see what happens. Science is totally ineffective as a practical planning tool.

And as to the Arctic ice melting before human intervention please provide proof.

You got ice extent and volume data back to 1850 or so?

And yes correlation does not mean causation, but you need it to prove your point. As you are disputing the claim it’s up to you to show an alternative theory consistent with observations.

Which takes me back to my earlier question to you:

1- Do you think Earth is warming, stable, or cooling. So you think it is warming. Good, one answer.
2-What is your hypothesis to substantiate the above. In less than a thousand words please.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 20:55:56

And as to the Arctic ice melting before human intervention please provide proof.


Bengtsson, L, 2004. The early twentieth-century warming it the Arctic – a possible mechanism. Journal of Climate, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<4045:TETWIT>2.0.CO;2

The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C. Whether this event is an example of an internal climate mode or is externally forced, such as by enhanced solar effects, is presently under debate. This study suggests that natural variability is a likely cause, with reduced sea ice cover being crucial for the warming. A robust sea ice–air temperature relationship was demonstrated by a set of four simulations with the atmospheric ECHAM model forced with observed SST and sea ice concentrations. An analysis of the spatial characteristics of the observed early twentieth-century surface air temperature anomaly revealed that it was associated with similar sea ice variations. Further investigation of the variability of Arctic surface temperature and sea ice cover was performed by analyzing data from a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. By analyzing climate anomalies in the model that are similar to those that occurred in the early twentieth century, it was found that the simulated temperature increase in the Arctic was related to enhanced wind-driven oceanic inflow into the Barents Sea with an associated sea ice retreat. The magnitude of the inflow is linked to the strength of westerlies into the Barents Sea. This study proposes a mechanism sustaining the enhanced westerly winds by a cyclonic atmospheric circulation in the Barents Sea region created by a strong surface heat flux over the ice-free areas. Observational data suggest a similar series of events during the early twentieth-century Arctic warming, including increasing westerly winds between Spitsbergen and Norway, reduced sea ice, and enhanced cyclonic circulation over the Barents Sea. At the same time, the North Atlantic Oscillation was weakening.


Koerner, R.M., Ice core evidence for extensive melting of the Greenland ice sheet in the last interglacial. Science, V 244, pp 964-968. DOI: 10.1126/science.244.4907.964

[quote]Evidence from ice at the bottom of ice cores from the Canadian Arctic Islands and Camp Century and Dye-3 in Greenland suggests that the Greenland ice sheet melted extensively or completely during the last interglacial period more than 100 ka (thousand years ago), in contrast to earlier interpretations. The presence of dirt particles in the basal ice has previously been thought to indicate that the base of the ice sheets had melted and that the evidence for the time of original growth of these ice masses had been destroyed. However, the particles most likely blew onto the ice when the dimensions of the ice caps and ice sheets were much smaller. Ice texture, gas content, and other evidence also suggest that the basal ice at each drill site is superimposed ice, a type of ice typical of the early growth stages of an ice cap or ice sheet. If the present-day ice masses began their growth during the last interglacial, the ice sheet from the earlier (Illinoian) glacial period must have competely or largely melted during the early part of the same interglacial period. If such melting did occur, the 6-meter higher-than-present sea level during the Sangamon cannot be attributed to disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, as has been suggested.[/quote]


And yes correlation does not mean causation, but you need it to prove your point. As you are disputing the claim it’s up to you to show an alternative theory consistent with observations.


As I said, there is no onus to show an alternative theory consistent with observations....that is not the way science works. Finding holes in theories via testing against observations etc is one of the most important pieces of scientific research. Pointing out flaws in a theory does not need validation by supplying an alternative theory. And what "claim" am I disputing? You made no claim whatsoever. And what "point" did I supposedly make? What I said was correlation does not mean causation...I don't think that needs proving does it?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests