Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert

Judged:

2

1

1

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

You cannot have DATA to support a FORECAST.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

And your reference to MODEL OUTPUT from the AR4 'climate scenarios' is stupid as MOST GCM models do NOT model the polar (or equatorial) regions well. Which is why the IPCC report did not make much in the way of 'forecasts' for polar regions ( only temperate where the models do well). The POINT here is that even with no 'feedbacks', the arctic can be assessed as likely to be ice free in 70 years or so just from the data trend. And with the OBVIOUS feedback effect of greater solar insolation, shorter ice covered periods, salinity stratification, etc, it is almost CERTAIN that the time to ice free summers will be drastically faster than the simplistic 'if this goes on' estimate.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

I don't believe the 20 years is likely. The graph hides the fact that the trend is small compared to the baseline. But seventy years is also unlikely due to the feedback effects, so I will accept any estimate in the thirty to fifty year range as 'common sense'.

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

That said, we are well past the 'tipping point' of ice free summers in the arctic and the rapid breakup of Larsen B shows us that our 'conservative estimates based on well established knowledge' cannot realistically forecast the rapidity of the now inevitable climate change. i.e we may be surprised by some factor that makes the change much faster than expected. Just look at how ONE year can affect the ice ( 2007 ) and we don't have thick multiyear ice to 'defend' against a sudden loss of ice area.
Your argument that 'you can't prove it' is true, but irrelevant in terms that it isn't about 'proof' of a specific target date. It is about the facts and the current inevitability of an ice free summer arctic season in the near future.

Judged:

1

1

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

It is now a matter for 'betting' on the date, since there is no 'prophecy' available, nor has GOD even criticised us for our messing about, so it's unlikely we will ever get one.
I will put up $1000 that it happens before your 70 year 'forecast'. Heck, I will bet that it happens in less than 50 years (based on my 30 to 50 years estimate) to give you some slack. What are you willing to put up?

Judged:

1

1

1

GoodNewz wrote:

...
of course, clean efficient energy is obviously good, all warming aside...

Judged:

1

1

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Are you saying that climate models don't contain data that FORECASTS, PROPHECIES, PREDICTIONS are based on??

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you tell me if, apart from Alaska, that most of the USA is ice free yet, because I'm wondering what the original residents thought was happening as the ice melted all those years ago?
Did they panic as the ice sheets receded?
Are you panicking because they no longer exist?

Judged:

1

1

1

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
So you think Northie was full of crap when he replied in post #78 with “Not supported by the data? Here is the latest data:”

Judged:

1

1

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Betting with you! LOL

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Models can make output...Nor can the[y] make prophecy or predictions. They can only make FORECASTS based on expected INPUTS ( scenarios )...

forecast (v.)
c.1388, "to scheme," from fore "before" + casten "contrive." Meaning "predict events"

predict
1623, "to foretell, prophesy," from L. prædicatus, pp. of prædicere "foretell, advise, give notice," from præ- "before" + dicere "to say" (see diction). Scientific sense of "to have as a deducible consequence" is recorded from 1961. Prediction is recorded from 1561, from L. prædictio "a foretelling," from prædictus. Predictably "as could have been predicted" is attested from 1914.

prophecy
early 13c., "function of a prophet," from O.Fr. profecie (12c.), from L.L. prophetia, from Gk. prophetia "gift of interpreting the will of the gods," from prophetes (see prophet). Meaning "thing spoken or written by a prophet" is from c.1300. The verb prophesy is recorded from late 14c.

Judged:

2

2

1

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot have DATA to support a FORECAST.
And your reference to MODEL OUTPUT from the AR4 'climate scenarios' is stupid as MOST GCM models do NOT model the polar (or equatorial) regions well. Which is why the IPCC report did not make much in the way of 'forecasts' for polar regions ( only temperate where the models do well).
The POINT here is that even with no 'feedbacks', the arctic can be assessed as likely to be ice free in 70 years or so just from the data trend. And with the OBVIOUS feedback effect of greater solar insolation, shorter ice covered periods, salinity stratification, etc, it is almost CERTAIN that the time to ice free summers will be drastically faster than the simplistic 'if this goes on' estimate.
I don't believe the 20 years is likely. The graph hides the fact that the trend is small compared to the baseline. But seventy years is also unlikely due to the feedback effects, so I will accept any estimate in the thirty to fifty year range as 'common sense'.
That said, we are well past the 'tipping point' of ice free summers in the arctic and the rapid breakup of Larsen B shows us that our 'conservative estimates based on well established knowledge' cannot realistically forecast the rapidity of the now inevitable climate change. i.e we may be surprised by some factor that makes the change much faster than expected. Just look at how ONE year can affect the ice ( 2007 ) and we don't have thick multiyear ice to 'defend' against a sudden loss of ice area.
Your argument that 'you can't prove it' is true, but irrelevant in terms that it isn't about 'proof' of a specific target date. It is about the facts and the current inevitability of an ice free summer arctic season in the near future.
It is now a matter for 'betting' on the date, since there is no 'prophecy' available, nor has GOD even criticised us for our messing about, so it's unlikely we will ever get one.
I will put up $1000 that it happens before your 70 year 'forecast'. Heck, I will bet that it happens in less than 50 years (based on my 30 to 50 years estimate) to give you some slack. What are you willing to put up?

Judged:

1

1

1

I Am DigitaP wrote:

comes drizzling out like like (sic) snot from a sick baby's nose.

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, hey, hey! Your gettin' awful close to copying me! Besides, my phrase is better.
'Another pukey racist pig denier raises its snortin' nose out of the slime of denier politics......'

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
If it is the LATEST DATA, what does THAT have to do with a 'forecast'???
Does your brain hurt when you try to think?

Judged:

1

1

1

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Northie obviously thinks that he can use data to support a forecast.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
I still don't know why you don't.

Judged:

1

1

1

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure you can. Just simple analysis and reasoning will do it. Take the obvious trend line in arctic ice levels for example, along with known and obvious feedbacks. You can make a forecast BASED on the but the forecast is NOT data. It is not a measurement of reality and known fact. It is an 'educated guess' depending entirley on how educated the guesser was and how good his 'tools' were.
<quoted text>
Forecasts are NOT data. You cannot says that ANY forecast is 'data', not matter how arrived at. ALl forecasts are guesses at future conditions.
Do you get it yet?

Judged:

3

2

2

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that the IPC AR4 models do not model polar regions well. Why do you think that Northie used references to them to defend the 30 year forecast (please don't call him stupid for using it)? Also, exactly what are you using to defend your forecast? Just saying “feedback” fifty times is not sufficient. Also, you now are agreeing with me that “The melting rate derived from the existing data does not support the conclusion of an ice free arctic in 30 years” but managed to disagree when I posted the very same thing before.

Judged:

2

2

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear me; still grasping at straws, are you? Sorry to disappoint, but I cannot "defend" the 30 year forecast for the disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice any more than you can "defend" the 70-year forecast. I hate to break it to you, but neither you nor I are climatologists or geophysicists. We are in no position to argue minutiae within an expert context. On a couple of rare occasions, real experts have graced this forum only to exit laughing, so let's be honest about our lay status.
This particular thread concerns the fact that the Arctic Ocean's vanishing ice proves, yet again, that the experts are right about warming; their latest models--such as the Hadley run I linked--show that this is proceeding much faster than previously forecast. Exactly how fast? What does it matter? Two decades this way or that is irrelevant; the ICE IS ALREADY HALF GONE!
The only things you and I can really debate are:
1) Whether a unanimous, highly alarming global scientific consensus among all major, relevant bodies of experts is worth our attention.
2) Whether the clear physical evidence of warming--such as a rapidly vanishing Arctic ice pack--is worth our attention.
3) Whether we are willing to screw the next twenty generations in order to keep driving Hummers and gobbling fatburgers today; and, if not, just what we are willing to do, personally, to counter the inarguable threat of climate disaster (and, no, I don't believe that means going vegan and living in closets).

Judged:

2

1

1

I Am DigitaP wrote:

actually emphasized like YOU have to realize,

Judged:

2

1

1

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
You are incorrect; you and I can debate the facts.