Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: There's always something better to do.

Topic: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing (Read 1333 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #25
For extra credit, can you name the cycles?  (they actually have a name, after the scientist who discovered them)

No, there is no article on them on Wikipedia.  You have to know what they are, it can't be easily googled.
Wait, wait... Don't tell me...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #26
What's weird about cephus' objection is that he's saying the big data models are wrong because they are modeling a chaotic system that can't be modeled then he goes on to propose his massively compressed model as more accurate.

I see you're still doing the model relativism gig Testy.  If it's a troll then haha good one!  If not I doubt it's possible to disabuse you of this but I'm ever optimistic and will have another go.

The big 'data' models I'm saying are wrong are the GCM's which are speculative in many areas, completely blind in other significant areas, too low in resolution to be of much practical utility and run with unevidenced and tbh astronomically unlikely positive water vapour feedback.  They have yet to correctly predict a single damn thing with the possible exception that there has been a small net positive temperature gradient over recent times.  I mean they got the gradient hopelessly wrong but never mind.  Of course the simple observation that we are recovering from the little ice age means we expect to be in a warming period around now anyway but whatever.

The "massively compressed model" I just used to explain heat transfer from warm ocean surface equatorial waters to the cold poles is usually called thermodynamics.  You know, the theory which is one of the basic central pillars of physics to which there are no known exceptions.

Do you see the difference and why I'm happy to accept the results from one but not the other?
Are you saying thermodynamics are not accounted for in CGM's?

No.  I'm saying that GCM's use many complex and often interacting lines of theoretical input and also assumptions and parameters which aren't supported by empirical evidence.  They are essentially thermodynamic/fluid mechanical/radiation nonlinear coupled models where thermodynamics is one part of the three-way nonlinear coupling.

I think I see where you're heading with this argument now so I'll preemptively say that the transport of heat from equator to poles is not at all equivalent in terms of model complexity.  I don't care how the heat arrived in the ocean in the first place nor how it came to be at the surface during an El Nino.  All of that, complex as it may be, is irrelevant.  All I'm concerned with is the fact that it is hot and the poles are cold and so long as the two are not thermodynamically isolated then heat will flow from hot to cold.  I don't even care what the mechanism of heat transport is.  That too is irrelevant and I can treat it as a black box.  As it happens there is a nice thick atmosphere to thermodynamically connect the two via convection in the well known Hadley cells.

So I don't need to make any assumptions or consider complex nonlinear feedbacks or input questionable extrapolated and homogenised sparse data.  All I need do is make a pair of temperature measurements and note that the poles and equator are not thermodynamically isolated systems and that's all that's required for the thermodynamic model.
Thanks for this reply. Just to pre-empt the whole stupid asshole stuff, I honestly don't follow the science discussions regarding global warming but feel safe hedging my bets towards the consensus view. I am not married to a perspective but am not inclined to adopt your view for lots of reasons that have mostly to do with shortcuts I use to choose experts. Anyway,  I do understand fluid dynamics to a better than lay person level but am no expert. My science training is in marine sciences so there is a lot of very outdated but relevant factoid material floating around in my head regarding ocean currents and the like, and, in fact, a small part of my thesis included currents and density stratification regarding salinity and thermoclines so I have a decent grip on that although, like i said, my actual knowledge of all that stuff is not just outdated but I forget a lot.

Anyway, we don't have a purely thermodynamically driven system. The Coriolis effect and density issues of fresh water/salinity and  of thermal mixing all dramatically affect the process so I think it makes sense to use a navier stokes approach.  Not sure how come you think this is irrelevant.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #27
All I'm concerned with is the fact that it is hot and the poles are cold and so long as the two are not thermodynamically isolated then heat will flow from hot to cold.

They used to be thermodynamically isolated by the jet stream. But that's becoming weaker, due to the decreased temperature differential. The Arctic is warming faster than any other region.


Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #28
Thanks for this reply. Just to pre-empt the whole stupid asshole stuff, I honestly don't follow the science discussions regarding global warming but feel safe hedging my bets towards the consensus view. I am not married to a perspective but am not inclined to adopt your view for lots of reasons that have mostly to do with shortcuts I use to choose experts. Anyway,  I do understand fluid dynamics to a better than lay person level but am no expert. My science training is in marine sciences so there is a lot of very outdated but relevant factoid material floating around in my head regarding ocean currents and the like, and, in fact, a small part of my thesis included currents and density stratification regarding salinity and thermoclines so I have a decent grip on that although, like i said, my actual knowledge of all that stuff is not just outdated but I forget a lot.

Anyway, we don't have a purely thermodynamically driven system. The Coriolis effect and density issues of fresh water/salinity and  of thermal mixing all dramatically affect the process so I think it makes sense to use a navier stokes approach.  Not sure how come you think this is irrelevant.

No that's all fine and I agree with you that nearly everything is horribly complex when you look in detail.  Some things though aren't sensitive to the complexity and achieve approximately the same result every time independent of changes to the details.  For example, yes indeed the precise mechanisms of heat transport around the planet are god awful complex and yet it wouldn't matter if you changed the atmosphere to methane, the oceans to gin, shuffled the continents around, altered the earth's orbital radius and punted the moon out of the system.  You might change the rate of heat transfer but you cannot change the result - without physically removing some major part of the terrestrial system - that heat is transferred from equator to poles.  The only thing you can do to change that is decouple them thermodynamically so regardless of the intervening complexities of Navier Stokes dependent mechanisms and Coriolis effects the laws of thermodynamics will be forever satisfied and you can say with as much confidence as you can say anything at all that heat will be transferred from equator to poles and at a rate principally determined by the thermal gradient and the thermodynamic coupling strength.

GCM's are a completely different kind of model.  They are exquisitely sensitive to parameter changes and fiddling with a single parameter - like co2 sensitivity - can easily result in a radically different outcome and even potential sign changes like from heating to cooling.  That's like saying if we move Great Britain a few miles west in the thermodynamic model heat will suddenly start flowing from poles to equator.  These two models could not be less equivalent.  I trust the thermodynamic laws but not the GCM's in their current incarnations - and probably never tbh.  A Prof told me long ago that you can question general relativity if you want.  You can even screw around with quantum mechanics if you insist.  But you cannot ever mess with the 2nd law.
  • Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 12:47:57 PM by Cephus0

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #29
According to the data, the arctic sea ice has grown by 2 million square kilometers since this topic was started.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

The horror, the horror
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • MikeS
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #30
According to the data, the arctic sea ice has grown by 2 million square kilometers since this topic was started.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

The horror, the horror
(Actually, Nov. 21 to Dec. 14th gives 2.5 million km2
And the Antarctic has shrunk by 4 million km2.

What's your point?

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #31
All I'm concerned with is the fact that it is hot and the poles are cold and so long as the two are not thermodynamically isolated then heat will flow from hot to cold.

They used to be thermodynamically isolated by the jet stream.

No.  They did not used to be isolated by the jet stream.  The jet stream is one of the many factors which may impact on rate of heat transfer but not that heat is transferred.  For this argument to hold you would need at the very least to see a similar effect on the Antarctic.  Is Antarctica warming too?

Quote
But that's becoming weaker, due to the decreased temperature differential.

Quite possibly but so what?  It became weaker during all the other recent periods of lower than present Arctic ice cover when carbon dioxide could not have been a driving factor.

Quote
The Arctic is warming faster than any other region.

Again quite possibly but again so what?  Arctic temperatures seem to be cyclical to some degree and some think that is likely driven by the AMO but no one really knows at this time.  Like I said earlier, I interpret the recent warming to result from the rising phase of the Arctic temperature cycle - whatever causes it - and the current large swing to be related to the 2015/16 super El Nino.  Also like I said earlier if the Arctic ice cover continues to recede as the El Nino dissipates and possibly goes La Nina and also considerably beyond the time we would expect the temperature cycle to go into its negative phase then I'll be in the market for another cause and will re-review your fascinating carbon dioxide hypothesis at that time.
  • Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 12:43:45 PM by Cephus0

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #32
Topic called - The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
According to the data, the arctic sea ice has grown by 2 million square kilometers since this topic was started.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

The horror, the horror
(Actually, Nov. 21 to Dec. 14th gives 2.5 million km2

What's your point?
:ironicat:
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #33
Hint: ice forms when it's below freezing
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • MSG
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #34
I'm friends with Milanković's granddaughter
braying among the ruins

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #35
Also like I said earlier if the Arctic ice cover continues to recede as the El Nino dissipates and possibly goes La Nina and also considerably beyond the time we would expect the temperature cycle to go into its negative phase then I'll be in the market for another cause and will re-review your fascinating carbon dioxide hypothesis at that time.

No, you won't. Arctic ice cover has continued to recede since the last major El Nino 1997-98. In fact, ice loss has accelerated since then.

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #36
Also like I said earlier if the Arctic ice cover continues to recede as the El Nino dissipates and possibly goes La Nina and also considerably beyond the time we would expect the temperature cycle to go into its negative phase then I'll be in the market for another cause and will re-review your fascinating carbon dioxide hypothesis at that time.

No, you won't. Arctic ice cover has continued to recede since the last major El Nino 1997-98. In fact, ice loss has accelerated since then.

No really - I will.  I just told you that many workers in the field think that the AMO is what drives cyclical variations in Arctic ice cover.  I did tell you that didn't I.  Have a look at the AMO over time and probably best you do it for yourself so that something might have a hope of penetrating your cult mind - although I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the prospects.

Also, see if you can find any other periods in recent history covering a couple of hundred years when ice cover has been low and see how that might fit with a natural cyclical explanation rather than jumping up and down and gesticulating with your voodoo stick like an ignorant savage

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #37
I just told you that many workers in the field think that the AMO is what drives cyclical variations in Arctic ice cover.


Name two.

Also, you're shifting from El Nino/La Nina to AMO.

Quote
Also like I said earlier if the Arctic ice cover continues to recede as the El Nino dissipates and possibly goes La Nina and also considerably beyond the time we would expect the temperature cycle to go into its negative phase then I'll be in the market for another cause and will re-review your fascinating carbon dioxide hypothesis at that time.

I said you won't, because we've already passed through the milestone you just described, following the 1997/98 El Nino, so you switch to AMO as your benchmark cyclical influence on sea ice.
  • Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 08:45:15 AM by Autonemesis

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #38
I just told you that many workers in the field think that the AMO is what drives cyclical variations in Arctic ice cover.


Name two.

Here's one: A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice
Quote
Abstract

Satellite data suggest an Arctic sea ice-climate system in rapid transformation, yet its long-term natural modes of variability are poorly known. Here we integrate and synthesize a set of multicentury historical records of Atlantic Arctic sea ice, supplemented with high-resolution paleoproxy records, each reflecting primarily winter/spring sea ice conditions. We establish a signal of pervasive and persistent multidecadal (~60-90 year) fluctuations that is most pronounced in the Greenland Sea and weakens further away. Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record, including an abrupt change at the onset of the early twentieth century warming. Similar covariability through previous centuries is evident from comparison of the longest historical sea ice records and paleoproxy reconstructions of sea ice and the AMO. This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability. This may have implications for understanding the recent negative trend in Arctic winter sea ice extent, although because the losses have been greater in summer, other processes and feedbacks are also important.
I don't doubt that there are cycles like AMO (and AMO may well be the most significant one on a decades/centuries scale) that affect Arctic sea ice cover.  But...
Quote
the recent reductions in sea ice should not be considered merely the latest in a sequence of AMO-related multidecadal fluctuations but rather the first one to be superposed upon an anthropogenic GHG warming background signal that is emerging strongly in the Arctic [Kaufmann et al., 2009; Serreze et al., 2009]. Thus, the observed decreases in the Arctic sea-ice cover, especially in summer, may continue largely unabated as the GHG signal strengthens further.
  • Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 08:24:32 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #39
Here's another:
Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent
Quote
we find that both the AMO and AMOC [Atlantic meridional overturning circulation] indices are significantly correlated with SIE [sea ice extent] in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5-3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979-2010) to AMO driven variability.

So the question is not whether
...  many workers in the field think that the AMO is what drives cyclical variations in Arctic ice cover.
... but how many workers in the field think that AMO driven cyclical variations in Arctic ice cover fully or mostly account for the current declines in sea ice cover.
  • Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 08:45:34 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #40
How many?  I don't know.  Perhaps a better question would be how many of those working in the area of Arctic ice variability think that the primary driving signal - but doubtless not unique factor - is AMO?  And again I don't know but what is easily predictable is that any such view will be severely frowned upon by the currently carbon dioxide-obsessed establishment making it probably quite difficult to ascertain how many so think.

For me it's sufficient at this stage that some do and that they have a rational empirical physical evidence-supported working hypothesis supporting the null that what we observe is mainly natural variation.  We also have pre-satellite era evidence of historical ice cover variation in the form of photographic records and sea Captain's logs amongst other less reliable yet still persuasive anecdotal cultural records.  None of these can be attributed to human emitted carbon dioxide but are a pretty good fit with the AMO hypothesis so what I'd like to see is a refutation of the natural null.  In order to go with an anthro CO2 driven Arctic sea ice decline it is essential for a proper demonstration of why the AMO cannot account for what we observe and how the CO2 hypothesis can uniquely account for historical variation.
  • Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 12:53:09 PM by Cephus0

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #41
I just told you that many workers in the field think that the AMO is what drives cyclical variations in Arctic ice cover.


Name two.

Happy with Ratty's pair?  There are more if you'd like to google some.

Quote
Also, you're shifting from El Nino/La Nina to AMO.

No, I'm not shifting anywhere.  Revisiting your :siren: horror chart :siren:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You presumably posted it in an effort to indicate 'omg look at what CO2 just did to the Arctic sea ice'.  The problem is that if CO2 were responsible for this highly anomalous excursion from the normal trend then you have to show some corresponding highly anomalous excursion in atmospheric CO2 concentration.  You haven't done that and that is because there isn't any.  So CO2 cannot be the cause.  And neither is it appropriate to invoke the AMO as a cause of this anomaly - as opposed to general historical trends - because there has been no major anomalous excursion in AMO as far as we know.  So I didn't.  What there has been a major excursion in is equatorial sea surface temperatures owing to the 2015/16 El Nino and since we know that heat is transported from equator to poles it seems appropriate to hypothesise that perhaps it was the cause.

Also like I said earlier if the Arctic ice cover continues to recede as the El Nino dissipates and possibly goes La Nina and also considerably beyond the time we would expect the temperature cycle to go into its negative phase then I'll be in the market for another cause and will re-review your fascinating carbon dioxide hypothesis at that time.

I said you won't, because we've already passed through the milestone you just described, following the 1997/98 El Nino, so you switch to AMO as your benchmark cyclical influence on sea ice.

I hope you're now clearer about which features of your chart the ENSO argument was raised to address.  As to your 'milestone', I hope you aren't thinking that ENSO and sea ice cover is like some sort of digital switch.  The ENSO index has only just returned to neutral and it will take a bit of time for the 'omg line' on your chart to return to the normal cyclical trend.  The AMO cycle itself apparently operates with something like a sixty year periodicity and we are currently at or near a peak so I would expect it to begin the downturn somewhere within the next five years or so - if it hasn't already - but it's difficult if not impossible to predict when to better than +/- a few years.  If ice is still declining after another five years I'll start to get a bit suspicious.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #42
How many?  I don't know.  Perhaps a better question would be how many of those working in the area of Arctic ice variability think that the primary driving signal - but doubtless not unique factor - is AMO? 
I cited two that do NOT think AMO accounts for most of the recent decrease in Arctic sea ice. 
Can you cite two that think it does?

Quote
And again I don't know but what is easily predictable is that any such view will be severely frowned upon by the currently carbon dioxide-obsessed establishment making it probably quite difficult to ascertain how many so think.
Oh. Right. They've been silenced by the jack-booted thugs of political correctness.  ::)
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #43
  In order to go with an anthro CO2 driven Arctic sea ice decline it is essential for a proper demonstration of why the AMO cannot account for what we observe and how the CO2 hypothesis can uniquely account for historical variation.

Once I skipped past the whatsupwiththat results, this was all I found: papers, and editorials citing papers demonstrating in one way or another than the AMO cannot account for ice loss since 1950 or so, but that rising CO2 levels do.

Google ranks results not by correctness, but by a proprietary popularity algorithm.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #44
Obviously the ice will all be gone soon.



"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #45
It's way more than two standard deviations below the 1980-2000 baseline, and also much lower than the lowest year ever.

This is exactly what sea ice disappearing looks like: less and less of it on average, year over year.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #46
Ewing and Donn predicted this in 1955. Both the reduced sea ice, as well as the colder winters.

Eventually nobody believed them.  Now days, most people never heard of them.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #47
Ewing and Donn were partly right.  The arctic warmed and caused more total snowfall.  The part about albedo induced cooling over land they got wrong.  They missed that spring and summer would also warm fast enough to melt snow cover more quickly. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-jasinowski/icy-forecast_b_3395242.html
Quote
The work of Ewing and Donn had appeared in Science magazine in June 1956 and May 1958, but probably Friedan's report was one of the first to reach a wider circulation. Ewing and Donn attributed the apparent contradiction between global warming and the advent of another ice age to the dynamics of melting Arctic ice which is today well along. They predicted it would cause great snows to fall in the northern hemisphere. "These snows will make the Arctic glaciers grow again," Friedan wrote, "until their towering height forces them forward. The advance south will be slow, but if it follows the route of previous Ice Ages, it will encase in ice large parts of North America and Europe." The article did not mention the buildup of greenhouse gases which was not on their radar screen at the time, but which presumably is accelerating the warming process they described.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/tony-hellers-snow-job/



Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #48
This idiotic lie, in order to be believed, means you have to actually believe it snows more when it's warmer.  That snow is a function of the atmosphere being warmer.

Which is so idiotic, it sounds like an Onion article.

Ewing and Donn predicted this in 1955. Both the reduced sea ice, as well as the colder winters.

Quote
Ewing and Donn attributed the apparent contradiction between global warming and the advent of another ice age to the dynamics of melting Arctic ice which is today well along. They predicted it would cause great snows to fall in the northern hemisphere.

Yesterday they were idiotic liars. Today they're accurate predictors.  :dunno:

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Arctic's Not Re-Freezing
Reply #49
Look, there is little doubt that Greenland (and other arctic climates) get MORE snow when the oceans are warmer, and the atmosphere is warmer, because that's what the evidence from the ice data shows clearly.  Not globally, but when the northern regions warm, more snow falls, in the arctic.  And seemingly in Siberia.

It also is happening in high mountain regions, though not everywhere,

That's not the problem.  It's claiming there is more snow in regions that only get snow when it's COLD, that's the mistake. There is no doubt about that either.  Snow is directly related to snow in regions that get variable snow amounts,  There is always LESS snow when it's warmer, and more when it's colder.

A warm winter has little snow, and extreme cold is always associated with more snow, or ice, because physics.

There are two different things going on.  Greenland gets more snow when it's warm in the NH, because it always snows in the high altitude regions of Greenland. 

But regions where most people live, cold is what makes it snow, not warmer temperatures.  We know this because of the evidence as well.

Concrete example.  The MWP shows more snow for Greenland than the LIA.  But in most of Europe, Asia and America, it is reversed.  The LIA had much more snow and ice, while the MWP had far less snow and ice, in the mid latitudes. 

It's not hard to follow.



"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭