Are we undergoing global cooling?

expat_panama · Mar 22, 2018

Visbek said:
...I'm quite confident that NOAA/PSMSL gauges have different calibration requirements...

--and while we both probably agree that the gov't gauges are only as good as the people that set and maintain them, my personal experience w/ gov't engineers leaves my confidence rating somewhat below the "quite" level.

Visbek said:
... It appears that rather than use adjustments, they show the range of uncertainty ...

Pse show where in the write up that this is actually stated; what we do see is that the satellite numbers plot outside the tide gauge range. Your feelings of confidence in gov't engineers may impress you enough to pay higher taxes but I've found the hard way the need for a lot more caution when I handle my money.

Visbek said:
...there is a discrepancy, both measurements show the same trend...

Here's what we're looking at--

--and while I do see the discrepancy you acknowledged somehow I don't see the two trends as being the same. In fact, I'm seeing some time intervals where one is positive and the other is negative. I'll readily agree that it's not hard at all to construct a logic framework to justify anything we've decided to believe, but what I'm not getting here are hard numbers showing one trend being equal to the other.

Visbek · Mar 22, 2018

expat_panama said:
Pse show where in the write up that this is actually stated; what we do see is that the satellite numbers plot outside the tide gauge range.

Here ya go. (Ending in 2014). Do the shaded areas look familiar?

....while I do see the discrepancy you acknowledged somehow I don't see the two trends as being the same.

C'mon, man.

We have 25 years of satellite data. Both the tidal gauges and altimetry show a strong upward trend. We already know that the two datasets won't be the identical, and we know why. And you're focusing on what? One year where tidal went up, and altimetry went down? That's just cherry-picking.

In fact, I'm seeing some time intervals where one is positive and the other is negative. I'll readily agree that it's not hard at all to construct a logic framework to justify anything we've decided to believe, but what I'm not getting here are hard numbers showing one trend being equal to the other.

C'mon, man.

The shared trend is clear. Both show sea level rise. Both show sea level rise at similar rates. Sea levels are rising, faster than in the past, by every way we have to measure it. The hard numbers are there, whether you care to admit it or not.

expat_panama · Mar 22, 2018

There are a number of topics where folks can see the same thing together and agree, unless something like politics or say, religion gets in the way. Like economics. Now, I don't like import taxes (AKA tariffs). One reason is because paying new taxes means I end up w/ less money, another reason is that fighting the 'trade deficit' hurts the economy. A while back I got in an argument w/ a protectionist who insisted that more exports means more GDP, so I showed him the hard real numbers from the Fed:

--and he looked right at them and said "no, both go up and down at the same time --always.

expat_panama said:
...some time intervals where one is positive and the other is negative...

Visbek said:
...The shared trend is clear. Both show sea level rise. Both show sea level rise at similar rates...

This kind of convo is toxic; if you'll excuse me I'm going to have to take a break for a while. Thanks, it's been fun.

Lord of Planar · Mar 23, 2018

Visbek said:
That isn't what you said at all. You wrote:

I have never seen where they apply adjustments for the loss of evapotransiration and the change of albedo development brings. Do you have a paper that shows they do?

Nothing you wrote that mentions urban areas "contaminating" rural readings.

I explained how the protocols do include effects like evapotranspiration (note, you keep misspelling it)by design.

I provided numerous papers that discuss evapotranspiration in the context of UHI. In fact, the protocol used by GISS produces the opposite of that effect. They use rural readings as a baseline to reduce the urban readings.

I have never seen anything which says that urban areas affect either the evapotranspiration or albedo of rural areas that are up to 500km away. (That includes the linked papers.) Nor does any such claim make sense. In fact, just adding greenery to cities is sufficient to partially offset the reduction in evapotranspiration in urban areas.

What else ya got?

The papers discuss evapotranspiration. They do not address how they adjust for, or if they adjust for their contamination of nearby meteorological sites. Homogenization does not cover it. Trends do not cover it. You listed a set of papers that you didn't even read. If so, give me the money quote. It appears you used some bloggers list of papers.

Bad form.

As for saying that in one sentence, I did not mention what I constantly claim... My God. Just how bad are you ethics. You know what I am asking, but act superior on a technicality.

Again... Bad form...

Tim the plumber · Mar 23, 2018

Visbek said:
What are you on about now? What "ice sheet" are you talking about?

Exactly, there is no missing large ice sheet. Your idea that 1560 giga tonnes of ice have melted is obviously wrong.

Jack Hays · Mar 23, 2018

Greenland ice sheet
A Geological Perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Guest Geological Perspective by David Middleton Before we get to my geological perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), let’s first have a look at the NASA perspective: Greenland Ice Loss 2002-2016 The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research…

Tim the plumber · Mar 23, 2018

Jack Hays said:
Greenland ice sheet
A Geological Perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Guest Geological Perspective by David Middleton Before we get to my geological perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), let’s first have a look at the NASA perspective: Greenland Ice Loss 2002-2016 The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research…

How come it is just me that has noticed that there is just not that much outflow from Greenland.

If you had a thousand Manhattan sized ice burgs coming out every year then that would be enough but without that scale of ice loss then Greenland is gaining ice.

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Lord of Planar said:
The papers discuss evapotranspiration. They do not address how they adjust for, or if they adjust for their contamination of nearby meteorological sites. Homogenization does not cover it.

Assertion is not an argument.

Any effects of evapotranspiration, or any other sources of excess heat, will be included in the UHI adjustments. That's how the process works. It doesn't matter how or why an urban area increases in temperature over time, what matters is adjusting for the total UHI effects. There is no need to adjust 0.05C for evapotranspiration and 0.07C for albedo and 0.03C for proximity to an airport, or to update those precise numbers every year. What matters is knowing that a specific station has a total 0.15C bias compared to past measurement methodologies.

Think of it this way. I go to the doctor's office, and they check my weight. They don't need to weight my pants, shoes, shirt and wallet separately to figure out how much that throws off measurements of my body weight. The composition doesn't matter. All they need to know is that those items will throw off the results, and by how much, and make the adjustment.

And again, comparative stations can be up to 500km away. That means adjustments for New York City will extend out to Western Pennsylvania, almost all of New York State, and to the Vermont border. I'm pretty sure that evapotranspiration rates of farms in Oneida County are not "contaminated" by the asphalt in New York City.

Thus, I see no reason, nor have you provided any reason, why these adjustment methods are invalid.

If you want to wonk out, I believe the following paper describes NOAA's "pairwise" methodology for station adjustment, including evaluations of the adjustments.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2008JCLI2263.1

NOAA's method is more complex than GISS, but both produce nearly the same results.

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
Exactly, there is no missing large ice sheet. Your idea that 1560 giga tonnes of ice have melted is obviously wrong.

And I must ask again... What are you talking about? Which ice sheet do you mean -- Greenland? Antarctica? Every glacier on the planet except those two? What time frame are you talking about?

Tim the plumber · Mar 23, 2018

Visbek said:
And I must ask again... What are you talking about? Which ice sheet do you mean -- Greenland? Antarctica? Every glacier on the planet except those two? What time frame are you talking about?

I am talking about the not missing ice sheet. The not massive hole in Greenland that used to have all that ice in it.

The amount of glacial ice that has melted over the period 2003 to 2009 is not 1560 Gigatonnes. It's still there!!!

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
How come it is just me that has noticed that there is just not that much outflow from Greenland.

If you had a thousand Manhattan sized ice burgs coming out every year then that would be enough but without that scale of ice loss then Greenland is gaining ice.

Sorry dude, but wishful thinking does not make empirical evidence disappear.

Tim the plumber · Mar 23, 2018

Visbek said:
Sorry dude, but wishful thinking does not make empirical evidence disappear.

A silly graph is not evidence!!!!

Look at the map, find the massive area of newly exposed land that used to have very thick glaciers all over it!!

Sunsettommy · Mar 23, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
A silly graph is not evidence!!!!

Look at the map, find the massive area of newly exposed land that used to have very thick glaciers all over it!!

Notice the overreliance on the GRACE satellite data?

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
I am talking about the not missing ice sheet. The not massive hole in Greenland that used to have all that ice in it.

The amount of glacial ice that has melted over the period 2003 to 2009 is not 1560 Gigatonnes. It's still there!!!

Greenland's ice sheet is probably 21 TRILLION gigatons of ice.

If my math is correct, 1500 gigatons is 0.00000000007% of Greenland's total ice mass.

If Greenland loses 250 gigatons per year on average, it would take 84,000,000,000 years for the entire ice sheet to melt.

Even if I'm off by an entire order of magnitude on the size of the ice sheet (e.g. 2 trillion), then 250gt/yr is still a teeny tiny percentage of the total.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Tim the plumber · Mar 23, 2018

Sunsettommy said:
Notice the overreliance on the GRACE satellite data?

Evidence for Greenland gaining ice;

1, lack of vast out flows.

2, Lack of apparent loss of vast amounts of ice, 300Gt/yr for 20 years should be fairly obvious.

3, Day length getting less as ice mass accumulates at the poles.

4, Bizzar way chosen to measure the ice mass of Greenland. No use of an airplane with the 2 different radars which was used in the 1960's to get very good pictures of the ice thickness and land topography under the ice.

And on the other side;

1, The GRACE data. Totally uncheckable.

Tim the plumber · Mar 23, 2018

Visbek said:
Greenland's ice sheet is probably 21 TRILLION gigatons of ice.

If my math is correct, 1500 gigatons is 0.00000000007% of Greenland's total ice mass.

If Greenland loses 250 gigatons per year on average, it would take 84,000,000,000 years for the entire ice sheet to melt.

Even if I'm off by an entire order of magnitude on the size of the ice sheet (e.g. 2 trillion), then 250gt/yr is still a teeny tiny percentage of the total.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

It does clarify the situation; you have no clue.

The amount of snowfall landing on Greenland requires the flow rate of the Mississippi for 18 months to clear. The loss of 300Gt requires an additional 7 Mississippi months flow.

The flow coming out of Greenland is less than that of the Mississippi. That's during the high summer when it is maximum.

The loss of 1560 Gt would be obvious. It would leave a big hole in the ice sheet. You could not miss it.

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
It does clarify the situation; you have no clue.

The amount of snowfall landing on Greenland requires the flow rate of the Mississippi for 18 months to clear. The loss of 300Gt requires an additional 7 Mississippi months flow.

The flow coming out of Greenland is less than that of the Mississippi. That's during the high summer when it is maximum.

The loss of 1560 Gt would be obvious. It would leave a big hole in the ice sheet. You could not miss it.

lol

Lower bound:
Ice sheet is an average of 2 kilometers thick
Area of ice sheet is area 1,833,900 km2
So, that's 3,667,800,000 km3
1.091 cubic km of ice = 1 gigaton of ice
Result: Greenland Ice Sheet is a minimum of 3.3 trillion gigatons
The ice is also compressed, so it's going to be more than that.

Upper bound:
360 gigatons raises the ocean levels by 1mm
If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, sea levels would increase 6 meters
Result: 21 trillion gigatons of ice

Now, let's try to work this in reverse. Let's say Greenland's ice sheet is 30,000 gigatons. That's 32,730 km3 of ice. In order to cover 1.8m km2, it would have to be, on average, 17 meters thick. Not kilometers, just meters. Even if we up the total weight to 300,000 gigatons, that's only 170m thick. Meaning, you get nowhere near its average thickness (2000m). Surprise! Your numbers are way off, even based on the minimum scenario.

Your precipitation... "claim" has already been discussed and dismissed in other threads. In case you need a refresher: The vast majority of precipitation in Greenland is hitting the coasts, mostly along the South, and flowing right off.

A fair amount of snow does accumulate and turn into ice. Guess what? That's accounted for. When we speak of the losses, we are discussing losses of total ice mass balance. E.g. Greenland may be gaining 500gt of ice in a given year, but losing 750gt. Net loss: 250gt.

Sunsettommy · Mar 23, 2018

Sigh,

Tim the Plummer point keeps getting missed or ignored. If it was losing that much mass over the last few decades, there would have been very noticeable gaps from the coastline by now, instead we get a lot of CALVING which is a sign of ice growth. The media plays up on the calving a lot.

Here is a recently published science paper showing that Geothermal activity is a major cause of melting near the North East coastline:

Scientific Reports

Søren Rysgaard, Jørgen Bendtsen, John Mortensen & Mikael K. Sejr

Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 1344 (2018)

High geothermal heat flux in close proximity to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream

Excerpt:

Abstract

The Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is losing mass at an increasing rate due to surface melt and flow acceleration in outlet glaciers. Currently, there is a large disagreement between observed and simulated ice flow, which may arise from inaccurate parameterization of basal motion, subglacial hydrology or geothermal heat sources. Recently it was suggested that there may be a hidden heat source beneath GIS caused by a higher than expected geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior. Here we present the first direct measurements of GHF from beneath a deep fjord basin in Northeast Greenland. Temperature and salinity time series (2005–2015) in the deep stagnant basin water are used to quantify a GHF of 93 ± 21 mW m−2 which confirm previous indirect estimated values below GIS. A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream.

Coastal temperature during the summer around the Freezing mark, interior much colder.

Sunsettommy · Mar 23, 2018

Historical background showing that Greenland ice pack was smaller and warmer early in the Holocene than now.

Elsevier

Quaternary Science Reviews

Holocene climate change in Arctic Canada and Greenland

Author links open overlay panel

Jason P.Brinera Nicholas P.McKay Yarrow Axford Ole Benniked Raymond .Bradley Annede Vernal David Fisher Pierre Francush Bianca Fréchette Konrad Gajewski Anne Jennings Darrell .Kaufman Gifford Miller Cody Rouston Bernd Wagnerm

Volume 147, 1 September 2016, Pages 340-364

Excerpt:

Abstract

This synthesis paper summarizes published proxy climate evidence showing the spatial and temporal pattern of climate change through the Holocene in Arctic Canada and Greenland. Our synthesis includes 47 records from a recently published database of highly resolved Holocene paleoclimate time series from the Arctic (Sundqvist et al., 2014). We analyze the temperature histories represented by the database and compare them with paleoclimate and environmental information from 54 additional published records, mostly from datasets that did not fit the selection criteria for the Arctic Holocene database. Combined, we review evidence from a variety of proxy archives including glaciers (ice cores and glacial geomorphology), lake sediments, peat sequences, and coastal and deep-marine sediments. The temperature-sensitive records indicate more consistent and earlier Holocene warmth in the north and east, and a more diffuse and later Holocene thermal maximum in the south and west. Principal components analysis reveals two dominant Holocene trends, one with early Holocene warmth followed by cooling in the middle Holocene, the other with a broader period of warmth in the middle Holocene followed by cooling in the late Holocene. The temperature decrease from the warmest to the coolest portions of the Holocene is 3.0 ± 1.0 °C on average (n = 11 sites). The Greenland Ice Sheet retracted to its minimum extent between 5 and 3 ka, consistent with many sites from around Greenland depicting a switch from warm to cool conditions around that time. The spatial pattern of temperature change through the Holocene was likely driven by the decrease in northern latitude summer insolation through the Holocene, the varied influence of waning ice sheets in the early Holocene, and the variable influx of Atlantic Water into the study region.

LINK

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Sunsettommy said:
Tim the Plummer point keeps getting missed or ignored. If it was losing that much mass over the last few decades, there would have been very noticeable gaps from the coastline by now, instead we get a lot of CALVING which is a sign of ice growth. The media plays up on the calving a lot.

What the what.

Calving is not a sign of ice growth. It is ice FLOW and ice LOSS. Huge chunks of ice are flowing to the coasts, and break off from the ice sheet. If the GIS was growing, it would get thicker and/or denser.

And again... As I pointed out... The ice sheet is probably well over 3 trillion gigatons. Meaning that 250 gigatons of ice loss for 10 years in a row is not going to wipe out the entire ice sheet.

Here is a recently published science paper showing that Geothermal activity is a major cause of melting near the North East coastline

Uh huh

Did No Tricks Zone also claim that those hot vents appeared around 2000? Because we already knew that there was a natural amount of melting and calving; we also know that the rate of ice mass loss has increased significantly in recent years. It's almost as though... as global temperatures increase... more ice melts on the GIS! Perish the thought.

Jack Hays · Mar 23, 2018

[h=1]Arctic Wintertime Sea Ice Extent Is Among Lowest On Record (but not THE lowest)[/h]From NASA Goddard: Sea ice in the Arctic grew to its annual maximum extent last week, and joined 2015, 2016 and 2017 as the four lowest maximum extents on record, according to scientists at the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA. On March 17, the Arctic sea ice cover peaked at 5.59…
Continue reading →

Sunsettommy · Mar 23, 2018

Visbek said:
What the what.

Calving is not a sign of ice growth. It is ice FLOW and ice LOSS. Huge chunks of ice are flowing to the coasts, and break off from the ice sheet. If the GIS was growing, it would get thicker and/or denser.

And again... As I pointed out... The ice sheet is probably well over 3 trillion gigatons. Meaning that 250 gigatons of ice loss for 10 years in a row is not going to wipe out the entire ice sheet.

Uh huh

Did No Tricks Zone also claim that those hot vents appeared around 2000? Because we already knew that there was a natural amount of melting and calving; we also know that the rate of ice mass loss has increased significantly in recent years. It's almost as though... as global temperatures increase... more ice melts on the GIS! Perish the thought.

You didn't read much of the paper after all.

That seems to be a common habit of yours.

SirGareth · Mar 23, 2018

Sunsettommy said:
You didn't read much of the paper after all.

That seems to be a common habit of yours.

The annual SMB of Greenland varies widely from year to year

The last ice season 2016-2017 SMB left Greenland with +550 GigaTons

This ice season (2017-2018) SMB is on track to be about +400 Gigatons (About average)

If Greenland stops accumulating excessive snow and ice the calving rate will slow.

The overall ice loss (if any) is almost too small to measure

Sunsettommy · Mar 23, 2018

SirGareth said:
The annual SMB of Greenland varies widely from year to year

The last ice season 2016-2017 SMB left Greenland with +550 GigaTons

This ice season (2017-2018) SMB is on track to be about +400 Gigatons (About average)

If Greenland stops accumulating excessive snow and ice the calving rate will slow.

The overall ice loss (if any) is almost too small to measure

I know have been reading several published science papers that show Greenland undergoes a cyclic expansion and contraction phases. Alarmists never look past the end of their noses (or about 35 years) to realize that Greenland ice pack was significantly smaller earlier in the Holocene. That around half of the total existing amount were deposited during THIS short interglacial phase. There are still some Eemian ice left at the bottom part of the pack.

Visbek · Mar 23, 2018

Sunsettommy said:
You didn't read much of the paper after all.

That seems to be a common habit of yours.

:roll:

What part of the paper says that calving is a sign of ice growth?

What part of the paper says that the increase in total ice mass loss in recent decades is due to geothermal activity? You do understand that just because we discovered geothermal vents now, that doesn't mean they began now?

You do understand that a paper that discusses natural processes does not magically rule out other causes, such as global warming caused by human activity?

How does pointing to a paper that talks about geothermal activity in Greenland back up Tim's absurd claim that the GIS has so little ice mass, that losing 250gt/yr would produce a huge hole, visible to the naked eye?

Why do you think that moving the goalposts like this constitutes any sort of a viable argument?

Are we undergoing global cooling?

expat_panama

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

expat_panama

Lord of Planar

Tim the plumber

Jack Hays

Traveler

Tim the plumber

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Tim the plumber

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Tim the plumber

Sunsettommy

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Sunsettommy

Attachments

Sunsettommy

Attachments

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Jack Hays

Traveler

Sunsettommy

SirGareth

Sunsettommy

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle