Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?

Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...

People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.


Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.

Sylvia.

Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Feb 13 10:13 AM US/Eastern


Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Feb 13 10:13 AM US/Eastern









BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of
Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at
an increasing trend.

The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of
Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of
Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank
dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of
less than a year between 2004 and 2005.

But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their
previous rates of discharge.

Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the
problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily
occur at a steady upward trajectory.

"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a
lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior
from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to
rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady
drawdown."

The research is online in the journal Science Express.

On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:

On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...

People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.

Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.

Sylvia.

You need a broad and deep understanding. Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.
Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.

Despite your astonishment, there are only a very few forces involved
in climate. They are so large and massive that they swamp out the
minor forces.

Weather predictions are involved in truly miniscule local predictions
of weather: what are the chances it will rain two days from now so I
can plan on golf game or maybe not? The facts of local weather are
huge by local standards: a tornado can give you a really bad day, but
statistically we are in a climate regime of 1200 to 1300 tornadoes a
year in the US, and the data tells me that without needing a computer
model. The fact that 2004 recorded 1800 tornadoes is a heads up that
something is changing and I need to be paying attention to that. 568
tornadoes in May 2003 is a heads up that I need to pay attention.
Models don't have that fine a degree of detail, and are neither
necessary nor useful in paying attention to the data on that level of
detail.

People trying to figure out climate by being super excellent on
predicting local weather are approaching from the wrong direction. You
don't need to model how many blue cars cross the bridge every day to
predict climate, although there may be some bizarre connection between
blue car numbers and the chance of tornadoes that might show up in
some models. Blue cars are not integral to climate, even if
statistically they relate somehow to local weather patterns, it's just
one of life's many coincidences or synchronisities.

Climate is big enough that it shows on Earth Disc satellite pictures,
of which we have decades taken every 30 minutes 24 hours per day.

Here's an example:
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...art=0&filter=0
Results 1 - 58 of 58 for IOKE_into_Arctic. html

No less than 58 times were people reminded this data existed, placed
online by personal effort of assembling a selection from more than
80,000 images to compose 55,000,000 bytes of graphical display data
for your edification.

Predictions were made based on nothing more than the data that you
can't pour over 100 nuclear bombs worth of heat energy into the Arctic
in August and not get a reaction that would last through February.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...9c967ad5e444ea
===== quote ====
I personally made predictions months in advance of events that the
thermal-kinetic energy stored in the Bearing Sea will ring the North
American Continent like a bell through at least February 2007 pushing
frigid air off the top of the world with expansion energy. You hear
voices in your head.

A number of posts have dealt with harsh winter conditions in the
Northern Hemisphere recently. Apparently some people never learned
basic physics in the absolutely free education system we offer up to
the 12th grade.

Very arctic conditions were warned earlier this year. The
preconditions
were set up and observed and measured. The results of the predictions
are now coming true.

For instance these links were posted:
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solv...ry_Solved.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke...a_compare.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_A...o_Alaska2.html
http://ecosyn.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into...o_Alaska2.html

===== end quote ====

You see, prediction based on data, no model used, made December 2,
2006, of events yet to come, and actually a repeat of predictions made
months earlier as stated in that archived message.

I didn't need the number of blue cars crossing the bridge, nor would
that level of irrelevant detail have improved the prediction one iota.
No model that has blue cars in it would have done as good, let alone
better.

You have to understand the system first and go down down down to fine
grain details. You can't ever build a useful mental model starting
from the parts and working outward and upwards, because climate is
synergetic and non-linear. The behavior of the whole can never be
equal to the sum of the parts. There are emergent properties
completely unanticipatible working bottom upwards.

Meteorology precedes climatology: Red sky in the morning, sailors take
warning; red sky at night, sailors delight. Models are built for dual
meteorology as well as climatology. Computer models are good for
predicting the 5-day cone of hurricanes, but better for predicting the
3-day cone and even better for prediction of the 24-hour forecast.
Super models evolved to try to improve the weather forecasts, against
which they strain against limits of processors and speed.

Weather is so swamped with details that the whole is completely lost.
An aerial bomber dropped 100 atomic bombs as strong as the Hiroshima
or Nagasaki bombs in the arctic and nobody had it on their radar.
While it was a Hurricane it passed through assorted weather stations
jurisdiction, but once it was no longer a navigation hazard it was off
everybody's screens. 100 A-Bombs of energy was dropped and nobody
remembered the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: energy is never created nor
destroyed. 100 A-Bombs were lost off all the models on Earth who
couldn't tell you in advance that North America would "Ring Like A
Bell" through February, and as we see through April as well, since the
taxday Nor'easter came out of this too.

"Al Queda Gore" Al Queda @ Gore family Tobbacco farm.com wrote in message
om...
Study: Glacier melting can be variable
Feb 13 10:13 AM US/Eastern
Study: Glacier melting can be variable
Feb 13 10:13 AM US/Eastern
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of
Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at
an increasing trend.
The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of
Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of
Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank
dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of
less than a year between 2004 and 2005.
But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their
previous rates of discharge.
Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the
problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily
occur at a steady upward trajectory.
"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a
lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior
from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to
rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady
drawdown."
The research is online in the journal Science Express.

ADDENDUM:
The rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the single
biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large potential
source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if Antarctica
is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor of
Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of the
European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole, is
actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.

The oceans are thus not about to swallow up the low-lying islands and deltas of
the southern hemisphere, as so many fear. Unlike the several-kilometre-thick ice
in the Antarctic, the Arctic has ice only a few metres thick. Even if the
alarming predictions for ice loss there are correct --and Wingham doubts it --
an Arctic ice melt cannot trump a thickening Antarctic.

If the low-lying countries of the southern hemisphere don't experience economic
losses from the ocean's rise, the logic of economic ruin changes. The northern
hemisphere, Tol has found, would generally gain economically from a warming,
while the south would lose. But without losses in the south, global warming
might well bring net economic gains in both hemispheres.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...ca730-10f0-461
4-9692-fc37d99cbac3


Regards

Bonzo

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except
for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences

"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the only thing
we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr. Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast
the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT
and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

"Exxon Liars and Crooks" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?



LOWER SEA LEVELS TO COME
The rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the single
biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large potential
source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if Antarctica
is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor of
Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of the
European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole, is
actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.

The oceans are thus not about to swallow up the low-lying islands and deltas of
the southern hemisphere, as so many fear. Unlike the several-kilometre-thick ice
in the Antarctic, the Arctic has ice only a few metres thick. Even if the
alarming predictions for ice loss there are correct --and Wingham doubts it --
an Arctic ice melt cannot trump a thickening Antarctic.

If the low-lying countries of the southern hemisphere don't experience economic
losses from the ocean's rise, the logic of economic ruin changes. The northern
hemisphere, Tol has found, would generally gain economically from a warming,
while the south would lose. But without losses in the south, global warming
might well bring net economic gains in both hemispheres.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...ca730-10f0-461
4-9692-fc37d99cbac3


Regards

Bonzo

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except
for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences

"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the only thing
we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr. Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast
the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT
and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:

On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.

Sylvia.

You need a broad and deep understanding.

You mean a model.

Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.

Yes, by applying the data to the model.

Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.

That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?

Sylvia.

On Apr 30, 11:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:



On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:

On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.

Sylvia.

You need a broad and deep understanding.

You mean a model.

Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.

Yes, by applying the data to the model.

Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.

That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?

Sylvia.

Werner Von Braun said "The Human Brain is the most powerful computer
in the universe, and the only one that can be made by unskilled
labor".

I've demonstrated that I can select out of 80,000 satellite images
which I collected in 2006 and pick exactly the right bunch to
effectively communicate a very complex set of interacting forces
coalescing at crucial nexus in a transmission of knowledge which
contains the number of data bytes required to make 550 books the size
of a James Michner novel. Not only can no computer on Earth do that,
all the computers on Earth combined can't do that. You, on your part,
with access to broadband modem can download in less than a day the
data mass equal to 550 James Michner novels and extract meaningful
knowledge which will fundamentally and permanently change your
paradigm on what kinds of data has meaningful contents enabling
accurate predictions months in advance of catastrophic weather events
which killed scores and damaged millions. I posted warnings far enough
in advance that people could batten down the hatches. Your video games
gave you warnings a few days in advance at most.

The system doesn't even know what data is meaningful, and had data
deletion policies which are out of sync with necessities. 24-hour
archives, 21 day archives, 30 day archives were found to be simply
insufficient.

During the Bebinca event the night crew satellite operators failed to
even keep the zoom functions on target, and the most unique event in
the history of satellite weather records was largely missed. You
probably haven't ever even heard of Bebinca, that it had the largest
hot spot ever photographed by infrared cameras aimed at Earth -- the
hot spot was 306 miles in diameter, large enough to drop Hurricane
IOKE into the hot spot completely, 74,000 square miles in size.

Lack of attention meant that six or so days later Cordova, Alaska, was
utterly unprepared for 24 inches of rain in 36 hours time, and the
Alaska pipeline was disabled for a time on both ends by weather
related to this event. 74,000 square miles and nobody paying any
attention to something that burned laser bright on the IR instruments.
No forecast warnings given, Alaskans were stranded when the only
highway in the south to Valdez was washed away.

What you have is a hodge-podge of pieces of evidence that I was
fortunate to save for your later inspection, not because I was
expecting THAT, but because I was expecting something strange and
happened to be looking when something strange showed up. Your video
games can't do that. They are incapable of expecting something novel
-- there's no way to program curiousity into them.

We have gone out of the green zone into the red zone. We are into
territory that no humans have ever been into before, and we have no
guarantees that we will live long enough to ever get back to the green
zone. Killer violent weather was common enough even back in the good
old days, and we have super-charged the weather since then. We have
been poking a violent beast with sharp sticks.

Meaningful data collection to me is to observe and record how many
people lost electric power since January 1, 2007 due to violent
weather. My count is 2,300,000 customer days of inconvenient power
outages during the worst weather of the year. Those 2.3 million is
meters, representing 3 people per, almost 7 million people lost power
for a day or longer. I don't even count those who lost it for just a
few hours.

Video game models don't record that and get meaning out of it. They
have no human misery index.

Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:



On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.
Sylvia.
You need a broad and deep understanding.
You mean a model.

Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.
Yes, by applying the data to the model.

Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.
That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?

Sylvia.

Werner Von Braun said "The Human Brain is the most powerful computer
in the universe, and the only one that can be made by unskilled
labor".

I've demonstrated that I can select out of 80,000 satellite images

snipped irrelevant stuff about weather forecasting

I'll take that as a "no".

Sylvia.

On May 1, 12:50 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck wrote:



On Apr 30, 11:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:

On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.
Sylvia.
You need a broad and deep understanding.
You mean a model.

Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.
Yes, by applying the data to the model.

Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.
That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?

Sylvia.

Werner Von Braun said "The Human Brain is the most powerful computer
in the universe, and the only one that can be made by unskilled
labor".

I've demonstrated that I can select out of 80,000 satellite images

snipped irrelevant stuff about weather forecasting

I'll take that as a "no".

Sylvia.

Climate cannot be forecast when the human race is powerful enough to
change climate but powerless to change it's behaviors. Nobody can
accurately predict climate while people can't control their zippers
leading to population increase, nor control their passions for big
cars. We can't predict why they will vote for people like Bush a
SECOND TIME after seeing the first time.

We can't predict why you are a dumb blond. Does peroxide drain brain
cells?

Computers are useless to predict these things.

"Sylvia Else" wrote
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:



On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.
Sylvia.
You need a broad and deep understanding.
You mean a model.

Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.
Yes, by applying the data to the model.

Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.
That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?

Sylvia.

Werner Von Braun said "The Human Brain is the most powerful computer
in the universe, and the only one that can be made by unskilled
labor".

I've demonstrated that I can select out of 80,000 satellite images

snipped irrelevant stuff about weather forecasting

I'll take that as a "no".

This is a well known troll.
Please do not feed him.
Just simply ignore him or (better) killfile him.
Thanks