Oh and Then There's This

[stebo0728]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25 ... t_melting/

Pesky computer models

[telcoman]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25 ... t_melting/

Pesky computer models

Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should go check it out

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... lting.html

He said he was going to leave the US if the Afordable Care Act passed.

Telcoman

[bigbadberry3]

They bored samples from just one shelf if I'm reading the report accurately. And it's only melting at a slower rate? How nice.

[szh]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... lting.html

That NASA link you provided here is more than 2 years old at this point ... the content may not be relevant anymore.

Z

[szh]

They bored samples from just one shelf if I'm reading the report accurately.

But, the previous computer models were assumed to apply everywhere though, no?

So, proving the models incorrect in one location makes them suspect everywhere else that they were assumed to apply to.

Therefore, your implication that somehow other measurements taken elsewhere will prove be different, is not supported by this evidence. At least, not yet.

I'd say it is a darn good start to inject reality - i.e., real-world measurements (what a quaint concept! ) - into computer modelling!

And it's only melting at a slower rate? How nice.

Um ... I think you misread it perhaps?

The words are pretty clear (my bolding below), I think:

"... it now appears that no ice is being lost at all."

"Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there."

Z

[C-Kwik]

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012 ... t-1327570/

[bigbadberry3]

They bored samples from just one shelf if I'm reading the report accurately.

But, the previous computer models were assumed to apply everywhere though, no?

So, proving the models incorrect in one location makes them suspect everywhere else that they were assumed to apply to.

Therefore, your implication that somehow other measurements taken elsewhere will prove be different, is not supported by this evidence. At least, not yet.

I'd say it is a darn good start to inject reality - i.e., real-world measurements (what a quaint concept! ) - into computer modelling!

And it's only melting at a slower rate? How nice.

Um ... I think you misread it perhaps?

The words are pretty clear (my bolding below), I think:

"... it now appears that no ice is being lost at all."

"Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there."

Z

I never pointed out that I believe the computer projections were correct. However you can't assume that one wrong spot in the computer projections automatically disproves the entire projection.

To your second point, please read the bottom of the article you provided and examine the graph as well as the text regarding ice loss.

[szh]

But, the previous computer models were assumed to apply everywhere though, no?

So, proving the models incorrect in one location makes them suspect everywhere else that they were assumed to apply to.

Therefore, your implication that somehow other measurements taken elsewhere will prove be different, is not supported by this evidence. At least, not yet.

I'd say it is a darn good start to inject reality - i.e., real-world measurements (what a quaint concept! ) - into computer modelling!

Um ... I think you misread it perhaps?

The words are pretty clear (my bolding below), I think:

"... it now appears that no ice is being lost at all."

"Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there."

Z

I never pointed out that I believe the computer projections were correct. However you can't assume that one wrong spot in the computer projections automatically disproves the entire projection.

I did not say "disproves". What I pointed out what the computer models are assumed to apply everywhere. Therefore, if one set of real measurements contradicts that model - where it is supposed to apply - then the model is suspect in all the locations.

Not proven wrong, but definitely suspect. Therefore, more study is needed to verify or disprove it. As a scientist and an engineer - having done tons of computer models (admittedly for semiconductors, fwiw) where assumptions make all the difference, I can say that.

To your second point, please read the bottom of the article you provided and examine the graph as well as the text regarding ice loss.

Now here you have confused me.

First, I did not provide any article - merely quoted from the original link. I specifically provided the text from the article in the original post.

Second, I did not see any graph in that article from the original post in this thread ... can you provide a link to what you are referring to? If it is to the 2 year old article that Telcoman provided, then that report is old - it is exactly what this new data is saying may be incorrect.

Z

[bigbadberry3]

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012 ... t-1327570/

Taken from the article above:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/file ... antarc.jpg

[szh]

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012 ... t-1327570/

Taken from the article above:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/file ... antarc.jpg

Ah! It was an article that C-Kwik posted, not I ... I have not read it yet, so will do so and comment if I have anything to add.

Thanks for the clarification.

Z

[bigbadberry3]

My full apologies. All you blues look the same to me. Sorry!

[szh]

My full apologies. All you blues look the same to me. Sorry!

That is the "I will hold my breath till I turn blue in the face" kind, right?

[stebo0728]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... dia-notice

OK CK, time to debunk another debunk. Aaaaaaaaaand GO!

[bigbadberry3]

A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims

ORLY?

The article shows a cooling trend over two thousand years no argument there but global warming is concerned with the temperatures since the industrial age. Would your argument be that the Earth has been warmer before so this is no big deal if the temperatures are creeping up?

Another question, what happens with this trend line? Why does it stop at about 1900 AD?

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_pres ... limate.jpg

[C-Kwik]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... dia-notice

OK CK, time to debunk another debunk. Aaaaaaaaaand GO!

Can't debunk something that doesn't actually debunk anything. Try reading the study itself. There is a link to it in the article you posted. The only thing the study does is focus on the tree ring data and how the prior data could not account for a larger cooling trend that was evident in other methods of determining prior temperature. This study brings the tree ring data inline with other data. Or in essence, they were able to bring the accuracy of the tree ring data up. The study in no way has any focus on current warming trends. At best, it suggests that if natural trends were to continue, the climate would be cooling now. Which on a shorter timescale (since the industrial revolution), it is not.

Another question, what happens with this trend line? Why does it stop at about 1900 AD?

The study actually stops the line there. But one thing left out in the graph posted in the article is how well the new data jives with instrumental data since 1876: