[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

so, what is the arctic ice pack like this year.....not much talk about it

6th highest record melt ever recorded.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

Which explains why the Northwest Passage was clogged with ice all summer long.

Ice breaking up near Baym Martin Island and wind pushing it south down the channel to block the Northwest Passage was probably what doomed the Franklin expedition. Nothing new.

But the satellite record of melting ice doesn't lie.

[DrCaleb]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

As for effect, in 2012 Europe had a massive cold snap that killed many people. So, we did feel the effect of the sea ice minimum.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/f ... ern-europe

If you can come up with a better theory, I'm sure there are Universities looking for good Climatologists.

Sorry, I also meant to include a list of the 2013 extreme weather events, including the very cold spring in North America and Europe - but here is a handy list!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_extre ... her_events

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A scientific 'theory' is something that fits the available data. When climatologists study wind patterns for decades and their data points to certain behaviours, that becomes a scientific theory, and 'fact'. More data can come along to update the theory, but until it does the theory stands.

Well if you want to get technical then I would say this idea melting ice is weakening the vortex and cooling the mid-west is hypothesis not theory. Hypothesis is when you notice something come up with an idea for cause then look for data to support it. If you can find the supporting data and meet the other requirements of scientific method it's a theory. Unless you can provide this support, I'm going to say they're still looking.

$1:

And I didn't say that "melting ice in the Arctic is causing the polar vortex to weaken this year". People much more in the know than me said it.

And without even looking I'll wager people much more in the know than you said that was not the case.

$1:

But you repeat yourself . . The satellite record for HadCRUT4 is 30 years long, but what about the monitoring stations and ice core records? What about GISTEMP, UAH and NCEP/NCAR? HadCRUT4 doesn't cover the poles because of it's orbit, but the others do.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-ice.html
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html

Huh? HadCrut4 is a land surface record and it's much longer than 30 years. It has nothing to do with satellites. The monitoring stations are incomplete. Did you not read that blog article you posted from RealClimate where they were talking about how they felt it necessary to invent extrapolate new temperatures for the arctic, because the land surface record is incomplete?

If you're talking long term historical records such as are in your links there is evidence of much less ice at times. At one time there was a species of crocodile living in Greenland. Recent melts show old human settlements underneath the ice.

There is a Russian ice record showing a large melt just before the satellite record. There are historical records like newspaper articles talking of great arctic melts in the 1920s.

$1:

And why is that relevant? Are you going to try to prove that '1' is a pattern again?

No, but you were talking scientific method earlier when you wanted to get technical about the definition of theory and tried to pass a hypothesis off as a theory.

One of the conditions of scientific method is to pass from hypothesis to theory the supposition must show a tendency to repeat effects.

If a record melt does not produce the effect you are claiming for a year in which there was a record increase in ice extent then it is not time to call your hypothesis of ice melt causing cooling in the mid-western United states a theory. If you want to get technical, I mean.

Yes there are always cold and hot temp records being set somewhere, but that does not explain why we're all of a sudden hearing about this Polar Vortex hypothesis this year.

[BartSimpson]

The 'Polar Vortex' is just a trendy, ominous-sounding buzzword that someone is feeding to the media to try to gin up support for the failure of global warming politics.

[PluggyRug]

Here's an argument put forward by the type of shallow thinking from a priest of the Church of AGW.

It's a binary risk matrix which is perhaps the most ignorant methodology for making a risk mitigation decision.


http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with...obsolete-7?g=4

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A scientific 'theory' is something that fits the available data. When climatologists study wind patterns for decades and their data points to certain behaviours, that becomes a scientific theory, and 'fact'. More data can come along to update the theory, but until it does the theory stands.

Well if you want to get technical then I would say this idea melting ice is weakening the vortex and cooling the mid-west is hypothesis not theory. Hypothesis is when you notice something come up with an idea for cause then look for data to support it. If you can find the supporting data and meet the other requirements of scientific method it's a theory. Unless you can provide this support, I'm going to say they're still looking.

A Scientific Hypotheses is a theory without data. The polar weather systems have a long history of measurements with thing like weather stations, balloons and aircraft. That moves it from 'Hypothesis' to 'Theory'.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

And I didn't say that "melting ice in the Arctic is causing the polar vortex to weaken this year". People much more in the know than me said it.

And without even looking I'll wager people much more in the know than you said that was not the case.

Sure! I'll take that bet. (because of what comes later...)

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

But you repeat yourself . . The satellite record for HadCRUT4 is 30 years long, but what about the monitoring stations and ice core records? What about GISTEMP, UAH and NCEP/NCAR? HadCRUT4 doesn't cover the poles because of it's orbit, but the others do.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-ice.html
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html

Huh? HadCrut4 is a land surface record and it's much longer than 30 years. It has nothing to do with satellites. The monitoring stations are incomplete. Did you not read that blog article you posted from RealClimate where they were talking about how they felt it necessary to invent extrapolate new temperatures for the arctic, because the land surface record is incomplete?

Sorry, cut and paste error. And no, I read the original paper that you refused to admit existed, from the Royal Meteorological Society.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/pdf

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If you're talking long term historical records such as are in your links there is evidence of much less ice at times. At one time there was a species of crocodile living in Greenland. Recent melts show old human settlements underneath the ice.

There is a Russian ice record showing a large melt just before the satellite record. There are historical records like newspaper articles talking of great arctic melts in the 1920s.

Ahh, but Greenland was also once where Africa is! Crocs be damned!

I also posted an article about a note that was left in the 1950's on Ellsmere island by a scientist with the forethought to leave measurements about a glacier knowing it would recede.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=81404

What does it prove? Nothing! Like I posted in a comment earlier in the thread, I'm not here to prove jack to anyone. I just want people to see that one is not a pattern, but 100 just might be.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

And why is that relevant? Are you going to try to prove that '1' is a pattern again?

No, but you were talking scientific method earlier when you wanted to get technical about the definition of theory and tried to pass a hypothesis off as a theory.

One of the conditions of scientific method is to pass from hypothesis to theory the supposition must show a tendency to repeat effects.

If a record melt does not produce the effect you are claiming for a year in which there was a record increase in ice extent then it is not time to call your hypothesis of ice melt causing cooling in the mid-western United states a theory. If you want to get technical, I mean.

Yes there are always cold and hot temp records being set somewhere, but that does not explain why we're all of a sudden hearing about this Polar Vortex hypothesis this year.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The 'Polar Vortex' is just a trendy, ominous-sounding buzzword that someone is feeding to the media to try to gin up support for the failure of global warming politics.

Because you've never heard it before does not mean it didn't exist before now. Here is a definition from the American Meterological Society, and a map of the Polar Vortex over the Eastern Seaboard in 1985. It's true that half the people you meet are of below average intellect, and most of them work for some media organization. They are going to repeat 'Polar Vortex' because they love the sound of their own voice, just like they gave up 'twerk' to endlessly repeat 'Polar Vortex'.

http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Polar_vortex


So, yes, I'll take Fiddledog's bet that the Polar Vortex cause and effect has been known for some time and is a widely adopted theory on weather patterns.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

John Smol of Queen’s University snorts at the notion there’s been a “deafening silence” in the face of this deep freeze. “No credible scientist would talk about one hot day in August” as evidence of global warming, says Smol, another Canada Research Chair, who spoke to Maclean’s from Yellowknife, where he was attending a conference. ”It’s supposed to be plus 3 C in Calgary tomorrow,” Smol adds. “Does that mean global warming is back again?”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/07/how- ... t-weather/

[N_Fiddledog]

The polar vortex existed before this year. We just didn't hear about it.

Well, we did, but it was so long ago who remembers? Back in 1974 Time Magazine was saying this...

$1:

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

This year however Time needed to sell the rubes on the idea warming causes cooling, so this year they say...

$1:

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... ar-vortex/

[fifeboy]

Oh, I see now. Time Magazine Climate Research Labs. I believe they are affiliated with Stanford if I recall correctly.

[N_Fiddledog]

As I said Time magazine will tell you what the rubes are listening to.

I think the Washington Post does a better job explaining what's going on with the science on this bit of the warming debate.

$1:

But key caveat: This is a relatively new idea, and there's still a whole lot of debate over the link between Arctic warming and extreme weather. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers sketched out the theory here. In August, Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State disputed the link (and Francis responded here). No doubt there will be a lot more research done.

For now, the consensus view still holds that global warming will bring fewer cold snaps to places like the U.S., not more. The IPCC in 2007 predicted that there was "likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks... in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -s-um-yes/

This in the context of a pro-AGW piece.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer for you though.

“Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Here is a thumbnail sketch of the physics. The poles have little sunshine even in summer, but especially in winter, like now in the Arctic. So the air over the poles rapidly gets bitterly cold because of radiation to dark space, with negligible replenishment of heat from sunlight. The sinking cold air is replaced by warmer air flowing in from the south at high altitudes. Since the earth is rotating, the air flowing in from the south has to start rotating faster to the west, just like a figure skater rotates faster if she pulls in her arms. This forms the polar vortex. The extremely cold air at the bottom of the vortex can be carried south by meanders of the jet stream at the edge of the vortex. We will have to live with polar vortices as long as the sun shines and the earth rotates.

Like any fluid system at “high Reynolds number,” the jet stream is highly unstable, and from time to time it develops meanders to low latitudes, like the one we have had the past few days. About this time of year in 1777, just before the Battle of Princeton, there was a similar sequence. On January 2, Cornwallis’s men marched south from New York City through cold rain and muddy roads to try to trap George Washington and his little Continental Army in Trenton . On the night of January 2-3, a polar vortex swept across New Jersey, with snow and a very hard freeze. Aided by the extremely cold weather, Washington was able to evacuate his troops and artillery over newly frozen roads and to avoid Cornwallis’s encirclement. Reaching Princeton on the viciously cold morning of January 3, Washington won another battle against the British and escaped to winter quarters in Morristown. Thank you polar vortex!"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/07/ ... tmosphere/

[fifeboy]

My take on this comes from not believing anything I read in Time. Unfortunately it is "reporting" not peer reviewed research and is written with sales and advertising in mind .

[fifeboy]

DOUBLE POST. Damn IPhones!

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

My take on this comes from not believing anything I read in Time. Unfortunately it is "reporting" not peer reviewed research and is written with sales and advertising in mind .

Here's one in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, by Professor Elizabeth A. Barnes titled
Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme
weather in midlatitudes, where she says...

"We conclude that the mechanism put forth by previous studies … that amplified polar warming has led to the increased occurrence of slow-moving weather patterns and blocking episodes, appears unsupported by the observations."

http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES ... w_supp.pdf

The more you look into it the more this warming causes cooling nonsense doesn't even sound like a hypothesis. It sounds more like wishful thinking.

[N_Fiddledog]

There's a new one from the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

$1:

A paper published today in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society finds no evidence of any unusual or unprecedented changes in the latitude or speed of the North Atlantic jet stream since 1871. According to the authors, "When viewed in this longer term context the variations of recent decades do not appear unusual, and recent values of jet latitude and speed are not unprecedented in the historical record." The paper debunks claims by climate alarmists that the jet stream has changed due to alleged anthropogenic global warming, as well as claims that jet stream dips are caused by global warming or global cooling.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/0 ... al-or.html

The Abstract is here.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract