This is Garethman's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Garethman's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Garethman
Ynys Mon
Employment law, Governance of a Royal College, Forensic mental health.
Interests: Self sufficiency, Festivals ( Glastonbury etc), Environmentalism, Phenomenology as a research methodology, licensed hippy.
Recent Activity
Thanks Neven, very useful, have a great 2014.
Toggle Commented Dec 29, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
I'm sure one of you sharp cookies out there can give me some info on this, why has the fall in temperature rate in the Arctic levelled off above the average? Does this bode ill for the next melting season ? Blwyddin Newydd da i pawb http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Toggle Commented Dec 28, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
Excellent stuff. Being a very visual person I really find these graphs helpful in understanding the situation in the far North. Blywddin Newydd i chi!
Toggle Commented Dec 27, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
I suppose on a crude correlation an increase in SST and the Gulf stream extensions would fit in well with the pattern of Arctic melting. As a result I feel that the Arctic is melting more due to SSTs than air temps. I must admit though I am puzzled by numerous reference to increased air temps in the Arctic, but the DMI graphs show temps above 80 degrees as being pretty well average, which to my mind points to sea temps as the smoking gun in Arctic melting.
Hi Jim, inevitable is in reality a somewhat subjective view, but this Autumn seems to have been much wetter and warmer that the previous few years, the Met office charts seem to confirm my suspicions though with this October being a real soaker. It's worth correlating rainfall to Ice extent in these charts. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate-anomalies/#?tab=climateAnomalies
As to similarities between ice caps at Greenland and Antarctica. Antarctica's land area: 14,000,000 sq. km Greenland's land area: 2,166,000 sq. km And, oh yeah, Antarctica is at the Pole. Posted by: TenneyNaumer | October 21, 2013 at 06:14 @ Gareth, thanks Tenney, I do not wish to give the impression that I believe the Arctic and Antarctic are the same, it's obvious they are not. I just suggest we should be careful about considering them as completely different in nature. This is why I pointed out they both have more or less permanent ice caps and sea ice that is likely to melt back to that ice cap in the near future, and refreeze the sea ice from that point. The poles have very different geographical natures but are governed by the same laws of physics and have certain similarities beyond the presence of sea ice despite their differences. By the way, most of Antarctica is not at the pole, just the bit in the centre situated at the pole as it were :)
Thanks Chris, useful and striking chart. I wholly agree that human induced increased Co2 is driving climate change and the melting Arctic is a good proxy for that, the canary as it were. My point is that skeptics commonly say that the Arctics temps do not show a substantial increase according to some data, my point is that such issues are irrelevant because the Arctic is melting and thinning from beneath due to seas that have been warmed by climate change. I suppose we could have a situation where the ice reaches a normal extent, then completely disappears the following summer due to extensive thinning. Apologies if I am missing your point!
# Chris Reynolds No vagueness, no hand waving, no unsupported comments. A quick summary of the available science shows that CO2 is driving sea ice loss, this is supported by data and models. @Garethman I certainly agree Chris that CO2 is driving sea ice melt, however ( I accept I met get shot down in flames by saying this) I believe that the CO2 effect on melting is indirect, i.e. a warming ocean due to GHG is melting the ice from below, despite the fact that the air temperatures in the Arctic have remained low enough most of the time to keep the sea ice intact according to the DMI data, so there is likely to be other factors than just air temperatures. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php. With regard to the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic, while you are correct of course, it is worth considering that the sea ice melts back to the permanent ice cap in the Antarctic, it also melts a long way back to the Northern permanent ice cap, Greenland. The last vestiges of ice once the Arctic ice melts will be in Greenland, the last in the South will no doubt be the high plateau's of Antarctica. So in some ways there are similarities, both have long term ice caps, and both have sea ice which melts back to the land based long term ice. I suspect the reasons for the expansion of Antarctica are unclear, but current direction and increased precipitation due to a warmer atmosphere carrying more water vapour are possible elements.
@Werther, No worries mate! I think the physical world is in fact too complicated to fit into curves anyway. @ Garethman Lovely quote, Must remember it, very reassuring for the extreme subjectophiles like myself. I shall reflect with an Askraig with just a drop of water.
@John Hunt @Garethman - Take a look at this report on some recent BBC reporting: http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/broadcasting-houses-million-square-kilometre-blunder As you can no doubt instantly spot, even the Beeb isn't always "pretty reasonable on these things", when the things in question are lots of little bits of Arctic sea ice. I suppose I shouldn't take them seriously either? Thanks John, indeed, they are not perfect, but they are on the right side and if we dismissed anything the Beeb broadcast on Arctic ice I suspect we would be missing a lot of useful stuff. I won't pursue this hiatus issue because as has been mentioned, it's a bit of a distraction.
Thanks Idunno, really useful stuff. It may be a distraction as already mentioned, but I'll be very glad to see the return of the NSIDC when the tea bag party finish their little tantrum. It will be fascinating to see how much has changed over the time they have been absent.
Few more links you may find useful Rob. http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-despite-hiatus-climate-change-here-to-stay-1.13832 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-hiatus-unlikely-to-last-ipcc-united-nations http://phys.org/news/2013-09-global-hiatus-climate-scientists.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029371.900-climate-report-lull-in-warming-doesnt-mean-were-safe.html#.UlufyRY9jzI I suppose the idea of a hiatus may be a seen as a distraction from the essential point of this blog, ie Arctic sea ice, but if the theory that the hidden heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans, that warming of the deep may well have an effect of the rate of ice cap melting. Paradoxically, the longer the hiatus continues, the worse the outlook could be for the Arctic ice cap.
@ Rob If you are genuine, Garethman, then please explain exactly which 'hiatus' you are talking about, and if that 'hiatus' is not explained by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 analysis, then please enlighten us. Hi Rob, happy to oblige, but I'm not sure I have the detailed knowledge to enlighten you. We have a flattening of the warming curve over the last few years. However, if you look at my posts I point out that the long term trends are still up, and that increase is likely to return in the near future. Have a look at this BBC report, they are usually pretty reasonable on these things. It seems to me that there is no reason why we cannot acknowledge the fact that there has been a flattening in rise of the curve, or a hiatus in the trend, while fully acknowledging the long term trend and likely future. If we deny the observed data we could be undermining our own case for honesty based on good science, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504
I agree Chris, we may have a hiatus in warming , but temps have not gone down either.We may on future see this flattening as a base line for increased temps rather than a genuine hiatus. I suspect many of these papers are picking up evidence of natural variation which has been overwhelmed by anthropogenic warming. At the moment that variation may be modifying temp increase, when it changes to potentiating things could be very grim indeed.
Hi Chris, not sure why you can't access a pdf, but try a search on these guys. Cheers G NAO implicated as a predictor of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature multidecadal variability Jianping Li1*, Cheng Sun1*, and Fei-Fei Jin2
Hi everyone, thanks for all the comments. My main interest in climate science is not the science itself, because I think that is pretty well sorted. It's how people react to information and beliefs: thats my speciality. Beliefs can be based on any issue, valid or not, but a belief is very precious to the person who has ownership of it. To challenge that belief in any form can produce a quite unexpected response varying in severity. It's fascinating how severe this reaction can be when discussing climate change. I agree Neven, I should not explore those issues here, but unfortunately my curiosity sometimes overwhelms my caution. I'll try and avoid thin ice in future! For those of you who may be interested in why [people behave as they do in the face of all the evidence see this as a good primer "The Psychology of Climate Change " Rchlinski, J. http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY2001/globwarm.pdf
@Neven I was beginning to feel very isolated Don't be silly (and score an own goal). You're sitting in the hot tub with the Arctic Sea Ice Blog family! LOL ! ! Can I add a small Malt and a piece of our ever decreasing ice to that situation :)
Hi Chris, see this link. http://tinyurl.com/l8j54kn fingers crossed! Neven I really don't see why reasonably polite posts are considered to be trolling? I have not commented on the validity of the paper or it's contribution to the body of knowledge, but I was highly criticised by a couple of people for expressing concern over knee jerk reactions. Others seem to have understood the thrust of my argument without getting upset. Do I really not have the right to respond on an open thread within the rules of the forum without being accused of being a troll?
Thanks shared humanity for your well thought out response. My points on the validity of the paper are pretty close to most posts here, I laughed out loud at Werther's comment on another site stating "Keep ‘m busy as long as you can. By the time they get themselves together, we, the Very Important People, will have made nice profit and provided ourselves a nice technological shelter that we can sustain against a wasted Mother Nature." which I thought was a great point. It's reassuring though that you understand my point about knee jerk reactions, I was beginning to feel very isolated. I'll try and get the dead link fixed.
@ Werther "“a noticeable flat trend over the past decade” (Northern Hemisphere mean temperature). It is exactly this sort of claims that make these articles prone to be misunderstood or misused" Hi Werther, thanks for responding. Are you saying that there has been no flat trend over the past decade? Are the IPCC wrong on this? I agree that we are still warming, but are you denying the hiatus in that trend? I thought there was fairly good consensus that the warming trend measured over the longer term continues, but in the short term there has been a hiatus. If there are peer reviewed studies ( as opposed to blogs) showing this hiatus to be a misused and invalid claim I'd be happy to read it. Quote from National Geographic: Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002. The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports. "Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor," states Arthur Petersen, chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and part of the Dutch delegation that is reviewing the IPCC report.
Calm down Jim, keep things in perspective :) If my post is the most hideous thing you have ever seen, I suspect you have led a very gentle and care free life. Good on You. I like to think that just because someone has a view you disagree with on scientific methodology , that does not make them a troll or a denier. It just makes the point that they are thinking along different lines, I think that's healthy. My point about comparing WUWT to Skeptical Science is not the validity of their arguments, read the post again, I did not say that. I mean on their debating style. If you say anything counter to the approved science on Skeptical Science you will be shot down in flames and labelled a denier or troll. If you comment on WUWT in support of the consensus you will be labelled as a catastrophist or chicken little. While their goals are quite different, do you see the similarity? Try it, post a query which runs counter to the established philosophy of a site on both Dana Ns thread on Skeptical Science and Willis Es thread on WUWT. Compare the reactions. Hopefully you will understand what I am trying to say, it's not the truth or error of any scientific process which I find destructive, but the black and white thinking involved, which in most individuals is a cognitive problem, but seems to infest any reasonable discussion on climate change. Apologies in advance if you view this as trolling or denial or whatever. It really is not my intention, I had hoped to have a reasonable discussion on the issue of climate change science debate, but I feel like I've been run over by a hit and run driver while discussing road safety!
Hi Jim, I am deeply touched by you using my posting in such an interesting article. Do I get referenced? The point I am trying to make is not that these studies are 100% accurate, they are not, and neither are they 100% wrong. But if we immediately jump on them to find the mistakes and ignore any useful research, we are behaving in a manner we decry as denialist. As someone with a background in qualitative and phenomenological study my main bugbear with climate science is this reductionist black and white thinking. It's a plague in the science well illustrated by WUWT on the one side and Skeptical Science on the other. Currys papers may have strengths and well as weaknesses, but all we often see is one site picking apart any mistakes and the others celebrating the valid areas. There are very few sites that manage to avoid this reductionist pigeonholing, tedious for those interested in the science, but damaging to the cause in the eyes of the public. It would have interesting to see some objective analysis of this papers,looking at all aspects. But all we see is the usual sites supporting it, while the other side condemn it. Now think about this Jim, is the paper completely invalid? If you believe so, well we live in different worlds. But if there are positives as well as negatives how about addressing both aspects?
Hi Jim, another paper for you to dismiss out of hand. It's really annoying when these researchers publish peer reviewed studies which are off message. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2013GL057877/asset/grl51043.pdf?v=1&t=hmq6j6vx&s=6630d12f688e25bea82d1c51f59edf152e8fa112
Forecasts are always a bad mistake, you just hold yourself hostage to factors which you cannot know for sure.
Probably very little, the long term trend would still be sharply down as measured by minimum ice extent, and while Arctic temps are running at average or just below, most of the melting appears to be caused by a warming ocean, which in some ways is why we do not see the worst of it.