Canadian ice shelves breaking up at record speed

[skierinvermont]

Two things of interest to me:

1. No satellite data was used in this piece, which I find more reliable than those mentioned.
2. GISS is now significantly out of step with HADCRUT and NOAA, and those are not "cold' data gatherers.

Appears Hansen is busy working the numbers still.

GISS is not out of step with HadCRUT over the areas covered by both and when the same SST data source is used. I have provided evidence of this in numerous threads on this forum. The most recent of which was completely ignored because obviously some people would like to continuing perpetuating this myth without facing the facts.

And of course you ignore all of the documented potential errors and discrepancies with satellite temperature records and the numerous major revisions to them that have had to be made over the years.

[gracetoyou]

For absolute certainty 2011 to this point has been cooler than 2010. No question about it. I wouldn't say it is "much cooler" which implies something which is not true. 2011 will still go down as one of the warmest years on record.

But -PDO effect is beginning to take shape & influence global temps.

[skierinvermont]

But -PDO effect is beginning to take shape & influence global temps.

We had a PDO that averaged neutral from 1999*-2006 and has averaged very negative 2006-2011. I doubt we'll see much more effect than we have already seen.

[The_Global_Warmer]

We had a PDO that averaged neutral from 1998-2006 and has averaged very negative 2006-2011. I doubt we'll see much more effect than we have already seen.

So during the largest loss of arctic ice in modern recorded history we have had a -PDO and a weakly + AMO.

we already know 2011 didn't have anonymously warm water outside the arctic on either side.

Now in terms of global temps..we have also seen a weak sun and from what I understand 2011 is pretty warm? and 2010 was 1st or 2nd?

How can people say global temps are cooling? what am I missing here?

[WeatherRusty]

So during the largest loss of arctic ice in modern recorded history we have had a -PDO and a weakly + AMO.

we already know 2011 didn't have anonymously warm water outside the arctic on either side.

Now in terms of global temps..we have also seen a weak sun and from what I understand 2011 is pretty warm? and 2010 was 1st or 2nd?

How can people say global temps are cooling? what am I missing here?

You're not missing anything Friv, glad to see you reconsidered. Remember the old adage of the dis-informers. If you want to drive home a point, whether it is true or not, just repeat it, then repeat again, then repeat it again, and again, and again, then continue to repeat it etc.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You're not missing anything Friv, glad to see you reconsidered. Remember the old adage of the dis-informers. If you want to drive home a point, whether it is true or not, just repeat it, then repeat again, then repeat it again, and again, and again, then continue to repeat it etc.

Isn't this also the weakest period of solar activity from 2006-current we have seen in a long time? I don't want write more "lies" that will be twisted an driven into the ground.

We have also seen some decent volcanic activity as well? I am not sure how much this has impacted things either. If at all.

[gracetoyou]

We had a PDO that averaged neutral from 1999*-2006 and has averaged very negative 2006-2011. I doubt we'll see much more effect than we have already seen.

You are thinking to simplistically. I posted this in another thread...I'm sure you can look up PDO,AMO, & global temp maps to check on this. I would but do not have time right now.

This is the issue! It's really, really hard to get away from the fact that PDO/AMO cycles have huge impacts on our climate...there's no debate, the proof is in the pudding. PDO looks to be the bigger player & AMO seems to only suppress or enhance PDO cycle affects. I don't have time to do this right now but look at how significant heating or cooling is when PDO/AMO are both in the - or +cycles at the same time. PDO effect is enhanced. Check out mid 1930's when both were +, early 1970's when both were -, and the later half of the 1990's were both + which also coincided with a record el nino. Global temps responded. As you know we have now entered -PDO for sure, but I would argue the turn started in 1999-2000 & that is the reason for the flat-lining in global temps (look at graph, it can be argued). When AMO turns - during the -PDO cycle it will enhance the PDO effect & global temps will decline.

I'm certainly not saying that human emissions cannot be a player on enhancing or suppressing the positive & negative phases of PDO but it would be nice just to hear some objective AGW representative to admit that natural variation is still a player & you can't blame every artic sea melt, extreme weather, etc. on AGW. It can certainly play a role, or at least I think it can, but which is the bigger player natural variation or AGW remains to be seen. Right now it looks from a non-expert that natural variation is the bigger player right now...Maybe in the future AGW might be. I don't think anyone knows right now.

[Strongbad]

So during the largest loss of arctic ice in modern recorded history we have had a -PDO and a weakly + AMO.

we already know 2011 didn't have anonymously warm water outside the arctic on either side.

Now in terms of global temps..we have also seen a weak sun and from what I understand 2011 is pretty warm? and 2010 was 1st or 2nd?

How can people say global temps are cooling? what am I missing here?

Just about every shred of reality. The oceans cover 70% of the planet. They take longer to cool down and heat up than our land does. They also tend to lag behind the increases and decreases in Solar activity, due to the fact that the energy it receives must first be transferred down below. What you are not seeing is that our oceans' responses lag solar activity. If in the next five years, global temperatures are above normal or increasing from their current position, then we can have a discussion.

[Sunny and Warm]

Isn't this also the weakest period of solar activity from 2006-current we have seen in a long time? I don't want write more "lies" that will be twisted an driven into the ground.

We have also seen some decent volcanic activity as well? I am not sure how much this has impacted things either. If at all.

atmospheric lags between cause and effect are well known.

[skierinvermont]

You are thinking to simplistically. I posted this in another thread...I'm sure you can look up PDO,AMO, & global temp maps to check on this. I would but do not have time right now.

I am well aware of the correlations. Correlation does not equal causation. It is easy to find correlations in nature, especially when you start combining multiple variables. My opinion is the PDO has a small effect, primarily through its role in determining ENSO state, of maybe .05C long-term, and the AMO has essentially no effect.

[gracetoyou]

I am well aware of the correlations. Correlation does not equal causation. It is easy to find correlations in nature, especially when you start combining multiple variables. My opinion is the PDO has a small effect, primarily through its role in determining ENSO state, of maybe .05C long-term, and the AMO has essentially no effect.

I know, AGW folks don't believe in causations. Very correct, but it's a mistake. Like the huge increase of C02 the last 12 years in the earth's atmosphere but the temps not responding. I guess I would not like causations either.

I'm not a natural variation pusher or a AGW pusher but I cannot handle denying practical observations that show correlations that should be noted as being significant & related. Just because in our smallness we do not as yet understand the correlations does not in any way prove that there is not one. My beef with a lot of AGW folks is the crazy idea that we understand everything about our climate. We do not! Correlations may not equal causation but it certainly might. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then low & behold it's probably a duck.

[skierinvermont]

I know, AGW folks don't believe in causations. Very correct, but it's a mistake. Like the huge increase of C02 the last 12 years in the earth's atmosphere but the temps not responding. I guess I would not like causations either.

I'm not a natural variation pusher or a AGW pusher but I cannot handle denying practical observations that show correlations that should be noted as being significant & related. Just because in our smallness we do not as yet understand the correlations does not in any way prove that there is not one. My beef with a lot of AGW folks is the crazy idea that we understand everything about our climate. We do not! Correlations may not equal causation but it certainly might. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then low & behold it's probably a duck.

you're going to run out of names for all the ducks you're gonna find

but seriously as I said before I do believe it has a small effect.. primarily via ENSO

The atmosphere has warmed dramatically the last 12 years... around .12C/decade. Only slightly less than the long-term trend. Which is unsurprising given the period begins in solar max and ends in solar min.

[gracetoyou]

you're going to run out of names for all the ducks you're gonna find

but seriously as I said before I do believe it has a small effect.. primarily via ENSO

The atmosphere has warmed dramatically the last 12 years... around .12C/decade. Only slightly less than the long-term trend. Which is unsurprising given the period begins in solar max and ends in solar min.

Yea, but it's beginning to cool. If your theory is true it's impossible for the heat to escape. So why is it beginning to drop? You can't have it both ways. If your going to say atmospheric heat is indicator of AGW, then you must take eat crow when it's cooling off despite C02 levels continuing to increase.

[WeatherRusty]

Yea, but it's beginning to cool. If your theory is true it's impossible for the heat to escape. So why is it beginning to drop? You can't have it both ways. If your going to say atmospheric heat is indicator of AGW, then you must take eat crow when it's cooling off despite C02 levels continuing to increase.

The problem with your thinking by that statement is that it requires CO2 to be the only climate driver, it is one of several and currently the most important on longer time scales, but it is not the only one. There is natural variation just as there has always been, caused by everything combined in the temperature balancing act or dynamic equilibrium.

Another thing wrong with your statement is you say it should be impossible to cool according to AGW. Are you serious? Where on Earth did you get that idea?

If by that you mean the greenhouse effect, then you are wrong about that also. The greenhouses effect does not prevent the loss of heat to space, it slows it down.

[gracetoyou]

The problem with your thinking by that statement is that it requires CO2 to be the only climate driver, it is one of several and currently the most important on longer time scales, but it is not the only one. There is natural variation just as there has always been, caused by everything combined in the temperature balancing act or dynamic equilibrium.

Another thing wrong with your statement is you say it should be impossible to cool according to AGW. Are you serious? Where on Earth did you get that idea?

If by that you mean the greenhouse effect, then you are wrong about that also. The greenhouses effect does not prevent the loss of heat to space, it slows it down.

I only brought up the atmosphere cooling because you made sure you through this in:

The atmosphere has warmed dramatically the last 12 years... around .12C/decade. Only slightly less than the long-term trend. Which is unsurprising given the period begins in solar max and ends in solar min.

I'm assumed you were attributing it to greenhouse effect. My point was every time the atmosphere warms you can't automatically attribute it to greenhouse gases then turn around when it cools & say it in no way disturbs the AGW thinking. If the heat is trapped & greenhouse gases are increasing then there should not be anything that from nature that can overcome that. I know your thinking is that overtime nothing will overcome it, but I'm saying that's a copout.

[skierinvermont]

I only brought up the atmosphere cooling because you made sure you through this in:

I'm assumed you were attributing it to greenhouse effect. My point was every time the atmosphere warms you can't automatically attribute it to greenhouse gases then turn around when it cools & say it in no way disturbs the AGW thinking. If the heat is trapped & greenhouse gases are increasing then there should not be anything that from nature that can overcome that. I know your thinking is that overtime nothing will overcome it, but I'm saying that's a copout.

So basically a Nina which absorbs heat from the atmosphere and puts it in the ocean refutes AGW?

[WeatherRusty]

I only brought up the atmosphere cooling because you made sure you through this in:

I'm assumed you were attributing it to greenhouse effect. My point was every time the atmosphere warms you can't automatically attribute it to greenhouse gases then turn around when it cools & say it in no way disturbs the AGW thinking. If the heat is trapped & greenhouse gases are increasing then there should not be anything that from nature that can overcome that. I know your thinking is that overtime nothing will overcome it, but I'm saying that's a copout.

But it hasn't cooled over the past several decades. The global climate is now warmer than at any time in the instrumental record and very likely warmer than at any time in thousands of years. We are not concerned with diurnal temperature change, seasonal temperature change or even variation spanning several years. We are concerned only with the long term trend which is indifferent to the effects of solar variation, ocean oscillations and other factors of internal variability...i.e. independent of external forcing. That longer term trend is now dominated by the growing greenhouse effect and associated feedbacks such as losses to ice albedo.

As to overcoming the growing greenhouse effect, ENSO can move temperature 0.2C over a year or two. It takes greenhouse warming at least a decade to do the same. The 11 year solar cycle can overcome greenhouse warming for about a 7 year period since it can move temperature a total of 0.1C peak to trough.

[PhillipS]

Yea, but it's beginning to cool. If your theory is true it's impossible for the heat to escape. So why is it beginning to drop? You can't have it both ways. If your going to say atmospheric heat is indicator of AGW, then you must take eat crow when it's cooling off despite C02 levels continuing to increase.

Are you seriously trying to convince us that the Earth is cooling based on the last few MONTHS of the temperature record?! And not even the surface temperature record at that? Let's look for global cooling over more realistic periods

That is the current plot from GISS. Please help us find the recent cooling trend you've posted about because I just can't find it.

[gracetoyou]

Are you seriously trying to convince us that the Earth is cooling based on the last few MONTHS of the temperature record?! And not even the surface temperature record at that? Let's look for global cooling over more realistic periods

That is the current plot from GISS. Please help us find the recent cooling trend you've posted about because I just can't find it.

We are just now beginning to see the effects of the PDO switching to it's cold phase. It's not instant, it takes a little time. Temps have leveled off somewhat, but when AMO switches to cold phase at some point over the next decade you will see a noticable drop as the artic gets colder, the winters get harsher & global temps drop.

By the way, you think that the intense warming from 1978-1998 is mainly the greenhouse effect? You don't think PDO switching to it's warm phase, very high solar activity, & strong el nino's played a very little role? Again, if the greehouse effect was the primary cause for such a dramatic rise in the temps during that period, it sure seems it would take something MAJOR to stop it. Well, it's stopped! Temps have leveled the last 10 years inspite of spiking C02 concentration in the atmosphere.

In the future greenhouse effect may be a much bigger contributor...I think, still not sure, but right now I do not think the major player for the warmth since 1978 is anything other than natural variation. I honestly believe that. I believe the raw data supports that.

[skierinvermont]

We are just now beginning to see the effects of the PDO switching to it's cold phase. It's not instant, it takes a little time. Temps have leveled off somewhat, but when AMO switches to cold phase at some point over the next decade you will see a noticable drop as the artic gets colder, the winters get harsher & global temps drop.

By the way, you think that the intense warming from 1978-1998 is mainly the greenhouse effect? You don't think PDO switching to it's warm phase, very high solar activity, & strong el nino's played a very little role? Again, if the greehouse effect was the primary cause for such a dramatic rise in the temps during that period, it sure seems it would take something MAJOR to stop it. Well, it's stopped! Temps have leveled the last 10 years inspite of spiking C02 concentration in the atmosphere.

In the future greenhouse effect may be a much bigger contributor...I think, still not sure, but right now I do not think the major player for the warmth since 1978 is anything other than natural variation. I honestly believe that. I believe the raw data supports that.

Temps have not leveled the past 10 years. They have continued rising at around .1C/decade. The slight slow down is probably attributable to the solar min.

[Mencken_Fan]

It is all intertwined. Either global warming is causing the ice to melt or it's natural cycles. If climate change is not caused by humans with 100% certainty then it is safe to assume that the humans are not with a certainty to blame for the arctic sea ice melt. It seems pretty simple.. The science is not settled according to the IPCC...

Your post and the many similar to it that I come across on the internet highlight the thinking levels we humans have when it comes to what's probable, what's plausible, what's possible, what's improbable, what's implausible, and what's impossible.

Rational thinkers rarely have a problem with any of the above; but religious (irrational) thinkers stumble over those concepts left and right. It is no coincidence the list of the world's nations ranked in order of success (by all civilized standards) matches best - not by wealth - but by the level of secularism.

Most people know that negatives cannot be disproved, e.g. we cannot "prove" there is no god. But science is not about disproving negatives; it is about defining reality; period.

Accepting reality is not about believing only in what's absolutely provable; it's about believing in what's most probable. Cultures don't succeed by investing in everything that's possible; they succeed by investing in what's most probable.

No sane person would go to a casino where the chance of winning was 10%. Who would cross a street if the odds of success were only 99%? Who lives in daily fear of being hit by a meteor? Yet religious thinkers accept a whole world of fantastic implausibility as most probable! (Which is why in the world of logic they are considered "irrational thinkers.")

How we humans perceive reality comes down to odds. We survive because we know the difference between possible, plausible, probable etc . We neither fear nor expect the improbable but are aware of what's possible. We take action on what's probable.

AGW may not be provable to everyone's satisfaction but to rational thinkers, it is most probable. The reason AGW is so greatly rejected by the religious right is because to them, "most probable" doesn't register where it should on the logic scale. How could it - when "implausible" and "improbable" have so little value?

This is what defines the abyss between secular (rational) and religious (irrational) thinking. The religious right no more accepts AGW than it does evolution...because they can't.

If the rational thinkers here would just accept this reality of neuroscience, they wouldn't waste so much time debating what can't be debated.

[tacoman25]

Your post and the many similar to it that I come across on the internet highlight the thinking levels we humans have when it comes to what's probable, what's plausible, what's possible, what's improbable, what's implausible, and what's impossible.

Rational thinkers rarely have a problem with any of the above; but religious (irrational) thinkers stumble over those concepts left and right. It is no coincidence the list of the world's nations ranked in order of success (by all civilized standards) matches best - not by wealth - but by the level of secularism.

Most people know that negatives cannot be disproved, e.g. we cannot "prove" there is no god. But science is not about disproving negatives; it is about defining reality; period.

Accepting reality is not about believing only in what's absolutely provable; it's about believing in what's most probable. Cultures don't succeed by investing in everything that's possible; they succeed by investing in what's most probable.

No sane person would go to a casino where the chance of winning was 10%. Who would cross a street if the odds of success were only 99%? Who lives in daily fear of being hit by a meteor? Yet religious thinkers accept a whole world of fantastic implausibility as most probable! (Which is why in the world of logic they are considered "irrational thinkers.")

How we humans perceive reality comes down to odds. We survive because we know the difference between possible, plausible, probable etc . We neither fear nor expect the improbable but are aware of what's possible. We take action on what's probable.

AGW may not be provable to everyone's satisfaction but to rational thinkers, it is most probable. The reason AGW is so greatly rejected by the religious right is because to them, "most probable" doesn't register where it should on the logic scale. How could it - when "implausible" and "improbable" have so little value?

This is what defines the abyss between secular (rational) and religious (irrational) thinking. The religious right no more accepts AGW than it does evolution...because they can't.

If the rational thinkers here would just accept this reality of neuroscience, they wouldn't waste so much time debating what can't be debated.

So all rationality and thought boils down to secularism vs. religion? That's ridiculous. The world is not so black and white. For all your claims of intellectual superiority, you have a rather simple mindset.

Stop trying to make this a political/religious forum, anyway. It's about climate change and science. The irony is that you call others trolls, yet you are the one constantly detracting from what this forum is actually about.

[Sunny and Warm]

Your post and the many similar to it that I come across on the internet highlight the thinking levels we humans have when it comes to what's probable, what's plausible, what's possible, what's improbable, what's implausible, and what's impossible.

Rational thinkers rarely have a problem with any of the above; but religious (irrational) thinkers stumble over those concepts left and right. It is no coincidence the list of the world's nations ranked in order of success (by all civilized standards) matches best - not by wealth - but by the level of secularism.

Most people know that negatives cannot be disproved, e.g. we cannot "prove" there is no god. But science is not about disproving negatives; it is about defining reality; period.

Accepting reality is not about believing only in what's absolutely provable; it's about believing in what's most probable. Cultures don't succeed by investing in everything that's possible; they succeed by investing in what's most probable.

No sane person would go to a casino where the chance of winning was 10%. Who would cross a street if the odds of success were only 99%? Who lives in daily fear of being hit by a meteor? Yet religious thinkers accept a whole world of fantastic implausibility as most probable! (Which is why in the world of logic they are considered "irrational thinkers.")

How we humans perceive reality comes down to odds. We survive because we know the difference between possible, plausible, probable etc . We neither fear nor expect the improbable but are aware of what's possible. We take action on what's probable.

AGW may not be provable to everyone's satisfaction but to rational thinkers, it is most probable. The reason AGW is so greatly rejected by the religious right is because to them, "most probable" doesn't register where it should on the logic scale. How could it - when "implausible" and "improbable" have so little value?

This is what defines the abyss between secular (rational) and religious (irrational) thinking. The religious right no more accepts AGW than it does evolution...because they can't.

If the rational thinkers here would just accept this reality of neuroscience, they wouldn't waste so much time debating what can't be debated.

I'm not religious, nor am I on the political right, but I'm pretty sure you thought I was. Would you like to begin again?

[tacoman25]

I'm not religious, nor am I on the political right, but I'm pretty sure you thought I was. Would you like to begin again?

In his little world, you are either religious/irrational or secular/rational. If he views you are "irrational", you must be religious.

[LithiaWx]

I'm not religious, nor am I on the political right, but I'm pretty sure you thought I was. Would you like to begin again?

I was thinking the exact same thing.. I'm not religious and I don't identify myself as a member of the right politically.

[tacoman25]

I doubt a religious nut would be allowed to spout off on this forum. Why is an anti-religious nut allowed to?

[Sunny and Warm]

I doubt a religious nut would be allowed to spout off on this forum. Why is an anti-religious nut allowed to?

he's been muzzled in the southeast forum due to his "behavior". I guess this is his new hangout. Lucky us. He's best ignored, as he tends to like the limelight, as many of these types do.

[Mencken_Fan]

We had a PDO that averaged neutral from 1999*-2006 and has averaged very negative 2006-2011. I doubt we'll see much more effect than we have already seen.

This particularly piques my curiosity. Where the heck is our big cooling trend?

Between the PDO, Solar, and Joe Bastardi - global temps should be screaming downwards.

Perhaps this decade will be similar to the 1940s; ups and downs but overall sideways.

[Sunny and Warm]

This particularly piques my curiosity. Where the heck is our big cooling trend?

Between the PDO, Solar, and Joe Bastardi - global temps should be screaming downwards.

Perhaps this decade will be similar to the 1940s; ups and downs but overall sideways.

I might actually agree with you on this. The 1940's was at the start of the last -PDO, and this one should behave similarly. As we saw with the last -PDO, it wasn't until the last ten years of the cycle that we saw the big negative temp and ice anomalies occur. Apparently, a significant lag occurs between the onset of PDO cycle and its effects.

[Strongbad]

This particularly piques my curiosity. Where the heck is our big cooling trend?

Between the PDO, Solar, and Joe Bastardi - global temps should be screaming downwards.

If a person believes natural factors are the dominant driver of our climate system, then that person will also accept that our climate does not function as a reactionary system. If there will be a decline in temps, expect it to start off gradually before you begin to see a "sharper" turn downards. The climate system lags behind due to the fact that we are 70/30 water to land and not the other way around.