Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

501
Banjo Lovers Online


Page:  First Page   1  2  3   4   5  ...   Next Page   Last Page (102) 

Jun 13, 2016 - 5:36:56 PM

5709 posts since 3/13/2010

I thought we were talking hockey...

Jun 13, 2016 - 6:37:22 PM

13340 posts since 8/14/2003

Welllll, that's another word for it...

Jun 14, 2016 - 11:12:17 AM
like this

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

Thanks for that photo of the submarine. It illustrates folks imagination and confusion about far away Arctic Sea ice...  that photo illustrates various aspects the Navy, and Scientists discovered and have know for decades, (Inuit even longer and seals and polar bears even longer) .. that  the ocean is moving under and can draw warmer current, so it's not exactly even thickness and makes for breathing holes for seals, can even create open leads. The Navy with submarines since the Cold War have been very useful in helping understand the Arctic Ice, especially what they call the the thick (denser older vs thin annual)

Thanks for pointing out that seeming anomaly at 4.46.

This point out perhaps some confusion about what scientists are discussing.

If not understanding the difference between assessment and projection versus predictions, and simple minded evaluating if predictions is dead on... well obviously "the prediction was wrong"...  and perhaps we can those opinion blog experts on the back for how he knows more then them dang scientists. But what now? Throw our hands in the air... and be done, it's just "unsetteld", and we have no clue, no projections, whatever happens happens, endless won't know anything until after?

Of course it rather misses the big picture. Let's see what we can learn! First of course is that Scientists are using projections (not predictions), as such contain a lot of conditional if - then variables.. many variables many of which will of course be unpredictable. Obviously factors like  these things called "natural" forcing (might have heard about them) like the output of the SUN.. sunspots, cosmic rays can't really be predicted, jut kind of averaged maybe on like 11 year cycles, but can't say really year to year of exactly how much; as well as other factors of pollution, dust, volcanoes, ocean currents, acidity and temperature; and of course the weather (that is fairly unsettled science, not very good at it) simply the amount of precipitation, snow accumulated, clouds, cloud height, composition, albedo (might have heard of that?), winds, gulf stream, high and low fronts, exact temperatures all contributing to the maximum, and rate to minimum. So those didn't quite match projection (might have heard of that)....  It would be amazing if all these things came out exact like that.  - And of course this is why they speak of climate (vs weather) and TREND averaged over years - Now we should ask  the questions, how good was the work, not based on a prediction.. but how he arrived at his assessment and projection, how close, if the concepts are accurate, and analysis of why it didn't come out that way. And then let's look at where he went wrong. So looking at the PIOMAS thick ice (denser older) data, and noticing the ice in 1979... showing the Sept. minimum of 16,855 km3 - and noticing the TREND of successive years, as the mean, overall getting progressively less and less; and the decline is seems unprecedented rapid. Could project from that but as well noticing that it's not linear, that seems to be actually dropping at an even more percentage loss as time goes; especially increasing greatly since 1998 (when the GW was declared over by the opinion consensus "experts", and we moved to starting an ice age right?), more and more record percentage losses. So by 2012 (record loss) it dropped to 3261 km3  (about 19% of it's 1979, and 61% of that decrease came since 1998 ) So just doing the math, calculating the accelerated non-linear math... as well The PIOMAS website explains part of it as such.

The energy required to melt the 16,400 Km3 of ice that are lost every year (1979-2010 average) from April to September as part of the natural annual cycle is about 5 x 1021 Joules; about the 50 times the annual U.S. energy consumption.

To melt the additional 280 km3 of sea ice, the amount we have have been losing on an annual basis based on PIOMAS calculations, it takes roughly 8.6 x 1019 J or 86% of U.S. energy consumption. However, when spread over the area  covered by Arctic sea ice, the additional energy required to melt this much sea ice is actually quite small. It corresponds to about 0.4 Wm-2 . (That’s like leaving a very small and dim flashlight bulb continuously burning on every square meter of ice.)

They include  - The uncertainty of the  monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75  103 km3.

So so from that was the projection trend 2015 as ice free, or a reasonable projection?

Looking at then after the fact, why projection didn't exact match. We can see  that 2013, maximums were a bit more than projected, but about on par, 2014 a bit more maximum; but  2015 had much more maximum than projected.
(The 2016 maximum has gone back down... and so far is again on pace similar to 2012 to be a record loss... by May already down to 2013 minimum, have to go until September... hmmm. )

So was the concept wrong, the math formulas significantly off? Look at their process what do they know? Can you spot errors? How close as far as getting the trend correct?? Maybe they don't know what they are doing, but...

The other thing to consider IMO is perhaps what are we comparing? IMO we should consider who has provided the best science, and the best -- that is closest projection as an assessment - that is the best guys track records.

Problem is, there are not much other competition... mostly just these opinion blog experts, stating these guys are wrong, and the problem is they haven't really done any science or measurements.... nor made specific type predictions (as they call them) to really assess, (can't say they we're wrong on a prediction they didn't make - kind of like Monday morning coaching, or saying how you would bet after the fact?) - Did see claims that said "nothing was happening" - or "it stopped in 1998" or even some claim that  it's "recovered" - they don't have any process they can explain other than  a very mystery catchall "it's natural process" only knowledge seems to be ice comes and goes.... nothing to worry about...  and of course they seem to rely their expertise by simply pointing out the others predictions didn't match. no process -  no projection, that I can tell (IMO they should make projections so we can evaluate just how well they do)

For me I think projections are useful, and important - most accurate we can get... that give a good picture of the trend... (not that concerned with predication of a specific year and temp thing) - so I know who I rather use at this point. I wonder who the Navy uses? Ironically even  Big Oil companies in Prudoe Bay seems to use PIOMAS; but don't let that sway you...

Of course for some folks things like assessments and projections are not apparently important, they are kind of boring, and they are perhaps more interested in talking about their shooting fish in barrels and playing with hockey sticks... I suppose that's way more fun.

FWIW I am very open - would love to see these other experts projections and explanations of the projection and the process.

Edited by - banjoak on 06/14/2016 11:23:51

Jun 14, 2016 - 3:40:02 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

A well written, well considered and a  l o n g   post Banjoak.  I'm not sure why Drivel, " liked it ",   but there you go.

All the data, that these guys make their call on, is available to anyone.  Problem is you need to look at ALL the data.

 If you what to convince the world, that it's all going to hell.... then.... just show,  THAT  bit that is evidence for your argument. If you want to show the world, the truth of the matter, you use ALL the data.

How can you say there is no skeptical science counter to the alarmists theory, perhaps you just mean you don't read them.  There are many scientists offering alternate views to the nonsense in those clips.    

The thing is Banjoak....the truth will reveal it self.  Skeptics understand that the truth will prevail...So... They are not so worried about telling the world that the ice actually hasn't melted in 2015, because you and I ( and Drivel ) can see that it hasn't.  The very same reason that evolutionary scientist, geologists, archeologists etc will not say creationism is not true...they simply do not need to.

I will be very happy to make a counter projection to those clips,  I am already less wrong than they are, because I never thought for a moment the ice would be gone by 2015.  

.....Now ..first....there's a mathematical problem for the clip that they don't what you to know.   you can find this equation on several sites so I wont bother going into it in detail.  The fools on the clips are only using ice Albedo, and not the many other negative forcing that stops what they say is happening, from happening.      If you measure the amount of ice in the world, and work out the energy in joules, add in all the negative and positive forcings,  even at  worst scenario AGW numbers, it would take many thousands of years for it to be gone.  So even the basic mathematics does not stack up for these guys......

Is Arctic ice now disappearing by 2015 ?  or is It within 2 points of it's normal levels ?  Check the satellite data......it is within 2 points of normal levels.....the clips are nonsense.

OK...my predictions, based on all the data I have stored on my PC... we are now entering a La Nina phase....that means equatorial winds blowing from the East to the West will on average, be stronger for some years ahead.  There will not be stationary sea surfaces in the tropics, so they will not heat so much in the next few years.  That means... less warm water, will be pushed to the East and find it's way ( in the Pacific ) to the North West and South West of the Pacific ocean.    And in the Atlantic it will behave the same way.  So the underlying and surrounding oceans of both the Arctic and the Antarctic could expect a drop in temperature of 2 or 3 degrees.  The ice extent anomalies will drop by a factor of about 1 point within 1.5 years  and a further 1 point in about 2.5 years.

As the El Nino phrase reasserts itself, about 6 to 9 years out.  you will find a swing back to the conditions from the last few years.  NOTE.   old ice lags behind these phases, sometimes they align themselves to the phase other times they misalign themselves, so in other words the old ice thermal mass can not alter as fast as the ENSO phases change.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/14/2016 15:42:25

Jun 14, 2016 - 7:31:30 PM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

Thanks for taking time to read and address my questions. Not here to argue... just what can we learn... This AWESOME you actually do have models and projections... (sorry if I showed skepticism)

You might have missed my points. I acknowledge yes your previous projections were absolutely not proved wrong (logically) - hey we are on the same team.... neither were mine, and I can also see there was Sea Ice in 2015.... woo-hoo! So I guess we both are smarter than the PIOMAS team of geologists, physicists, chemists, paleo-climate, mathematicians, geophysicists, meteorologists, research scientists, engineers, cryoligy, glaciology, oceanography; and such ....  
that's is a good feeling huh? wink

We seem to be on the mostly same page now - what you present looks  and sounds really awesome...  I am all in favor of the Sea Ice and it returning to it's natural state... and grateful that the minimum is mathematically would take thousands of years to happen, basic math doesn't stack up. Man they were way off!!! But as  I stated, I'm not that concerned with nit picking of predictive accuracy of a few informal comments, being "right" or "wrong" - More importantly and firstly rather it's about CLIMATE TRENDS and PROJECTIONS; and how we can figure those out.

If you what to convince the world, that it's all going to hell.... then.... just show,  THAT  bit that is evidence for your argument. If you want to show the world, the truth of the matter, you use ALL the data.

I absolutely agree to show ALL data, sources, equations, math... yep we are in total agreement with that. Now I want to share this awesome news... and especially with friends and folks who actually rely on them, which these projections have very important consequences. (plus  they are really smart and I don't want seem like just a denialist conspiracy fool repeating BS made up stuff) Mostly I don't care about convincing them either going to hell, or everything is rosy, (or will be).... nor do they care... they just want best assessment and hence, projection from all the best data and methods to figure it out. With that...

you can find this equation on several sites so I wont bother going into it in detail.

So please I would love to know more of the details; I promise I won't be bored.

he fools on the clips are only using ice Albedo, and not the many other negative forcing that stops what they say is happening, from happening.

So first I am not sure which model, equation you refer that has the math problem that only uses ice albedo, and no other negative forcing. The ones on the PIOMAS source reference explaining the modeling (as well as the many subsequent source references) seem to show may positive and negative forces at work; some you mention and many others you didn't, so not sure what exactly is is missing in ALL the data that would be needed?  And there math does seem to stack up (although they state ranges and list uncertainty). Moving on...

If you measure the amount of ice in the world, and work out the energy in joules, add in all the negative and positive forcings,

Now as you continue, it seems like indeed they are not expressing or perhaps calculating as to your simple equations, (but they are working out the energy)  But then again I don't quite get all what you mean or why you would exactly do things this way for measuring Arctic Sea Ice minimum? And it seems like yours would leave out other positive and negative numbers factors. Of course as we established above, there data and models are just WRONG, been proven.. (there was over way more than dang near 5000 km3 of ice in 2015 minimum).

The more important  need - is in YOUR work. Putting .some real numbers and equations would greatly help me understand the concept. Now since you already did the calculations let's simply use those.. they should be right in your note book. Now I am reasonably good with these math equations, and joules, Wm2, RFari, ERFari, delta... so don't overly worry about going over my head (plus I know how to Googlesmiley; and have friends that absolutely help if needed) and of course I should be able to ask you for clarification. (I have no issue with admitting what I don't know and asking; that's how I learn)

OK...my predictions, based on all the data I have stored on my PC... we are now entering a La Nina phase....that means equatorial winds blowing from the East to the West will on average, be stronger for some years ahead.  There will not be stationary sea surfaces in the tropics, so they will not heat so much in the next few years.  That means... less warm water, will be pushed to the East and find it's way ( in the Pacific ) to the North West and South West of the Pacific ocean.    And in the Atlantic it will behave the same way.  So the underlying and surrounding oceans of both the Arctic and the Antarctic could expect a drop in temperature of 2 or 3 degrees. 

Again, you made a big jump to the end - don't misunderstand, I am fairly familiar with mechanics of El Nino, La Nina, ocean heat, blowing winds, Antarctica, ENSO... and even lag... I just need to have much more details and numbers and equations... you know DATA... how you are getting from point A to B to Z.... help me out, give me a bit more to go on here.

The ice extent anomalies will drop by a factor of about 1 point within 1.5 years  and a further 1 point in about 2.5 years.

Further, I am uncertain in how exactly you are referring to anomalies to come up with what exact projection you even made.... Do you mean anomalies (percent? linear? per what) I take it as +1? from the current trend, anomaly trend of (what, can't rely on bogus guys data) or from the 1979 baseline, or 1979-2009 average,  from some other natural baseline??? Those would all yield different results. As well, since you already did the work... can you state this as the guy did... simply as projection in terms of km3 and then over course of next few years; start with this September 2016... (why 1.5 years, if you already have it?) my back of pad quick should be something like 5800 km3 ---  then next 5 to 10 years.   It would be further awesome if you could just show your projection of maximums as well, starting with next March. Seems like you should be able to post that in the next hour or so.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify get to the truth though.; I am in anticipation to thoroughly read it ALL.

BTW were you aware that the Sea Ice Prediction Network (SIPN) announces a call for pre-season and informal contributions to their Sea Ice Outlook (SIO).  so to synthesize predictions for the monthly average extent of Arctic sea ice?

Edited by - banjoak on 06/14/2016 19:37:15

Jun 14, 2016 - 7:47:45 PM

Drivel

USA

1072 posts since 4/17/2009

banjoak,

Thank You.

I typing a hole lot of words not so good.

Edited by - Drivel on 06/14/2016 19:49:17

Jun 14, 2016 - 8:21:19 PM

bubbalouie

Canada

10584 posts since 9/27/2007

Good name for a band. ARCTIC DEATH SPIRAL. I can only do barre chords with mittens on.

Jun 14, 2016 - 8:27:30 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

Woooo..Banjoak you are setting me a lot of homework.  I will try to work you through your stuff over the next few days.   First off... Are you aware of the mechanism of how CO2 works on warming ?   It's quite a bit different than most people think.  Second...check the Watts per m2 heat budgets,  so power in to power out ratio.  If you have a look it is around + 1w/m2.  

About anomalies....it's quite confusing at first....so...someone comes up with a standard ( climate temperature, CO2, sea level etc )  base line,  normally a 30 year stable period measurement.  It doesn't really matter to much about the base line, for that individual data set.   The anomalies are the plus or minus deviations from that base line.  So generally speaking the anomalies have NO meaning outside their historical time frame baselines.  

The problem with that is, when individual data sets are stung along in conjunction with different base line data sets,  it leads to all sorts of BS, on graphs and such. Often the re calibrations of the base lines are dodgy at best, and complete BS at worst.   The Michael Mann hockey stick graphs, example is the best.  Some of Al Gores stuff was notorious too.......so....You have to be able to compare apples to apples.

Jun 14, 2016 - 8:38:25 PM

bubbalouie

Canada

10584 posts since 9/27/2007

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

Woooo..Banjoak you are setting me a lot of homework.  I will try to work you through your stuff over the next few days.   First off... Are you aware of the mechanism of how CO2 works on warming ?   It's quite a bit different than most people think.  Second...check the Watts per m2 heat budgets,  so power in to power out ratio.  If you have a look it is around + 1w/m2.  

About anomalies....it's quite confusing at first....so...someone comes up with a standard ( climate temperature, CO2, sea level etc )  base line,  normally a 30 year stable period measurement.  It doesn't really matter to much about the base line, for that individual data set.   The anomalies are the plus or minus deviations from that base line.  So generally speaking the anomalies have NO meaning outside their historical time frame baselines.  

The problem with that is, when individual data sets are stung along in conjunction with different base line data sets,  it leads to all sorts of BS, on graphs and such. Often the re calibrations of the base lines are dodgy at best, and complete BS at worst.   The Michael Mann hockey stick graphs, example is the best.  Some of Al Gores stuff was notorious too.......so....You have to be able to compare apples to apples.


Heh Heh! say what?

Jun 14, 2016 - 8:50:28 PM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

It's like ........


 

Sorry I didn't pay attention at first...   I had to enlarge it for all to get a great look at it.  That cartoon is so dead-on representative of your posts - of just how far ahead of the rest of us you are in understanding and paying attention to detail, and what errors could ever get by you, and the ease in which you do it. Most folk I guess it passes by.... Great post.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel indeed....

Jun 14, 2016 - 9:01:25 PM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

Sorry, I perhaps am behind the curve here, but I was under the assumption that you claimed you had actually made projections... already done the work... so figured you should just know what those projections numbers and are to be able to state quickly.  Just the km3 numbers for 2016.. and the next few years. I thought that's what you claimed?

I would also thought you could send me some of the most important model explanations, parameters and basic math fairly quickly, as to you would have those.

Well I guess not.

Jun 14, 2016 - 9:04:53 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

Yep..I love that fish in the barrel thing....it kind of says...." OK I can shoot you down at will, with what I know,,, but I,m pretty sure i haven't got it exactly right  myself." 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/14/2016 21:06:14

Jun 14, 2016 - 9:23:12 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
 

Sorry, I perhaps am behind the curve here, but I was under the assumption that you claimed you had actually made projections... already done the work... so figured you should just know what those projections numbers and are to be able to state quickly.  Just the km3 numbers for 2016.. and the next few years. I thought that's what you claimed?

I would also thought you could send me some of the most important model explanations, parameters and basic math fairly quickly, as to you would have those.

Well I guess not.

 


Opps...I get it...it's that old.... good banjoak, bad banjoak trick, that  the cops use on those cop shows....Cool I can play this game.....  There are greater brains than yours and mind combined that are doing this work.  There is countless scientific articles and papers online to study.  There is complex mathematical papers available,  All you need to do, is read them and understand them.  This is a classic SJ mike maneuver and I ain't going to fall for it twice. 

All the data I've been talking about is at your disposal, you just have to look.......just like the subject of evolution.  If you cant be bothered reading it...... then I cant help you.

Jun 16, 2016 - 1:56:45 PM

RioStat Players Union Member

USA

4422 posts since 10/12/2009

driv·el

ˈdrivəl/

noun

noun: drivel

  1. 1.

silly nonsense.

"don't talk such drivel!"

synonyms:

nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo, garbage; More

informalpoppycock, piffle, tripe, bull, hogwash, baloney, codswallop, flapdoodle, jive, guff, bushwa;

informal,tommyrot, bunkum;

vulgar slangcrapola, verbal diarrhea

"he was talking complete drivel"

verb

verb: drivel; 3rd person present: drivels; past tense: drivelled; past participle: drivelled; gerund or present participle: drivelling; past tense: driveled; past participle: driveled; gerund or present participle: driveling

  1. 1.

talk nonsense.

"he was driveling on about the glory days"

synonyms:

talk nonsense, talk rubbish, babble, ramble, gibber, blather, prattle, gabble, waffle

"you always drivel on"

  

Jun 16, 2016 - 3:49:05 PM
likes this

Drivel

USA

1072 posts since 4/17/2009

Ok,  " Drivel "  came from hanging out on a philosophy / theology  usenet news group in the early 90's.  It was meant to reflect  the truth that there is nothing that can be said that ultimately means anything.  All communication is really just a form of masturbation.

 

Happy now?

Edited by - Drivel on 06/16/2016 15:55:36

Jun 16, 2016 - 4:20:41 PM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

9979 posts since 5/24/2005

quote:
Originally posted by Drivel

Ok,  " Drivel "  came from hanging out on a philosophy / theology  usenet news group in the early 90's.  It was meant to reflect  the truth that there is nothing that can be said that ultimately means anything.  All communication is really just a form of masturbation.



 



Happy now?




. Hmmmm, that final comment creates all kinds of images in my head, but that is where it will have to remain.
Jun 16, 2016 - 4:58:41 PM

Drivel

USA

1072 posts since 4/17/2009

Maybe that was the wrong word.  I meant playing with yourself.

Jun 16, 2016 - 11:02:14 PM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 
quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
 

Sorry, I perhaps am behind the curve here, but I was under the assumption that you claimed you had actually made projections... already done the work... so figured you should just know what those projections numbers and are to be able to state quickly.  Just the km3 numbers for 2016.. and the next few years. I thought that's what you claimed?

I would also thought you could send me some of the most important model explanations, parameters and basic math fairly quickly, as to you would have those.

Well I guess not.

 


Opps...I get it...it's that old.... good banjoak, bad banjoak trick, that  the cops use on those cop shows....Cool I can play this game.....  There are greater brains than yours and mind combined that are doing this work.  There is countless scientific articles and papers online to study.  There is complex mathematical papers available,  All you need to do, is read them and understand them.  This is a classic SJ mike maneuver and I ain't going to fall for it twice. 

All the data I've been talking about is at your disposal, you just have to look.......just like the subject of evolution.  If you cant be bothered reading it...... then I cant help you.


Sorry for not responding earlier, I was busy in the field. 

I just apparently misinterpreted what you said that you have all on your computer, it was easy for you.

I was asking about YOUR math, data, models, projections. I have read many others. I am having a complete open mind that yours may be as or more valid. I completely agree with not just relying on faith of what someone says.   We should use the best assessment, projections and models out there... the ones who understand it the most; and not fake experts and just made up, as you pointed out. That's why you need to post it.

I might not get to reading it as I will be up around Matanuska Glacier all weekend.. but I look forward to what we can tell from it.

Jun 16, 2016 - 11:11:33 PM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

Woooo..Banjoak you are setting me a lot of homework.  I will try to work you through your stuff over the next few days.   First off... Are you aware of the mechanism of how CO2 works on warming ?   It's quite a bit different than most people think.  Second...check the Watts per m2 heat budgets,  so power in to power out ratio.  If you have a look it is around + 1w/m2.  

About anomalies....it's quite confusing at first....so...someone comes up with a standard ( climate temperature, CO2, sea level etc )  base line,  normally a 30 year stable period measurement.  It doesn't really matter to much about the base line, for that individual data set.   The anomalies are the plus or minus deviations from that base line.  So generally speaking the anomalies have NO meaning outside their historical time frame baselines.  

The problem with that is, when individual data sets are stung along in conjunction with different base line data sets,  it leads to all sorts of BS, on graphs and such. Often the re calibrations of the base lines are dodgy at best, and complete BS at worst.   The Michael Mann hockey stick graphs, example is the best.  Some of Al Gores stuff was notorious too.......so....You have to be able to compare apples to apples.


Don't worry about my current understanding of CO2 mechanism... and how it would play into the model... Your model and formula should clarify how you understand it. ... IIRC you mentioned it should be pretty insignificant. As far as base lines strung along with other data sets... and creating BS... I am sure that should be clear as well in itself

I am not interested in analyzing Michael Mann hockey sticks, or Al Gore's work for this; or why that should be any part of the goal? We are after the truth here right... and it should reveal itself.

Edited by - banjoak on 06/16/2016 23:14:41

Jun 16, 2016 - 11:29:34 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
 
quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 
quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
 

Sorry, I perhaps am behind the curve here, but I was under the assumption that you claimed you had actually made projections... already done the work... so figured you should just know what those projections numbers and are to be able to state quickly.  Just the km3 numbers for 2016.. and the next few years. I thought that's what you claimed?

I would also thought you could send me some of the most important model explanations, parameters and basic math fairly quickly, as to you would have those.

Well I guess not.

 


Opps...I get it...it's that old.... good banjoak, bad banjoak trick, that  the cops use on those cop shows....Cool I can play this game.....  There are greater brains than yours and mind combined that are doing this work.  There is countless scientific articles and papers online to study.  There is complex mathematical papers available,  All you need to do, is read them and understand them.  This is a classic SJ mike maneuver and I ain't going to fall for it twice. 

All the data I've been talking about is at your disposal, you just have to look.......just like the subject of evolution.  If you cant be bothered reading it...... then I cant help you.


Sorry for not responding earlier, I was busy in the field. 

I just apparently misinterpreted what you said that you have all on your computer, it was easy for you.

I was asking about YOUR math, data, models, projections. I have read many others. I am having a complete open mind that yours may be as or more valid. I completely agree with not just relying on faith of what someone says.   We should use the best assessment, projections and models out there... the ones who understand it the most; and not fake experts and just made up, as you pointed out. That's why you need to post it.

I might not get to reading it as I will be up around Matanuska Glacier all weekend.. but I look forward to what we can tell from it.


 

What are you talking about Banjoak ? My predictions for future Arctic ice ?  I've already given you that.       Oh good..... the latest Arctic Data has just come out today...we'll see if my predictions are on track.  Hope the Matanuska glacier hasn't' had a  D E A T H    S P I R A L.  Could be a wasted trip.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/16/2016 23:44:24

Jun 16, 2016 - 11:33:56 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

latest Arctic data....Notice the hit from the cooling Al Nina, and low sun spot activity.  My predictions right on track banjoak.  

                Another D E A T H   S P I R A L  averted.




 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/16/2016 23:37:56

Jun 17, 2016 - 3:54:49 AM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

 


What are you talking about Banjoak ? My predictions for future Arctic ice ?  I've already given you that.       Oh good..... the latest Arctic Data has just come out today...we'll see if my predictions are on track.  Hope the Matanuska glacier hasn't' had a  D E A T H    S P I R A L.  Could be a wasted trip.


I missed what projections you actually made in actual numbers.... like the other sites do.

The ice extent anomalies will drop by a factor of about 1 point within 1.5 years  and a further 1 point in about 2.5 years.

So it looks like what you are stating is your prediction is in agreement with the recent trend of dropping by approx. 1 per year.

The 2015 minimum was an  anomaly  5.85 of the baseline was 11,530 = 5,670; so...
2016 would be -4.85 = 6,670;
2017 would be -3.85 = 7,670
2018 would be -2.85 = 8,670

interesting; but it does seem to match the reversal trend; so probably has good chance of being much more accurate than the PIOMAS guys. I am quite interested in the details to what all went into your model, the various positive and negative forcing you calculated, way you quantified them using different variables.

As far as the Matanuska Glacier... well it has reduced, but it's pretty massive. The main problem has been with accelerated flooding and erosion along the river...  each year taking more and more bank, trees and many houses falling in, or close to; even some of the road bed is really close. Most the remaining concerned property owners are using of course the outdated assessments and projections will be glad  to hear the pause and reversal is confirmed by data, and nothing to worry about... no need to follow the erroneous advice.

Should be a good time though, although the wasted trip would be more  as the fire danger is extraordinarily high, due to the climate changes.

Edited by - banjoak on 06/17/2016 03:57:20

Jun 17, 2016 - 4:05:24 AM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

latest Arctic data....Notice the hit from the cooling Al Nina, and low sun spot activity.  My predictions right on track banjoak.  

                Another D E A T H   S P I R A L  averted.


I guess I didn't see your posted predictions for those either; so I guess I can't tell if on track. Interested to see your modeling for that as well. Love to see how you adjusted for the latest CERN quantities that you mentioned in the other post??? and how much it changed your previous predictions.

BTW the I notice you are using NSDIC info... I would question the reliability of those... from their website mentioned

Sea ice may not be able to recover under the current persistently warm conditions, and a tipping point may have been passed where the Arctic will eventually be ice-free during at least part of the summer

Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline, .

Way back in 2004 they wrote;

Why has Arctic sea ice declined so sharply over the past few years? One argument is that greenhouse warming — increases in the earth's temperature due to the burning of fossil fuels that increase the atmosphere's content of "heat trapping" carbon dioxide — is more apparent. Climate models are in general agreement that one of the strongest signals of greenhouse warming will be a loss of Arctic sea ice. Some indicate complete disappearance of the summer sea ice cover by the year 2070.

More bunk. wouldn't you say? I am sure the projection of 2070 will show they are laughable....  know that won't ever happen in thousand years right, -   shows how wrong they were about - human activities... greenhouse, CO2 from fossil fuels???

Jun 17, 2016 - 12:49:24 PM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

latest Arctic data....Notice the hit from the cooling Al Nina, and low sun spot activity.  My predictions right on track banjoak.  

                Another D E A T H   S P I R A L  averted.


Looking at your data there and what you posted about anomaly - and how you plugged in knowledge of La Nina cooling - then your Sept prediction for these graphs would be the recovering climate should be something around 5.2 to maybe 5.4 (x10^6 km2) - this although doesn't seem that impressive recovery given La Nina... or hardly enough to debunk a Death Spiral they are speaking of;  so possibly you are suggesting it will recover to the 2010 levels of about 6?  Trying to figure out which is closer to your predictions, and why? Can YOU spell out the prediction and why?

Edited by - banjoak on 06/17/2016 12:50:49

Jun 17, 2016 - 1:19:24 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

OK..Banjoak you are going on a very strange tangent with your arguments.....OK...,readers might buy into it.... go for it....but.....you do understand all this information is available to the general public...right ?....or do you expect me to put my own satellite into space and make my own data sets ?   ALL the data is there for you and for me,  although i will grant you, your tax has probably paid for more of it than mine.

Page:  First Page   1  2  3   4   5  ...   Next Page   Last Page (102) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.765625