Climate-gate

[Billy T]

I don't know or care what the red dot is ploting, if anything. The post ice dam break dumped, in late June 2012, the largest volume ever of Mackenzie river water in history very quickly - so quick that it did not cool down to 12C until it started to melt ice. 2012 is a rare anomaly that should just be ignored (and was in the exponential curve fit.) The 2012 anomaly is well understood. The worst ever anomaly (1981 / 82) was probably due to same effect. After it also a few years passed before return to normal trend was restored. - See final graph.

Above is sea surface temperatures where the Mackenzie River hits the Beaufort Sea on June 14, 2012 a week or so before the ice dam broke.

Satellite image from July 5, 2012, shows the way warm (up to 12C) water flooded the Beaufort Sea after the ice dam broke.

It may take a year for that massive and sudden injection of warm water to completely cool down to the ice's temperature, and the volume of ice to recover back to its relatively steady exponential decline curve.

Note: A large part of why the last few cycles are below the trend line is that this line is a LINEAR fit to an exponentially (due to at least six known positive feed backs feeding on each other.) - I. e. that is by definition almost requiring an exponential fit. (ANY effect that increases by the prior effect is exponentially growing.) Note also, for the same reason all of the prior decade is above the linearized trend line - That is what happens when exponential effects are linearized and then used for projections into the future, as the IPCC does.

 

[sculptor]

My main bitch with fracking the bakken shale is the goldrush mentality toward waste and environmental degradation.
Here's a pix showing the flaring and riglights of the bakken .

The mad rush to drill and secure the oil means that the drillers are way out ahead of the infrastructure needed to optimize the extracted energy. Much oil is trucked to pipeline entrepoints, while the gas is just flared off.
What piggish disregard for the environment drives these decisions?
I'm disgusted.

 

[billvon]

I don't know or care what the red dot is ploting, if anything. The post ice dam break dumped, in late June 2012, the largest volume ever of Mackenzie river water in history very quickly - so quick that it did not cool down to 12C until it started to melt ice. 2012 is a rare anomaly that should just be ignored . . .

OK, it's an anomaly.

Note: A large part of why the last few cycles are below the trend line is that this line is a LINEAR fit to an exponentially (due to at least six known positive feed backs feeding on each other.) - I. e. that is by definition almost requiring an exponential fit. (ANY effect that increases by the prior effect is exponentially growing.) Note also, for the same reason all of the prior decade is above the linearized trend line - That is what happens when exponential effects are linearized and then used for projections into the future, as the IPCC does.

If we ignore the data from 2012 (and its effect on subsequent years) you get a pretty good linear fit.

 

[Billy T]

... If we ignore the data from 2012 (and its effect on subsequent years) you get a pretty good linear fit.

Yes if you don't mind a decade with all the data above the linear line and then all the data below the linear line which is passing thur a downward curving exponential.

Want to correct my estimate of the probablity of that happening by chance if the effect were actually linear?
I think it about the same as 10 heads followed by 5 tails with an honest coin: I.e.
0.5^10 times 0.5^5 = 0.5^15 = 0.5^16/ 0.5 = 0.25^8 /0.5 = 0.625^4 /0.5 = 0.00390652^2 /0.5 = 0.000,305 .... (not even once in 10,000 times!)

 

[billvon]

Yes if you don't mind a decade with all the data above the linear line and then all the data below the linear line which is passing thur a downward curving exponential.

It's passing through the downward curving exponential because of the very event you said should be ignored!

 

[Billy T]

It's passing through the downward curving exponential because of the very event you said should be ignored!

And what did I say "should be ignored"? Where did I say that in a post? - I really have no idea what you are referring to and want to know - to learn the context, assuming I did say to ignore something.

By first edit: I found it. Yes it in post 1421. I said the the 2012 anomalous event should be ignored in the curve fitting, but not that it should be ignored.

In fact, 90+% of post 1421 is directly about that anomaly - I'm not ignoring it at all - You dropped the context. That made me not at first understand even what you were speaking of. It could happen again and if does would be the 7th feed back* that is rapidly melting ice.

Making the IPCC's linear projection (even revised from "after 2100" to "after 2050") of when the Arctic will first be ice free briefly all the more silly - false.

* Here I assume that the other 6 feed backs made the rate of ice bergs "caving" of ice faster and the wind pushed them together against the mouth of the Mackenzie River, sealing it up until the growing water pressure broke thru the ice dam, releasing flood of >12C water so fast it did not cool much before cooling against the ice.

PS I have edited many times: correcting typos and adding bolds, red color, last paragraph + footnote, but first edit was before your post 1427 as I only went back 4 post looking for my "ignore" - fond it quickly.

 

[billvon]

And what did I say "should be ignored"? Where did I say that in a post? - I really have no idea what you are referring to and want to know - to learn the context, assuming I did say to ignore something.

From your post at the top of the page:

I don't know or care what the red dot is ploting, if anything. The post ice dam break dumped, in late June 2012, the largest volume ever of Mackenzie river water in history very quickly - so quick that it did not cool down to 12C until it started to melt ice. 2012 is a rare anomaly that should just be ignored.

 

[Photizo]

http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/


Why the left has an advantage:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/humans-naturally-follow-crowd-behavior-1410543908 ...lemmings abound.

 

[Billy T]

I thought it might be useful to list the major feed backs, accelerating the rate of Arctic ice melting - all of which are changing and at best "frozen" in IPCC snap shot of conditions at one time.
(1) Every square meter of floating ice melted, increases the solar heating there by more than a factor of four.
(2) More open water gives more "reach" to the wind that makes the waves stronger and increases their thermal dissipation heating (oceans wave energy)
(3) Stronger waves colliding with thinner first year ice edges breaks off ice pieces, making their periphery for collecting heat from the warmer surface water at least double.
(4) The ice chunks are blown from their origin over warmer water - adding bottom side melting too; yet if not widely spaced, are counted by satellites as ice covered area.
(5) The higher average humidity of the air adds more heat (80 calories/ gram) to the ices when that vapor condenses on the ice surface - adding more "top heating too."
(6) Forest fires, larger and more frequent with GW, are depositing soot on the ice - lowering its albedo faster each year. With (7) a big effect in Greenland's mile thick ice.
(7) Faster "top melting" from (5) & (6) is exposing the deep, once covered soot - a big step function as each layer of volcanic dust is exposed.
(8) Small part of Gulf Steam now enters and flows along the Siberian coast, but most still sinks to drive the Thermo-Haline pump sending water along the bottom even into Indian ocean. That bottom heating is why the tiny, only couple years ago, CH4 "bubble clouds" are now often a kilometer or so in diameter along Siberian coast.
(9) The greater expansion of the lower latitude oceans with temperature rise (not much of that happening in Arctic water except on surface in summer while ice is melting) is thus receiving flow of warmer water (going down "the gravitational hill" to restore the equal gravitational potential surface.)
(10) Yes the new one: Ice blown by wind is (or can) block the steady out flow of rivers in Russian and Canada, with ice dams til they break and dump the spring thaws too rapidly for the water to cool off before reaching the not yet melted ice.

Too bad IPCC's reports ignore all of the changes above with constant feed backs frozen in their one time "snap shot" of conditions, and then makes it worse by describing those conditions in linearized CONSTANT radiative forcing terms; but that sure makes the oil employees members of their committees and the governments that MUST approve and do re-word the reports before they can be released, happy. - Most of the governments have weak economies now - don't want to do anything about GW that would require tax increases, etc. GW is like growing government debts - a gift to leave to the next generations.

Perhaps some good will come from the IPCC's procedures - If the graduate business schools make it into a case study of how to do political compromise, and yet get many to believe it is science being done. Not really much new in this - The tax payer has been screwed by the governments and oil companies for decades.
Do you know how much we are paying for the IPCC's white wash of the GW problem? If not, I'll try to find the answer, but not good at searching.

 

[billvon]

I thought it might be useful to list the major feed backs, accelerating the rate of Arctic ice melting - all of which are changing and at best "frozen" in IPCC snap shot of conditions at one time. (1) . . . . (9)

All good potential positive feedbacks. Now what negative feedback mechanisms do you see in operation?

Perhaps some good will come from the IPCC's procedures - If the graduate business school make it into a case study of how to do political compromise, and yet get many to believe it is science being done.

As you mentioned before, it is essential to do modeling with empirical data, rather than hypotheticals. The IPCC has done their modeling with empirical data, which is why they have made the most accurate predictions of any climate change organization out there.

 

[Billy T]

It's passing through the downward curving exponential because of the very event you said should be ignored!

No that is false - The first and largest down step of the three with more than 2 sigma change from trend happened in 2010, the second largest was half over before the ice dam broke in late June 2012, the smallest of the three down steps braking the 2 sigma line was finished well before the ice dam even formed. You are asserting the ice melt was clairvoyant. - Knew the ice dam would form and break in late June 2012 - Perhaps you should retract this silly assertion?

Again, even after being told, you drop the context to mis quote me. - The anomaly of 2012 ice dam should be ignored in the fitting to trend's (exponential) curve for the data - very standard curve fitting procedure is to ignor data point with more than 2 sigma conflict to all others. The 2012 point is at least 3 sigma out of the norm. Some curve fitting programs reject even 1 sigma, when it is the only one to throw out.

 

[Billy T]

http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/ ...

First summary point from your silly link was:
" This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded. "
Well not "all" - mainly that of the IPCC. Another (read more below) has averge error of only 12% for last 300 years or so, but before ~1880 their ST becomes just linear.

Note the 5-year mean is definitely falling now.

IPCC predicted a rise - bad model compare to this one (below) which uses only two terms (and one is simple sign wave - other a mild exponential after 1880 ~ when coal burning became significant. - prior to then they use a linear term probably just reflecting population growth, yet reproduce the data with only 12% average error)!

They called it right years BEFORE down turn!
IPCC called it wrong even AFTER facts were known. (Due to year of delay for governments to approve and or reword the IPCC report text.)!

First "denier's" quote above is exactly the non-sense I predicted would come creeping out of the wood-work, when IPCC's bad predictions were not being met. - I. e. temperature rise halted (or even beginning to turn down - as models with the MDV sine wave predicted more correctly some years earlier):

{post 1413} The worst thing about the IPCC's being wrong (as show in post 1411) and for reasons I have often discussed, is that climate change deniers can point to the currently beginning hiatus in temperature rise, if it continues about a decade, as the more accurate empirical models* predicted even before it started, until growing GHGs do over come the MDV decline period that has started and very likely is responsible for this hiatus and say:

"See - we told you so. - The global warming has stopped and CO2 continues to increase! - GW was all a left wing hoax!" - just like we said.
"Let's get America growing again as it did before - DRILL, baby DRILL !"

Then man loses what ever slim chance he had to not go extinct.

* Empirical models are better because they automatically include ALL the feed backs - even the unknown ones, as they are constructed on historically known facts, say prior to 1900 and then tested to see if they fit the observed facts say between 1900 and 1975. I. e. they are scientific (with theory tested) not political compromises the oil companies find OK as the IPCC reports are. The IPCC revises its projections about every five years.

For example their first projection was Arctic would be ice fee after 2100, now it is "after 2050" but when it is before 2020, they will have lot of egg on their face to wipe off.

 

[Trippy]

Exactly the non-sense I predicted would come creeping out of the wood-work, when IPCC's bad predictions were not being met - I. e. temperature rise halted (or even beginning to turn down - as models with the MDV sine wave predicted more correctly some years earlier):

Not exactly hard to predict - I remeber having exactly this conversation with Buffalo Roam back when all of this climategate business was new news.

 

[billvon]

No that is false - The first and largest down step of the three with more than 2 sigma change from trend happened in 2010, the second largest was half over before the ice dam broke in late June 2012, the smallest of the three down steps braking the 2 sigma line was finished well before the ice dam even formed. You are asserting the ice melt was clairvoyant. - Knew the ice dam would form and break in late June 2012 - Perhaps you should retract this silly assertion?

Since I did not assert that, there's no way to retract it.
If we ignore the 2012 event and its effects on ice extent that follow (as you suggest) the curve fits an exponential even more poorly. 2010 becomes an isolated event, with the following years following a more linear progression.

 

[Billy T]

Since I did not assert that, there's no way to retract it.
If we ignore the 2012 event and its effects on ice extent that follow (as you suggest) the curve fits an exponential even more poorly. 2010 becomes an isolated event, with the following years following a more linear progression.

What we call it does not matter - 2012 WAS a unique event - ice dam formed and broke with huge mass of >12C suddenly released.

OK you did not assert a clairvoyant event - it is just that most what you said happen and why too place before the "why."

... If we ignore the data from 2012 (and its effect on subsequent years) you get a pretty good linear fit.

"subsequent years" is only 2013. You (and I) were clearly impressed by the ~ three, approximately 3-sigma events in 2010, 2011 & 2012.

 

[Billy T]

IPCC has done their modeling with empirical data, which is why they have made the most accurate predictions of any climate change organization out there.

How can you still assert the part I made bold, after reading post 1432? Or are you willing to drop this false claim now?

 

[billvon]

What we call it does not matter - 2012 WAS a unique event - ice dam formed and broke with huge mass of >12C suddenly released.

OK, we will take that as a given. Thus we ignore the minimum seen in 2012 and the effects on the years following, as you have suggested.

How can you still assert the part I made bold, after reading post 1432? Or are you willing to drop this false calim?

Because in the real world (not a hypothetical world) their predictions have most closely matched reality over decades. That means they have a better track record than anyone else out there.

 

[brucep]

I thought it might be useful to list the major feed backs, accelerating the rate of Arctic ice melting - all of which are changing and at best "frozen" in IPCC snap shot of conditions at one time.
(1) Every square meter of floating ice melted, increases the solar heating there by more than a factor of four.
(2) More open water gives more "reach" to the wind that makes the waves stronger and increases their thermal dissipation heating (oceans wave energy)
(3) Stronger waves colliding with thinner first year ice edges breaks off ice pieces, making their periphery for collecting heat from the warmer surface water at least double.
(4) The ice chunks are blown from their origin over warmer water - adding bottom side melting too; yet if not widely spaced, are counted by satellites as ice covered area.
(5) The higher average humidity of the air adds more heat (80 calories/ gram) to the ices when that vapor condenses on the ice surface - adding more "top heating too."
(6) Forest fires, larger and more frequent with GW, are depositing soot on the ice - lowering its albedo faster each year. With (7) a big effect in Greenland's mile thick ice.
(7) Faster "top melting" from (5) & (6) is exposing the deep, once covered soot - a big step function as each layer of volcanic dust is exposed.
(8) Small part of Gulf Steam now enters and flows along the Siberian coast, but most still sinks to drive the Thermo-Haline pump sending water along the bottom even into Indian ocean. That bottom heating is why the tiny, only couple years ago, CH4 "bubble clouds" are now often a kilometer or so in diameter along Siberian coast.
(9) The greater expansion of the lower latitude oceans with temperature rise (not much of that happening in Arctic water except on surface in summer while ice is melting) is thus receiving flow of warmer water (going down "the gravitational hill" to restore the equal gravitational potential surface.)
(10) Yes the new one: Ice blown by wind is (or can) block the steady out flow of rivers in Russian and Canada, with ice dams til they break and dump the spring thaws too rapidly for the water to cool off before reaching the not yet melted ice.

Too bad IPCC's reports ignore all of the changes above with constant feed backs frozen in their one time "snap shot" of conditions, and then makes it worse by describing those conditions in linearized CONSTANT radiative forcing terms; but that sure makes the oil employees members of their committees and the governments that MUST approve and do re-word the reports before they can be released, happy. - Most of the governments have weak economies now - don't want to do anything about GW that would require tax increases, etc. GW is like growing government debts - a gift to leave to the next generations.

Perhaps some good will come from the IPCC's procedures - If the graduate business schools make it into a case study of how to do political compromise, and yet get many to believe it is science being done. Not really much new in this - The tax payer has been screwed by the governments and oil companies for decades.
Do you know how much we are paying for the IPCC's white wash of the GW problem? If not, I'll try to find the answer, but not good at searching.

So the IPCC model allows lambda, term for climate sensitivity, to remain fixed with respect to all 'feedback' over the course of the doubling of atmospheric CO2 (dT_surface) They choose this metering method by deriving the feedback component from one set of data points? What is the justification for the approximation? The prediction that variability is minuscule and will have no meaningful effect on the measurement results? Do you feel the 'unlikely less than' 1.5C prediction for the IPCC model is a result of the prediction based on one set of data points as compared to the 'unlikely <' 2.6C prediction of other models mentioned in the wiki climate sensitivity page? I could have been interested in this science if the present science wasn't so depressing. Thanks for trying to exercise intellectual honesty in the face of being the bearer of ill tidings. For me it's not interesting to have disagreements on data when it's all bad news. My greatest fear is the one rpenner wrote about. We will wait until it's to late and in the meantime let the oligarchs make all the calls.

 

[Trippy]

So the IPCC model allows lambda, term for climate sensitivity, to remain fixed with respect to all 'feedback' over the course of the doubling of atmospheric CO2 (dT_surface) They choose this metering method by deriving the feedback component from one set of data points? What is the justification for the approximation? The prediction that variability is minuscule and will have no meaningful effect on the measurement results? Do you feel the 'unlikely less than' 1.5C prediction for the IPCC model is a result of the prediction based on one set of data points as compared to the 'unlikely <' 2.6C prediction of other models mentioned in the wiki climate sensitivity page? I could have been interested in this science if the present science wasn't so depressing. Thanks for trying to exercise intellectual honesty in the face of being the bearer of ill tidings. For me it's not interesting to have disagreements on data when it's all bad news. My greatest fear is the one rpenner wrote about. We will wait until it's to late and in the meantime let the oligarchs make all the calls.

Part of it comes from the maths behind the physics. As i recall, one of the predictions made by Arrhenius back in the late 19th century was that "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature increases nearly in arithmetic fashion."

$$\Delta F = \alpha Ln (\frac {C}{C_0})$$

So it's not so much an assumption made by the IPCC in as much as it is a prediction that physics makes in the basline case.

 

[Michael]

Billy T,

I see there's been a 'record' amount of ice this year. Would you agree this can correlate with an increase in average temperature? For example, more melt means more ppt and thus more snow / rain fall. Therefor the water at the top layer of the ocean is less saline, less saline freezes at a warmer temperature and quicker than saltier water.

The two biggest problems with the "climate-gate" are (1) reasonable scientists who cannot effectively communicate their findings and (2) an idiotic superstitious public that does not comprehend basic English - let alone the scientific lexicon (you can toss in a bunch of hack scientists for good measure).

Even if #1 was met, #2 isn't changing any time too soon.