Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[Clem1029]

People in science don't use models to predict the future.  We use models to show how things have worked in the past based on evidence.  And the evidence we have shows the Earth is getting warmer.

I'm sorry, but this is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? There's a whole lot of problems here..

- ONE function of models is to demonstrate how things have worked to this point given a select set of variables.  But to claim that such demonstrations are not extrapolated forward is beyond false. If the only issue we had here was someone saying "hey - it's marginally warmer today from a select date in the past. here are the results we see due to this today," then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unless your claim is that global warming predictions aren't science...then we might be on track here.

- EVERY single climate scenario I've ever seen projects results forward. I mean, stuff like Kyoto was based around predictions of "decreasing temperature x degrees in y years." This is why RG's model graphs are critical - the models, as you indicated, took existing data to "prove" how something worked...and then predicted out from there. When reality doesn't match the model prediction, that means there's something wrong with the model. And since we're being asked to make economic and environmental decisions based on models that have not once come out accurately predictive, it should be understandable why some are hesitant to jump on the AGW train.

- Be careful on your absolutes saying "the evidence says it's getting warmer." A subset of the evidence indicates it's getting warmer. A subset of the evidence also says it's getting cooler. What does ALL the evidence say? Nobody knows, because we don't have all, and we obviously don't know what the evidence we do have means.

- Finally, a comment on your other post about weather. I understand your desire to separate weather and climate, and on a certain level, I agree. However, weather is a local function of climate - far fewer variables over a much shorter timeframe. By your admission we can't get predictive models to 100% match a function of climate for tomorrow. Why should ANYONE accept what's "predicted" to happen 50 years out?

[RiversideGator]

What he said.   

[BridgeTroll]

People in science don't use models to predict the future.  We use models to show how things have worked in the past based on evidence.  And the evidence we have shows the Earth is getting warmer.

I'm sorry, but this is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? There's a whole lot of problems here..

- ONE function of models is to demonstrate how things have worked to this point given a select set of variables.  But to claim that such demonstrations are not extrapolated forward is beyond false. If the only issue we had here was someone saying "hey - it's marginally warmer today from a select date in the past. here are the results we see due to this today," then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unless your claim is that global warming predictions aren't science...then we might be on track here.

- EVERY single climate scenario I've ever seen projects results forward. I mean, stuff like Kyoto was based around predictions of "decreasing temperature x degrees in y years." This is why RG's model graphs are critical - the models, as you indicated, took existing data to "prove" how something worked...and then predicted out from there. When reality doesn't match the model prediction, that means there's something wrong with the model. And since we're being asked to make economic and environmental decisions based on models that have not once come out accurately predictive, it should be understandable why some are hesitant to jump on the AGW train.

- Be careful on your absolutes saying "the evidence says it's getting warmer." A subset of the evidence indicates it's getting warmer. A subset of the evidence also says it's getting cooler. What does ALL the evidence say? Nobody knows, because we don't have all, and we obviously don't know what the evidence we do have means.

- Finally, a comment on your other post about weather. I understand your desire to separate weather and climate, and on a certain level, I agree. However, weather is a local function of climate - far fewer variables over a much shorter timeframe. By your admission we can't get predictive models to 100% match a function of climate for tomorrow. Why should ANYONE accept what's "predicted" to happen 50 years out?

Thank you Clem... You have said it better than myself and others arguing against the accuracy of these models.  If I might add...

I believe one of the reasons the models fail to accurately predict future climate is because the data inputted into the models is only accurate over the last 100 to possibly 200 years back.  This is much to small a slice of climate history to create a accurate long term model.

One only has to look at the modeling being done to predict Fay.  We simply do not understand all of the variables that cause it to turn, strengthen, speed up, etc... There are simply too many variables... too many calculations... and not enough understanding...

[gatorback]

Nuff said.  Given models don't predict the future, that what we have to go on is what is measurable and observable....

By SETH BORENSTEIN and DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 21 minutes ago

Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record.

WASHINGTON - More ominous signs Wednesday have scientists saying that a global warming "tipping point" in the Arctic seems to be happening before their eyes: Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is at its second lowest level in about 30 years.

ADVERTISEMENT

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that sea ice in the Arctic now covers about 2.03 million square miles. The lowest point since satellite measurements began in 1979 was 1.65 million square miles set last September.

With about three weeks left in the Arctic summer, this year could wind up breaking that previous record, scientists said.

Arctic ice always melts in summer and refreezes in winter. But over the years, more of the ice is lost to the sea with less of it recovered in winter. While ice reflects the sun's heat, the open ocean absorbs more heat and the melting accelerates warming in other parts of the world.

Sea ice also serves as primary habitat for threatened polar bears.

"We could very well be in that quick slide downward in terms of passing a tipping point," said senior scientist Mark Serreze at the data center in Boulder, Colo. "It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now."

My point?  Why is RG posting this:

Both satellite and ocean temperature readings show cooling.

and I assume the satellite readings also show the polar ice caps getting larger too!

They are larger than this time last year.  See the above post on that topic.

Um, it's not make no sense to me ...

[gatorback]

Here's the rest of the article in case any body cares any more...

Within "five to less than 10 years," the Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer, said NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally.

"It also means that climate warming is also coming larger and faster than the models are predicting and nobody's really taken into account that change yet," he said.

Five climate scientists, four of them specialists on the Arctic, told The Associated Press that it is fair to call what is happening in the Arctic a "tipping point." NASA scientist James Hansen, who sounded the alarm about global warming 20 years ago before Congress, said the sea ice melt "is the best current example" of that.

Last year was an unusual year when wind currents and other weather conditions coincided with global warming to worsen sea ice melt, Serreze said. Scientists wondered if last year was an unusual event or the start of a new and disturbing trend.

This year's results suggest the latter because the ice had recovered a bit more than usual thanks to a somewhat cooler winter, Serreze said. Then this month, when the melting rate usually slows, it sped up instead, he said.

The most recent ice retreat primarily reflects melt in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast and the East Siberian Sea off the coast of eastern Russia, according to the center.

The Chukchi Sea is home to one of two populations of Alaska polar bears.

Federal observers flying for a whale survey on Aug. 16 spotted nine polar bears swimming in open ocean in the Chukchi. The bears were 15 to 65 miles off the Alaska shore. Some were swimming north, apparently trying to reach the polar ice edge, which on that day was 400 miles away.

Polar bears are powerful swimmers and have been recorded on swims of 100 miles but the ordeal can leave them exhausted and susceptible to drowning.

And the melt in sea ice has kicked in another effect, long predicted, called "Arctic amplification," Serreze said.

That's when the warming up north is increased in a feedback mechanism and the effects spill southward starting in autumn, he said. Over the last few years, the bigger melt has meant more warm water that releases more heat into the air during fall cooling, making the atmosphere warmer than normal.

On top of that, researchers were investigating "alarming" reports in the last few days of the release of methane from long frozen Arctic waters, possibly from the warming of the sea, said Greenpeace climate scientist Bill Hare, who was attending a climate conference in Ghana. Giant burps of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, is a long feared effect of warming in the Arctic that would accelerate warming even more, according to scientists.

Overall, the picture of what's happening in the Arctic is getting worse, said Bob Corell, who headed a multinational scientific assessment of Arctic conditions a few years ago: "We're moving beyond a point of no return."

___

Science Writer Seth Borenstein reported from Washington and Dan Joling reported from Anchorage, Alaska. AP writer Arthur Max contributed from Accra, Ghana.

___

[Charleston native]

Um...if global warming was true based on "what is measurable and observable", then we should see a progressive trend of ice covering less square miles than the previous year. In this case, it's gaining.

But, it means we've reached the "tipping point" and it's only going to get worse.

You Climate Changers virtually have no logic. Even when submitted evidence that there is more ice than previously recorded last year, it can only mean that things are getting worse. The sheer paranioa and warped thinking are reaching exceptional levels. Oh, and nevermind that satellite readings have only been known for 30 years.

Hopeless. You people need to start building churches for your beliefs.

[gatorback]

OK. We're calling 'less ice' coverage 'more ice'.  Gotcha

I didn't get the memo. 

[Driven1]

so - was 2007 the year of global cooling or not?

[gatorback]

2007 was not an exception to the trend from the data gathered to date.  If that makes it the Year of Global Cooling, then so be it.  I never said it wasn't.  I'm just saying in human terms, it really doesn't matter what 2007 was.

[Charleston native]

OK. We're calling 'less ice' coverage 'more ice'.  Gotcha

I didn't get the memo. 

No, but apparently your beliefs fit right in with this nonsense. We're seeing more ice now than last year, but it's the second lowest ever recorded (despite that it's only been recorded in the past 30 years...a speck in time). Using logic, we see that ice is increasing, which means it has been cooler this summer than in previous years, despite nothing significantly accomplished by man to decrease carbon emissions. Therefore, things might be getting better, which could further prove that man is irrelevant in relation to the planet as a whole.

[civil42806]

Look my whole point with this is that we are being asked to make major changes in everything around us based on these IPCC models.  Well quite frankly the models aren't working.  If we had unlimited budget and money to spend no problem.  But if we divert billons possibly trillions on issues on this issue, that will be money taken away from real problems that definitly exist.  What I'm asking for the Ipcc to address why these model aren't accurate and in fact if the whole model is piece of junk.  For the money we are discussing in adding for alternate fuels and energy, just to prevent global warming,  a lot of live could be saved in parts of the world.

[civil42806]

That the models we were all supposed to be so concerned about have not accurately predicted the present or near past.  Hence their predictive powers vis a vis the future are quite in doubt.

Do you smoke pot for a living?  Seriously, that does not make sense man.  Maybe your cosmetologist is getting "models" confused.  We're not talking about Claudia Schiffer or Twiggy, although I do doubt their predictives powers, we're talking about how something works.

People in science don't use models to predict the future.  We use models to show how things have worked in the past based on evidence.  And the evidence we have shows the Earth is getting warmer.

You have got to be kidding me, people in science don't use models to predict the future!!!!  Thats the whole basis of the IPCC, thats why people are freaking out about this, thats why al gore is becoming wealthy.  Fred Taylor would be proud of that change of direction.

[BridgeTroll]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/flash/syndicatedVideoPlayer.swf?vid=sea-ice-vin

[Lunican]

Obama vows quick action to curb warming
In surprise speech, he says U.S. to help lead 'new era of global cooperation'

LOS ANGELES - He wasn't expected to make an appearance, let alone a splash, but President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday delivered a videotaped message to a climate change summit convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, vowing quick action to curb emissions and engage in international talks.

"You can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change," he told hundreds of scientists, executives, governors and even foreign officials gathered in Los Angeles.

President George W. Bush has refused to formally participate in the U.N.-hosted negotiations, instead sending observers in recent years. He has also refused mandatory curbs on emissions, instead focusing on technological solutions.

Full Article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774605/

http://www.youtube.com/v/hvG2XptIEJk

[RiversideGator]

We sure could use some of that warming about now.   

Tonight                  
   
Allow for Wind

Clear / Wind
Clear / Wind    Low
36° F
Precip:         0%
Clear and windy. Near record low temperatures. Low 36F. Winds N at 15 to 25 mph.
      
Tomorrow

Sunny
Sunny    High
56° F
Precip:         0%
Sunny skies. High 56F. Winds N at 10 to 15 mph.
      
Tomorrow Night     

Clear
Clear    Low
38° F
Precip:         0%
A mostly clear sky. Near record low temperatures. Low 38F. Winds W at 5 to 10 mph.

http://www.weather.com/weather/local/32202?lswe=32202&lwsa=WeatherLocalUndeclared&from=searchbox_localwx