Summer is too short, temperatures are too low, and the ice is too thick north of 80N to all melt.
There isn’t any physical mechanism in our current climate to produce an ice-free Arctic.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
Recent Comments
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Agreed. This leaves only a latent arctic supervolcano or the melting of the Wicked Witch of the Boxer to git ‘r done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17803691
“We can now say with good confidence that Cryosat’s maps of ice thickness are correct to within 10-20cm,” said Dr Seymour Laxon, from UCL’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM).”
PIMOAS has been vidicated, which is significant news:
“…This figure is very similar to that suggested by PIOMAS (Panarctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System), an influential computer model that has been used to estimate Arctic sea ice volume, and which has been the basis for several predictions about when summer sea ice in the north might disappear completely.”
“In addition to the announcement on sea ice, the Cryosat team also published a digital elevation model (DEM) of Greenland.
The big island, too, has experienced some rapid changes of late and is losing tens of billions of tonnes of its ice cover to the ocean annually.”
Science, bitches!
Ice melts. Big deal. Been happening for billions of years. Perfectly natural, just like a sunrise.
Get a paper bag, breath into it slowly, calm down…
Yes, the climate is changing very rapidly in the Arctic, exactly as predicted..
As predicted by natural variability.
Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
Gond
have you begun your quest to find if what is happening in the Arctic is unprecedented? Have you given the idea any consideration?
gator69
Gond has been brainwashed by the literature he has chosen to read. He hasn’t made the effort to find out if what he’s been reading is right or not. He doesn’t think he has to. He has been totally taken in.
But heck, people are still testing Einstein’s General Relativity to see if it’s right. They use more and more sophisticated methods to try to prove it wrong. They didn’t just believe it was true without testing it.
But Gond will NEVER question “manmade” global warming. He is a mindless follower. But he actually thinks he’s striving for truth. He’s been fooled in two ways: one, he believes man is changing climate, two, he doesn’t think he needs to make the effort to prove himself wrong to see if what he believes is truly right.
Gond
Is resistance futile?
You are disconcertingly quick to believe things. Where is your impulse to misgivings that scientists are supposed to practice?
There has been no statistically significant warming in the air temperature of the planet for over 17 years now. So what you claim about PIOMAS (whether it ultimately turns out to be true or not) cannot be from “global warming”, as you like a clone continually claim.
How’s life inside the Borg mothership?
Arctic is warming extremely rapidly, and it shows. I’m not claiming jack shit about GW, except that AGW predicted that the Arctic would warm more than the rest of the planet.
It’s not unprecedented,
Hey, I know, here’s something else for you to believe: the price of books has gone up in the last 150 years. Temperature has gone up in the last 150 years. Books control temperature.
Nice looking hole in the ice at 85N.
ship reports from the pole put the thickness there at less than 2 meters.
Thick ice is up against the CA. that will be the last to go.
And you should know better!!
I’d like to know where all this extra energy is supposed to come from, if the energy comes from the sun during summer (which it does) then it would make sense to look at the data from past solar cycles. I understand it as fact that the solar cycles of the late 20th century had a higher sun spot number/activity than this solar cycle (cycle 24, although still in progress), it is blatantly obvious that successive cycles of high sun spot number, larger spots and increased CME activity have an effect on sea ice, remember we are talking about sea ice and not Ice over land which there has been little or no significant change.
Any reasonable minded person would first put the sea Ice variability down to the effects of solar activity and energy coming from the sun and interacting with the Earth and try to understand how summer arctic storms break up and disperse the sea ice, or at the very least explore and try to understand this process.
Some dishonest people are using a normal summer sea Ice melting season as a springboard to launch a campaign as if sea ice variability supports their view, when in fact it does not support a man made global warming narrative one way or the other, especially in light of the recent solar minimum between 2008 – 2011 when northern hemispheric winters got cooler, more snow cover over land and more rivers freezing up, what was the Sun doing at this time? It is interesting. If the sun has successive cycles of low activity I would expect sea Ice to increase. The cycle of arctic sea Ice variability takes many decades to increase and decrease overall. furthermore, it has only been three decades of monitoring the Sea Ice from space using satellites, I would have thought that anyone who claims to be an intelligent person studying Sea Ice would understand the significance of how insignificant three decades of satellite data of sea ice actually is compared to the much larger timescales earth cycles through and with that the cycle of sea ice variability.
According to P Gosselin
“0.006% more of the world’s ice melted this year. At this rate it’ll take 166 years to see a 1% reduction.”
“… it yields a total ice volume of: 24,808,600 cubic km stockpiled on the planet (neglecting the glaciers on mountains, which are puny in comparison).”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/27/oh-no-six-thousandths-of-one-percent-0-006-more-of-the-worlds-ice-melted-this-summer/
First, the sun has been quiet for over a decade. If the sun is causing the continued melt, just how is a quiet, cool sun doing it?
Second, the Arctic has had massive storms forever. But when the sea was covered with pretty much solid ice year round, it didn’t matter how much the winds whipped around above it. The ocean can’t churn into waves when it’s covered with ice.
So…. CO2 warms the climate. The warmer air and water melt the ice. The melted ice opens up more water. More water absorbs more solar radiation, melting more ice. Winds and storms start to churn the water and break up the ice. The sun gets cool and quiet, but it doesn’t really matter, because it’s not the major player in this. It is the source of Earth’s energy, not the source of the current variation.
In other words, alarmists got lucky this year with a freak August storm.
No. It was not a freak storm. There have been 8 or 9 such storms in the past 34 years. That’s one every 4 years. Such a storm was inevitable, and since ice continues to deteriorate year after year, it was going to inevitably create a “plummet” year.
Beyond this, it is possible that the storm itself was a result of Arctic ice melt… that changes to the polar vortex, due to changes in the ice, ocean and atmosphere, will cause such storms to occur more frequently, in which case it was even more inevitable.
The next few years will tell, but there’s no doubt that the Arctic is melting and that the melt will continue. Sooner or later this is going to be irrefutable, and some people are going to have to live with their mistakes.
Do you have children and/or grandchildren?
Nothing is plummeting, The trend since 2007 is essentially flat.
There are no words to reply to a statement like that one.
sphaerica
The ice is still there. Only it has been broken by the storm into smaller than 15% concentration. That is why it can be seen by detecting methods other than the satellites results you are looking at.
If what really happened to the ice was from melt it would have happened to all the ice and not just to the area that was hit by the storm. Pretty simple to understand, isn’t it.
Um, Amino Acids, sorry, I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or what, so I’ll just respond directly as if you are.
Ice can only melt where it comes in contact with a warmer surface — air or water. The temperature of the air is affected by weather and sun, and the water by sun, currents and mixing with melting ice.
As such, the ice in the Arctic very obviously melts from the edges in, where the warmer, saltier water meets with the ice. This ice is thinner and more exposed. Thicker ice in the interior of the pack is still exposed above (to air) and below (to water), but all those meters of ice in between are shielded.
At the same time, the wind and waves of the storm really can’t do much to move/chop-up ice that is in a solid sheet many meters thick. It could only affect ice that is fragmented and open to rolling on and with the waves. The waves can’t exist under an ice sheet. They can exist amidst ice that is already fragmented due to the year’s melting.
But in the end, wind doesn’t melt ice. Heat melts ice. If you buffet ice and water with winds and waves, it may keep new ice from forming, but it won’t melt the ice all by itself.
“If what really happened to the ice was from melt it would have happened to all the ice and not just to the area that was hit by the storm. Pretty simple to understand, isn’t it.”
Isn’t this the same as saying that if the Arctic ice ever melted due to increased temperatures it would all have melted at the exact same time, in one day, the first time temperatures got above freezing?
Think about the whole system. The Arctic is not a puddle in the street. The dynamics are similar in some basic ways, but the system is far, far more complex than that.
sphaerica
You also claim the sun is quiet. Why should anyone respect and listen you?
Amino,
I think everyone should research and understand everything themselves. Other people can help to clue you in to things you may not have known, but never accept anything at face value. Dig and learn for yourself. Trust no one.
Whenever possible, find and read the original academic papers, never either a news media or blog synopsis or interpretation of one. And even then, take that with a grain of salt. Many papers are accepted and published, and then later roundly refuted. You have to follow the trail to the end, not to the point where you get bored or find what you were hoping to find.
On the sun’s activity: http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Recent%20sunspot%20activity
There are many more places to look. The Internet contains a wealth of raw data. If you have a question, the answer is usually there to be found.
The sun is very active right now. Are you looking at the sun in this solar system??
We are approaching a solar peak, but look at the solar peaks in previous decades. This is definitely a very quiet solar cycle… hardly a ten year span where you could credit the sun with melting the Arctic ice.
What I mean by successive cycles of high sun spot number is solar cycles preceding solar cycle 24 have been more active, this is where the energy came from that influences sea ice variability during summer.
sphaerica says: “CO2 warms the climate. The warmer air and water melt the ice. The melted ice opens up more water. More water absorbs more solar radiation, melting more ice.”
Are you sure you want to say that? basically what your saying is CO2 increases the rate of energy absorption of the arctic ocean, effectively increasing incoming solar radiation. So.. apparently Global atmospheric CO2 content, a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume only effects the Sea Ice of the arctic ocean during summer and near or at solar maximum?
DUMB-ASS!! 🙂
Sparks
You are bringing other explanations for what is happening in Arctic ice. And you will find there is a handful of people that, even though will read these other explanations, will continue to say, “What are any possible other explanations than man is doing it?” They can look right at not only what you are saying but what other commenters are telling them are alternative explanations to their “manmade” belief in things and still say they want an explanation. This tells me they are blinded and are not thinking. They act like clones. The Borg from Star Trek is alive and well in planet earth. They are like Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers who will stand and point at you because you aren’t infected yet with what they are.
lol
Or this don Sutherland…
“Don Sutherland says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:48 am
AGW is based on empirical evidence…”
More like “emodelical excrements”!!!
Too funny! If only they could hear themselves and get the belly laughs that we enjoy. 😉
For all those believers in Mann and Romm and co., I found out where all the arctic ice went.!!
The Russians took it!!!!!! Who’d have thought it!
http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=0&yy=2012
Strange how their satellite maps show much, much more ice than 2007 and all the Euro and North American charts show less. Maybe it’s because Putin isn’t paying them to say the Arctic is melting away to nothing, but just paying them to give the facts.
First, your chart is a week old. Let’s wait for the update for 8/28.
Second, if you read the chart you will see that the green area allows for ice concentrations between 10% and 60%, with no distinction between the two, so you can’t directly compare the two visual images. Your chart does not have the “resolution” to do so.
I also looked at comparable dates between 2012 and 2007, and I don’t see what you see, unless you count the green area as being solid ice, with no attention paid to the concentration variability that that area represents.
From the information that is available, there is no inconsistency between the two. An inconsistency is possible, but there is no way to prove or disprove it.
“Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.”
Please define “natural variability” and show that recent events are inside it.
Obviously you lack the background to engage in meaningful dialogue here, may I suggest some Earth Science classes. Start with a geology degree, then move on to climatology and get back to me.
You’re asking him to learn history. I’ve been doing the same thing. He doesn’t appear to want to do that. He has been assimilated and has stopped learning. Maybe it’s just easier to believe what a certain segment has told him rather than to think and learn for himself.
He doesn’t believe when I tell him but he is a product of left wing political propaganda.
Yeah right mr. scientist.
…if you want to argue that this is “natural variability”, you need to have some arguments to support your case. Just saying the buzzword “natural variability” does not argue your case. 1st define the timeframe and compute some statistics on what is “natural”, and then check whether recent events fit into those statistics or look like outliers. Outliers weaken your case.
You need to study Earth history, because if you had a basic understanding of the climates seen in the past, you would promptly un-wad your knickers.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
This has been posted numerous times, and many people here have tried to explain that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here. See: “Greenland Viking Farms”.
And if you are still unconvinced, I have some lovely cornfields in Greenland that I would like to sell.
I’m still awaiting even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes NV as the cause of recent, of ANY global climate changes.
He doesn’t think his knickers are wadded. He has locked himself away in a small world. He wants to be there. He thinks it’s great there.
Recent studies have suggested that the Arctic has only two possible states, either iced-over year round, or ice-free year round.
To answer the question of how, you only need to look at this year’s cyclone. It is being blamed by some for breaking up the ice, and while it did accelerate the process, such acceleration was pretty much inevitable. The Arctic experiences storms like that an average of every 4 years (9 such storms in the past 34 years). The storm broke up the ice, but it also churned the water, disrupting the layer of fresh water (from newly melted ice) at the surface, mixing it with deeper, warmer, saltier waters, and increasing the temperature and salinity at the surface.
By the same token, each year’s re-freezing is making ice that has a higher and higher salinity. It takes time (years and years) for the brine to leak out of the stable ice. Basically, by this point almost all of the freshwater ice is gone. What is refreezing is salty, with a freezing point of -2 C instead of 0 C.
Lastly, ice forms most easily when there is already ice. It’s easier for ice to form by “growing” than spontaneously forming in open water. With less surface area (circumference) with which to grow ice, ice re-growth will be slowed.
So eventually you will reach a point where the water is very warm even in winter, very salty, and very open — meaning that Arctic storms will continue to churn the seas and batter any ice that is forming, even into the winter months.
The bottom line is that a virtually ice-free Arctic, year round, seems like it may be a serious possibility. I have no idea how things will play out, but some studies suggest the “ice-free” is inevitable. I certainly am not going to put a bet on it, one way or the other.
Don’t let simple thought experiments like “it’s dark, it’s cold, it has to freeze” cloud your judgment. The world is never that simple.
Almost all of the remaining ice is old freshwater ice.
Yes, but almost all of the ice formed this winter is going to be first year, salty ice. If all of the ice melts one summer, soon or in 100 years, then the following year will see all first year, salty ice. The point is that an ice free winter is a possibility, because there are many factors to the system, not merely winter temperatures.
[Another factor I did not mention is the changing length of the seasons, with respect to temperature, and this is clear in the temperature record. Maximum summer temperatures are not currently the issue, although they will certainly rise much further if the ice continues to melt away earlier and earlier each year, leaving more and more open ocean for longer and longer periods of time.
But the fact that spring temperatures are rising sooner, and fall temperatures are dropping later, will inevitably lead to a longer melting (ice-free) season and a shorter freezing (ice-forming) season. This will also contribute greatly to whether or not the Arctic will indeed always have ice in winter.]
Think about that for a while. Imagine your grandchildren growing up with stories about this amazing place that used to exist, the North Pole which was covered in ice so thick all year that it was like land. Except then it could all be open ocean, all year. I’m not asking you to make a judgment on that, whether or not it would be good or bad or what the cause is. Just consider the magnitude of that change to the planet.
It gets covered with snow and loses its salt over the summer
I think you said something he didn’t know.
No, he said something that was addressed elsewhere in this thread, so there was no need to repeat myself.
Provide a link please?
“Recent studies have suggested that the Arctic has only two possible states, either iced-over year round, or ice-free year round.”
Other studies do not suggest anything like this. But as usual with the deniers of natural variability, it is all about angels on pinhead theory details.
“have you begun your quest to find if what is happening in the Arctic is unprecedented? Have you given the idea any consideration?”
Surely it’s not “unprecedented”, just probably didn’t happen after or during the LIA.
The Arctic has not been completely ice-free since the Eemian ended, 114,000 years ago.
A recent (Nov 2011) paper suggests (through studies of beach ridges and ancient drift wood) that Arctic sea ice between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago, within the Holocene Thermal Maximum, may have been as low as less than half of the 2007 minimum, but not ice free even in summer.
When we do reach a completely ice free state, even only in summer, it will represent a new epoch in Earths’ history.
What were CO2 levels 6-8K years ago?
Interesting, please provide the references. Does the data show anything about the MWP?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract
A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach
Svend Funder, Hugues Goosse, Hans Jepsen, Eigil Kaas, Kurt H. Kjær, Niels J. Korsgaard, Nicolaj K. Larsen, Hans Linderson, Astrid Lyså, Per Möller, Jesper Olsen, Eske Willerslev
This was actually reported long before publication, back in 2008, and taken up by a lot of people as evidence that the Arctic was completely ice free thousands of years ago, but that interpretation, based only on news reports, was clearly overstating the case.
The MCA (MWP) is not explicitly mentioned, and I imagine that it may not be able to be isolated in the timescales/resolution of the proxies used. The paper basically says that the current (now ending) ice-locked state of the Arctic formed after the HTM ended 6,000-4,000 years ago and has been increasing since then (until now).
sphaerica
You cherry picked out a work that said what you wanted. Imagine that.
Steve: At that time, CO2 was lower than today, but northern hemisphere solar insolation was around 8% higher in summer. So, we can very approximately say that the effect of current CO2 levels on Arctic ice is equivalent to an ~8% increase in solar input. In comparison, the total peak-to-trough variation across the sunspot cycle is around 0.1%
This gives a benchmark for whether solar variation is likely to be an important factor in the currently-observed climate change – and the answer is no.
Walt Meier says that greenland was warmer in the 1930s, so I call BS.
“The paper basically says that the current (now ending) ice-locked state of the Arctic formed after the HTM ended 6,000-4,000 years ago and has been increasing since then (until now).”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
Guess that paper gets filed in the round filing cabinet. 😉
Ah, yes. Ignore any evidence or thought that doesn’t jibe with what you’d like it to say. Very skeptical of you.
“Ah, yes. Ignore any evidence or thought that doesn’t jibe with what you’d like it to say.”
It’s called rejecting incorrect assumptions, something you should try, and this paper fails due to its bogus and provably false statement.
The “null hypothesis” that the dramatic sea ice volume loss is part of “natural variation” does not mean anything before you define how you can prove the hypothesis wrong, i.e. what are the limits of NV. Try to stick falsifiable hypotheses ok?
Otherwise I have another “null hypothesis” for you: Raptor Jesus did it because we humans have pissed him off. Now prove me wrong.
I’m starting to figure you out Gond. You’re turning out to be disappointing. To think I’ve spent this much time on you. Live and learn.
No, it doesn’t. Solid ice does get covered with snow (if the ice is able to form), but the amount of water locked up in the snow is miniscule. Winter snow cover melts away fairly quickly. It is a factor, but not a major factor.
But the brine (pockets of salty water that form within the freezing ice) take years to leech out. When first year ice melts, this brine is immediately released, mixed with the melting ice, so the salinity is almost the same as it was when it melted.
Eventually, the Arctic will consist only of highly saline ice, and that will be an important factor in determining whether or not the Arctic becomes ice-free in the winter.
So eventually, at the start of the melt season, you will have warm, salty water, churned by winds and waves. If it never turns into ice, the snow can’t rest on it. It can only fall on the ocean waves, just as rain does in the tropics, to be mixed with deeper waters and being inconsequential in terms of salinity.
What are you talking about? This is the Arctic. Everything will freeze over very soon.
Can you drink melted sea ice?
New ice is usually very salty because it contains concentrated droplets called brine that are trapped in pockets between the ice crystals, and so it would not make good drinking water. As ice ages, the brine eventually drains through the ice, and by the time it becomes multiyear ice, nearly all of the brine is gone. Most multiyear ice is fresh enough that someone could drink its melted water. In fact, multiyear ice often supplies the fresh water needed for polar expeditions.
All About Sea Ice, Introduction :: National Snow and Ice Data Center
“As ice ages, the brine eventually drains through the ice, and by the time it becomes multiyear ice, nearly all of the brine is gone.”
That’s what I said. Multi-year ice. As in it takes more than a year. As in, if the ice freezes this year and melts next year, it will retain the same salinity. My words “Eventually, the Arctic will consist of only highly saline ice” which is a short way of saying “Eventually, the Arctic will consist of only first year ice, with no multi year ice, and that first year ice will be highly saline compared to multi-year ice.” Is that clear enough for you?
The amount of thick ice has increased substantially over the last few years. In 2008, Mark Serreze predicted an ice-free pole because the ice was so thin.
Thick ice has increased because compaction is piling up older ice along the coast of Greenland, not because it is freezing and increasing in depth (it is, but the main factor is compaction, not freezing). And as I’ve said, this is possible because such ice is sheltered, and given a toe hold against which new ice can form.
But there is no question that each year we are left with less multi-year ice (give or take an anomalous year) and that we are heading towards an ice-free summer state. The point is that when that ice-free summer state is reached, it is a serious possibility that you will not see much in the way of winter ice except along the shores in shallower, calmer waters, as happens in many high-latitude places.
What was Mark Serreze’s actual comment, and what is your point in including the reference? Right now, his prediction of an ice-free pole seems quite likely to come true much sooner than previously anticipated.
You global warmers are such rank opportunists.
“Thick ice has increased because compaction is piling up older ice along the coast of Greenland, not because it is freezing and increasing in depth (it is, but the main factor is compaction, not freezing).”
That is about the only way it gets “thick”. How thick do you think it will get if it is not compacted?
Another question: How old do you think ice got before CO2 wreaked havoc on the Arctic?
By freezing (along with compaction).
“By freezing (along with compaction).”
Yes, like I said compaction. Thank you.
You’re welcome. Although I’m not exactly sure what point you think you’ve made.
Imagine your grandchildren growing up with stories about this amazing place that used to exist …
Stop being pathetically emotional about some desolate piece of ice that would kill you in days if you were dumped there.
Then be scientific about it.
1) Open water will absorb more sunlight, rather than reflect it — further increasing the earth’s temperature.
2) Open water will release methane, a greenhouse gas, which will later turn into CO2 — further increasing the earth’s temperature.
3) Warmer Arctic temperatures will quicken the melt of the permafrost, releasing even more methane (see 2).
4) Warmer Arctic temperatures will even further increase the rate of melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
You have it backwards. The ice loss has been in late summer when the sun is low. It has minimal effect on SW radiation, but it allows more LW radiation to escape. It is a negative feedback.
…and we’ll all live warmly ever after …
You are thinking in the present. As time goes on and the ice formed in winter is thinner and thinner, while the oceans and air are warmer and warmer, the ice melt will occur earlier and earlier every year. Even now, the amount of sunlight absorbed in the areas that do melt in May, June and July is huge.
It is absolutely not a negative feedback. Open water in summer is absorbing far, far more radiation than open water in summer or winter is releasing.
You need to run the numbers on this, rather than eyeballing it. Declaring it to be a negative feedback is, in a word, insane.
Complete nonsense. June (peak sun) ice was the highest in years.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice_ext.png
The first week in June tracked high, when measured by extent of sea ice concentration greater than 15% (or area, I’ll grant). Extent measured by ice concentration of 30% or greater was at an all-time low for the entire month.
In any event, comparisons to previous years are irrelevant. Clearly there is natural variability from one year to the next. We are talking long term, and there is a huge, huge difference between 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012. The problem progresses, and the eventual positive feedback is irrefutable.
Bering Sea ice was at an all-time high in June
Natural history shows that CO2 has at times been very much higher or much lower than now. Natural history also shows that the icecaps have been greater and much less than now. This indicates a natural mechanism by which CO2 and the icecaps increase and decrease.
Tell me, by your enumerated theory above how does nature reverse these events? Or is it that, from your theory, a train of events are already in motion and will continue until….?
Billy Liar
“Stop being pathetically emotional”
He’s an alarmist. That’s what they do.
It’s pathetic that due to their fucked-up two-party system offering them “choice” makes all Americans pathetically black-and-white. There’s never any middle ground, and you could not expect the notoriously ignorant masses to understand any nuances.
No. I study the science and I consider every argument on its merits. I have “no dog in this fight” per se. I am not getting paid by any fabulous grant money supporting “the hoax,” if it is one. I’m in my 50s. The really bad effects of climate change will happen after I’m dead and gone.
The only people that will suffer from my own inaction or poor decisions are my daughter, people her age, and any grandchildren I might one day have.
I have no reason to get this wrong, to make economic conditions worse for her at her young age. I also, however, have no reason to selfishly ignore the facts and hope for the best, figuring she can just get by on her own after I’m gone, no matter how bad things get.
I find it frustrating when people apply an emotional, vacuous label to me. I am intelligent, with a very good grounding in math and science. I read a lot. I study. I make judgments based on the information available and nothing more. I’m not being paid. I get no thrill from thinking about where this is all headed.
You can be flip and argumentative all that you like. The facts are the fact, and physics will work the way the universe decides that it works, no matter what we say.
You can work as hard as you can to stall action, and you will have to live with yourself as events play out.
I can work as hard as I can to explain the science, and I will have to live with myself as events play out. If I’m wrong, then I will bear that burden, and for that reason I always consider everything, honestly and judiciously, without preset opinions.
Everyone believes in what they are doing. The hard part is looking back and believing in what you have done.
Please do not ascribe a flip, thoughtless attitude to me. That is not my nature.
Your daughter will be just fine. You can relax.
Sorry, but I’m not that thoughtless and irresponsible. I’m also certainly not going to simply trust you on the matter. You’ve already, time and again, exposed a huge number of failures in your understanding of the science. I take no solace from your advice.
Your daughter will be just fine. You can relax
Gond,
how can you speak of nuance when you are one in the small percentage that actually believes man is changing climate? Not even all scientists involved in studying “global warming” believe man is changing climate.
And again,. you show that I am right by making another political comment.
Everything is politics to you—though you think it is science.
Gond says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Once again, the pathetically ignorant Gond confuses correlation with causation.
Go back to driving your science fork-lift, Gond.
“I’m still awaiting even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes NV as the cause of recent, of ANY global climate changes.”
I haven’t seen ANY papers arguing that we’re within NV either. Like I said, NV is not a buzzword that frees you from having to crunch the numbers and publish. Better yet, you should EXPLAIN the causes of natural variability so that we could be sure they are in play instead of something else.
It’s called the null hypothesis. Look it up, science guy.
In order to refute the null hypothesis, you need to know what the statistics of it are. Let’s hear it, what can be considered NV and what not? Gimme some numbers, otherwise anything could be argued to be NV, and that’s not a scientific position, but stupidity.
Here is what your ‘experts’ at the IPCC ‘know’ about NV, from AR4…
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
Now, crunch me some numbers based upon that enormous lack of understanding, brainiac.
We have a denier of the highest order. He denies previous reports of arctic ice loss, denies the Vikings farmed Greenland for 400 years, denies that ice can melt on its own, denies ice ages and interglacials.
How pathetic.
Southern Greenland is now warmer than in many centuries and farming is really picking, at least according to the Spiegel article and others that I provided the links for. BTW, the farming done by vikings was not that impressive I’ve read.
Is the speed of the current Arctic warming within NV? What are the numbers?
The Spiegel article was from 6 years ago, and described one potato farmer. I am speaking of a population of farmers that reached into the many hundreds, and that thrived for 400 years.
Quit denying NV.
“Is the speed of the current Arctic warming within NV? What are the numbers?”
When you say speed, how can we quantify what Hansen will do with the data? The only warming in the Arctic comes from his computer extrapolations over thousands of miles.
Glacierman,
Please visit this page (http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt) to see the satellite temperature readings of the lower troposphere.
Click on the Trend and History radio buttons to see what parts of the globe/latitudes are warming/cooling at what rates, over the length of the satellite record.
Potatoes on Greenland is hard to believe. although it is possible that the Chinese may have brought them on their great sailing journeys after picking them up in South America in the early 15th century the Vikings would not have had them from anywhere else before that. Even then that variety would not have liked the Greenland climate much so if there is evidence of potato farming it is no surprise they did not get much.
The Vikings farmed sheep, goats, grains and apples and had enough surplus to send produce back to Scandinavia. There may have been cattle although I find that unlikely in that environment, you need to supplement feed the cattle more in winter then what you would get out of it in summer.
There are age old tree stumps on Greenland, sizable ones, more then 100 km north of the current tree line, that gives a reasonable indication to past climate there.
“Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds. Fishing was primarily done with hand lines or from small boats that did not venture across the horizon (McGovern and Perdikaris, 2000.)”
BaldHill
I’m sure cattle were possible in Greenland at that time.
Of course cattle were possible, not disputing that, and they possibly had them there, all I am saying is that knowing the food requirements of cattle it would have been a difficult issue (I called it unlikely) for them. To grow the supplementary feed during summer so they can survive the winter, and regardless of the climate at the time it would still have been a fairly cold and long one, would have meant that they needed a lot of spare land to obtain that feed which would have been better used for other activities. Of course quite likely that they looked at these issues differently in those days. Sheep and goats are much better converters of feed to meat and milk and hence you need less of it.
Considering how small the Viking ships were any cattle in them would not have been able to move much or it could have caused the ship to capsize, even if the cattle was smaller in those days it would still have been a 400 odd kg beast.
I understand better what you meant.
Spaerica wept:
Wipe the tears off your keyboard & think for a moment: if you really believed that CO2 was destroying the planet you wouldn’t be using electricity. By posting your pathetic, emotional outbursts here, you show yourself to be a liar. Your entire belief system is predicated on a bunch of crying & then pretending that your own actions aren’t leading to what you mendaciously claim to fear.
You are a fraud. You have a personal responsibility to live without electricity, automobiles, shipping, refrigeration, concrete, & thousands of other things brought to you by cheap, hydrocarbon energy; or admit that you, personally are attempting to murder your own children & grandchildren.
Hypocrite.
No, that’s silly. I can’t change the world by simply slitting my own throat, and we don’t need to completely cut off all energy use. That would be as bad as doing nothing.
The real “alarmism” is the fear that making small, progressive changes to our energy infrastructure and habits will somehow destroy the world’s economies. That will only happen if we wait too long to get started, and then need to address the problem in a panicked rush.
Change is easy. Behavior — popular, collective behavior — changes will reduce emissions very quickly. There are many little, simple things that society can do.
Look at the success of the RGGI. http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2012/08/climate_change_pact_needs_to_b.html
You create a false dichotomy. Your position amounts to: “Either you believe in global warming, in which case you should choose to go live in a cave, or you don’t. Any other course is hypocrisy.”
That is far too simplistic.
[Why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? Where is your anger at me coming from?]
“I can’t change the world by simply slitting my own throat,”
This is hyperbolic drivel. Just in the US, there are over 100 Milllllion true believers in CACC, aka ‘pro-climate’ (ho ho!). The faithful should immediately reduce their carbon skidmarks to zero, not with offsets or tiths, but with a real personal conversion to emissions-free technologies, foods, clothing, goods, behaviors, zero children, work from home, etc. As the same group of hand-wringers constantly claim, all of these choices are available now.
No cost is too great to avoid the pending catastrophe. Since the benefit of avoiding the CACC hitting the fan is infinite, the cost/benefit ratio will always be zero, regardless of costs or discount rate chosen. Its a no-brainer on a personal level, right? Of course, separation of church and state prevents you from demanding that other taxpayers cover your costs.
Once one group takes this bold step, it will shame the rest into compliance. It is also the most effective way to punish big oil and big coal and big gas- eliminate their customer base and they go out of business.
Unless this happens, the pro-climateers will continue to be grade A hypocrites and deserving of dismissive scorn.
“No cost is too great to avoid the pending catastrophe.”
This is hyperbolic drivel.
sphaerica said: “No, that’s silly. I can’t change the world by simply slitting my own throat, and we don’t need to completely cut off all energy use. That would be as bad as doing nothing.”
What is your opinion on ice breakers? With our very lives hanging in the balance, do you advocate banning anything that would damage the precious sea ice (i.e. climate research vessels)? Do you think CO2 has damaged more sea ice this year than ice breakers?
Steve,
Refer to my previous comment on the length of the melt season, as opposed to absolute temperature.
Glacierman,
You need to address your anger issues.
Also, you are talking gibberish. I’m sorry, but your line of conversation is so far beneath anyone that it’s not worth continuing. Ice-breakers? Really? This is an issue?
Melt seasons have gotten much shorter
[Sigh. Again, that comment went in the wrong place. I really hate this comment system.]
“Glacierman,
You need to address your anger issues.”
I’m sorry, I get angry when people like you are not concerned when the precious sea ice is damaged.
Keep it up you are the latest Climate Chatterbot. When did you pull this assignment?
Al Gore is paying me $200/hour just to tick you off. Because your opinion is so important.
Really, you need to lighten up. Get out some, soak up some of that extra infrared radiation.
sphaerica aka astrologist aka epicyclerian-
you say ““No cost is too great to avoid the pending catastrophe.” This is hyperbolic drivel.”
This statement indicates that you think there are ‘zero carbon’ costs that are too high. But that means there is a cost benefit ratio beyond which it does not make sense to make the investment. Yet you did not disagree that avoiding the coming CACC catastrophe has infinite benefits.
You are exhibiting a symptom of clinical cognitive dissonance.
chris y,
Playing games with words is not worth anybody’s time. If it pleases you to twist things around and belittle me go right ahead.
sphaerica says:
“Also, you are talking gibberish. I’m sorry, but your line of conversation is so far beneath anyone that it’s not worth continuing. Ice-breakers? Really? This is an issue”
I was not trying to have a conversation with you. I was demonstrating something about you and you fell for it as predicted. Ice breakers……….no climate chatterbots.
What name did I call you? Liar & hypocrite are both predicate adjectives, in this case, not predicate nominatives.
Also, you’re still wasting electricity & causing additional CO2 emissions, & thus endangering your fictional grandchildren. (hint: you can’t get your hand pregnant)
Do you have any idea how large the Arctic ocean is? Do you really think ice-breakers matter one whit?
Consider this image (the site is really slow today… I think maybe everyone is suddenly Arctic watching): http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r04c04.2012241.terra.250m
That is an area of ice and sea to a resolution of 250m. One pixel is 250×250 meters. This is one tile of about a dozen that cover the Arctic Ocean.
An ice breaker will be between 100m and 150m long, so it would cover about half the width of one pixel. Do you really think that even a fleet of a thousand ice breakers roaming the Arctic all summer would make any difference?
Breaking up ice bridges can have a huge effect.
On melting the entire Arctic? Really?
But increased temperatures can’t?
Summer temperatures north of 80N have been consistently below normal for a decade.
What a moron. If you constantly breakup the edges, so it floats away where it will melt, that WILL have a huge effect. Where is the ice loss in the summer? I thought you were worried about the planet. Now you are ok with capitalist pigs doing commerce along the edges of the ice sheet in pursuit of profit? You have displayed your true colors.
Glacierman,
Look at the ice images from MODIS. Do you see all of the cracks and fissures that occur naturally? You don’t need ice-breakers to do that, and their existence doesn’t change things that much. They form from wave action that is strong and persistent enough to move and occasionally buckle a massive sheet of ice with an area over several hundred thousand kilometers.
A few ice-breakers are not going to matter one bit, and in the end there are many, many more factors.
When all is said and done, what really matters is temperature. No fleet of ice breakers or legion of once-in-a-century storms will matter at all if temperatures are cold — or warm.
What a stupid thing to say.
we will see an ice free arctic pretty soon. will you folks accept 1000000 km² as being ice free for a practical purpose?
or will you keep arguing about the last ice cube swimming in the sea, because someone dropped his drink?
What an idiotic question. That is twice the size of Texas.
so will you dare to provide a number?
1,000,000 km2 is the generally accepted threshold for an ice-free Arctic, for scientific purposes. As large as this sounds, if ice forms only along the coasts in winter, to a distance of 60 km out to sea, that will probably exceed 1,000,000 km2 — especially when you count enclosed regions such as the Northwest Passage and the Hudson Bay, which will continue to freeze no matter what (I think).
Ice free. It’s already a number, if you actually sit down & think about it. Come on, it shouldn’t be that hard for a college graduate to think of a numerical equivalent to “-free”.
Not it isn’t. It’s a number that Stroeve pulled out of her arse. There is not one scientific paper that conclusively demonstrates that 1,000,00km² is ice-free in any context.
Amateurs always take a big handicap
but i am curious: so do you think that we will go below 1000000 km²?over the next decade or two?
I think the average alarmist IQ went below 50 years ago.
Take a look at the globe, Texas is a tiny speck compared to the Arctic Sea. How many times Texas was the average arctic sea ice area again 30 years ago?
What a ridiculous comment
Gond
There has been less ice in the Arctic in the past many times than there is now. What’s your alarm over? It looks like you are believing things that aren’t really there. Not even all global warming scientists that you are trusting believe it.
it is a reasonable boundary chosen. It makes much more sense than 0 km² for obvious reasons.
i guess you don t consider a mountain top snow free, as long as there is a tiny brown piece of snow left somewhere in a shadow corner?!?
Twice the size of Texas , you sod.
This is an interesting picture of the way the sea surface anomolies have gone in the last 30 days(dmi sst) it looks to me like the ice will begin freezing soon in some places, where is all the warm water the storm was bringing to the surface.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
That storm is long past, the same as any effect it has had.
To claim there is no why to get an ice free Arctic is idiotic since it has happened in the past andl all it takes is warmer temperatures. I smell desperation.
Possibly the stupidest comment you have ever made here.
Hear hear
Gond
you agree with that comment from Lazarus? I have to lower my standards for how smart I thought you were. You are turning out to be a disappointment I haven’t experienced since my early days of looking into “global warming” for myself. I’m starting to see why you’ve bought the global warming thing hook, line, and sinker.
Donald,
Visit this page, but it seems to be down right now: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/arctic.html
Click on the link for the 30 day animated HYCOM SST (Sea Surface Temperature) image.
Note that SSTs always record at zero where there is substantial ice or recent melt, as far as I know, so this says nothing about the temperature of the sea water under the ice or below the layer of freshly melted water. That is an area of ongoing uncertainty, because there is no way to tell what degree of melting or freezing is going on beneath the ice sheet at any point in time.
Ok so nobody could give me any criteria for what can be considered NV and what couldn’t. Interesting.
Sounds like you learned something today. 😉
Yes, namely that claiming the current Arctic variability is due to NV is just handwaving.
Nope. I was wrong, nothing gets through your thick skull.
Again an ad hominem. You’ve lost the argument, asshole.
Do you, or do you not understand what impact this information has on our discussion… from the IPCC AR4…
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
I’m waiting for signs of any penetration…
BTW – How is the number crunching coming along, brainiac.
Numbers have uncertainties. Now what?
Learn anything yet? Give it a few minutes, try concentrating…
I’m waiting for you to tell the world quantitatively what kind of climate change is too fast to be considered part of NV. If you want to make a point to need to spell it out, like I’m doing.
And I am still waiting for you to grasp the enormity of NV… and still awaiting your refutation of NV… and those NV crunched numbers…
Concentrate….
You didn’t provide any stats or definitions for NV. NV in a decade, or NV in 700 million years? Can you even understand this matters? Concentrate…on your day job.
“NV in a decade, or NV in 700 million years?”
Why would anyone cherry pick a time period. Got agenda? 😉
Now, where is that paper, and where are those crunched numbers?
Exactly, nobody provided any numbers so NV vs. AGW is currently undecidable.
Gond
your ‘scientific’ method is to say, “I don’t know of any other reason for what I believe, so what I believe is true”.
Gond
You are really having trouble understanding something very simple. You are assuming there is proof that man has caused climate to change and therefore we must un-prove it by showing you it is not man but rather natural variation that has done it. But it is not on us. It is not on anyone to prove natural variation. There is no reason to come along and say it is not natural variation. It is natural variation that has done climate change.
It is up to you to prove it is not natural. Until you prove it is not natural we, and everyone else in the world, are not obligated to believe you.
You are like the traveling tonic salesman.
It is odd how backwards you have it.
It’s the definition of the null hypothesis. If you don’t understand what a null hypothesis is, you are free to check wikipedia.
And stop knocking the science shelves over with your science fork-lift, science guy.
Null hypotesis = Raptor Jesus, capischi?
If it cannot be falsified, it’s not a scientific hypothesis. This should be elementary.
Gond, my dear science forklift driving friend, if you don’t grasp the null hypothesis, you can’t exactly claim to know much about science. Maybe there’s something on http://timecube.com you can copy & paste for us.
Dude, you don’t understand shit scientific hypotheses it seems. I’m not surprised.
What is a Shit Scientific Hypothesis? Is that an estimate of time to the toilet after lunch at Taco Bell?
“What is a Shit Scientific Hypothesis?”
AGW.
Gond
It doesn’t take much to make you say ‘interesting’.
A null hypothesis: “it’s all natural variation” is a shit unscientific hypothesis unless you define how it can be falsified. Surely you should understand this children?!
How about this one: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1557.html
Please note that enough information has been given to recognize that Steve’s original premise is wrong. I make no statement as to whether or not it will happen (although you know what I think), but the premise that it is not possible is ill-founded.
“There isn’t any physical mechanism in our current climate to produce an ice-free Arctic.”
Do you have any idea how large the Arctic ocean is? Do you really think ice-breakers matter one whit?
[That comment was meant as a reply to Glacierman above. You can delete both of these if you wish. I reposted it in the right place.]
Meanwhile, the temperature rose to an extremely alarming -0.3C yesterday in Alert Nunavut (82.3N). No ice melted on the surface, it is still 4.5 metres thick. Looks like we have to postpone Armageddon for another year. Yawn.
you are making a completetly false assumption.
temperature is measured in the shadow and on a flat surface.
there can be a lot of melting, while official temperature data gives numbers below 0°C.
Science guy here just read about insolation. Too bad he can’t think of what it applies to.
Sod is correct with regard to temperature measurement. See p.4 of the following document: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf
The reported readings do not reflect the temperature in the direct exposure of sunlight. In contrast, ice is exposed to direct sunlight. Temperatures in direct sunlight are warmer than those taken in sheltered positions. As a result, even if the reported air temperature is 0°C or below, it is possible for the air temperature in direct sunlight to be > 0°C. In such cases, ice exposed to direct sunlight can melt even as the reported temperature is below 0°C.
That’s nice. Now you know about insolation. Let’s see if those skills can be applied to the real world in any way.
Gond
Nobody knows the limits of the NV and therefore by definition nobody knows when, if at all, AGW kicks in.
We have not got a sister planet without our species but with exactly the same climate pattern for us to check how we are doing with our industrial output versus that planet and how, if at all, that has an impact on climate.
We do not know, other then computer models which suffer from gigo, what is natural and what may be man made/caused.
But what we do know is that it has all happened before without industrial output and happens over and over again. Minoan, Roman, Medieval are the most recent ones and all starting at roughly the same time lengths apart. In that sense we are due for another warming period and even then with normal 30 year cycles. What is interesting is that it appears that each of these warming periods is not as warm as the previous one.
In today’s world Hannibal can not cross the Alps via the same track, glaciers are in his way.
Possible that mankind has got something to do with that too you think?
From a chemical perspective and looking at the laws of physics it is extremely difficult to come to the conclusion that the extra 40 ppm CO2 since the late 70’s can have the stated effect, regardless of it’s source. As I have asked you before what effect did the other 70ppm increase from 1850 till the late 70’s have?
This is a political ball game which has sucked a lot of people into it. Nothing to do with science but all with politics and resources.
The resource issue is not unfounded but there is no need to address that in this manner.
Speaking of Hannibal, there s a man named Jack Wheeler that tried to duplicate the task. It didn’t work out well for him. But he did make it. I think he didn’t know it was warmer on earth in Roman times which made it far easier for Hannibal to do it.
stevengoddard says:
“Possibly the stupidest comment you have ever made here.”
Unfortunately I’m still a padawan when held up against you here.
as a professional climate scientist who accidentally got sucked into this site, i’d like to commend sphaerica for trying to reason with a bunch of people who will clearly never change their minds. of course, my opinion will likely be discarded since i’m part of the alarmist machine and clearly a liar. the majority of the comments by amino, gator, goddard just make no sense or are completely unsubstantiated. for example (to address the initial statement of this thread), of course there is a mechanism for melting all of the arctic ice. not year round, of course, but if the trend of annual melt exceeding formation continues then at some time all of the ice will be gone. i’m not saying it will happen or when, but to state as fact that it can’t happen is not justifiable.
if anyone is interested i can supply a reference or 2 claiming that about 1/2 of the warming signal in the arctic is due to known modes of natural variability. does this refute AGW? no. does it prove AGW? no. it just emphasizes that this is not black and white–there is a mixture of internal and external forcing and variability that is difficult to separate. and contrary to the conspiracy-theorists that love this site, many of my colleagues are trying very hard to understand this in a rigorous, scientifically neutral manner.
Excellent news that you are a “professional climate scientist”
Raw temperature data from USHCN shows that the two hottest July’s in the US were 1901 and 1936 respectively, and the hottest summer was 1936.
Please explain the CO2 signal in those heatwaves.
You obviously did not comprehend my comments.
Ice melts.
Big deal.
Do you have a peer review citation for that?
or. to write it as a professional climate scientist would. do you have a citation.
No, but I am working on a beer review presently, and the ice in the cooler is most definitely melting.
Thank God I spent six years as a geology student and then another studying climatology, or I could neverr understand this icy melty thingy.
Gator,
Just don’t tell them that water can freeze. That would really mess things up.
ok, i know i set myself up for the sarcasm–you all obviously have no respect for those of us in the climate field, especially “professionals”. i mostly wanted to point out to you all what i suspect you know but would rather gloss over with generalizations, insults and ideology: the vast majority of scientists active in the field of climate research believe humans are impacting the climate, and the vast majority of us have no particular agenda. we just want to understand the climate and what might possibly be the result of the perturbations to the system that are occurring.
goddard, i’m not going to get into temperature records. a complete impasse with you and a waste of all of our time.
gator, i didn’t misunderstand the “ice melts” bit. it is clear you don’t really care, and that you probably didn’t pay much attention in your climatology studies. or, as often is the case with geologists, you were focused on paleoclimate. we can learn a lot from that but we’re in a different regime now. yes, ice melts. but it can be a big deal if it is an indicator of bigger things. will it directly affect people in the USA in the next 50 years? probably not, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. what i meant by “unsubstantiated” was the comment: “It’s called rejecting incorrect assumptions, something you should try, and this paper fails due to its bogus and provably false statement.” you’re just waving your hands to make it go away.
glacierman, are you asking for my vita? i’ve gotten enough anonymous nasty mail from people like you just from being quoted in the newspaper; there’s no way i’m letting you all know who i am. (all together now: “COWARD”).
“…as often is the case with geologists, you were focused on paleoclimate.”
Yes, and as geology students, we laughed at how excited climatologists can get over weather.
Are you suggesting we all aspire to the ideals of Canute’s followers?
Get a grip.
Ice melts.
Big deal.
Water freezes, much bigger deal.
Nature! Catch it! 😉
See Gator, that is where you went off the rails, you were busy paying attention that voodoo “paleoclimate” when you should have been assisting Dr. Mann with his dendroclimate voodoo. See where it go him? lots of $$$$ and a famous name for himself.
Bet you won’t make that mistake again.
ROFLMAO … climatology is worse than astrology, I see no “science” in either.
@nuju505,
“…we are in a different regime now” .. really? Since when? Since the past 50 years? Wow, and to think that I didn’t even feel a thing.
nuju, you are exactly what is wrong with this mockery of science called “climatology” .. you are obviously a complete asshat who is incapable of critical thought. Do you even read what you type? Can you even comprehend the absurd BS in your own words? Wow, just wow.
It’s been my observation that “professional climate scientists” who have come here from time to time (or other qualified scientists) post their real names. It’s been my suspicion that school kids, activists, and the not very bright, tend to use names such as “nuju505”.
Nuju55 said:
“glacierman, are you asking for my vita? i’ve gotten enough anonymous nasty mail from people like you just from being quoted in the newspaper; there’s no way i’m letting you all know who i am. (all together now: “COWARD”).”
Uh, I don’t believe I ever was talking to you. I dont want your vita. What is going on in your head to think I would?
Nuju55:
I’m sure your vita is very impressive. You obviously think so since in a few posts you told everyone you were a profession climate scientist, and inferred you were being asked for your qualifications….which you were not.
Is English your first language?
wow, you guys really are something. i guess the insults were inevitable based on previous postings. did you read the part that said paleoclimate is important and informative? it is crucial–i didn’t intend to demean it. the difference is that many paleo people don’t pay any attention to the last 50 years. and yes, squidward, we are in a different regime for the last 50 years. and of course you didn’t feel a thing–the change has only been a few tenths of a degree. this isn’t about now, it is about the future.
and sqid, you are exactly what’s wrong with the denier blogosphere. you don’t know me, yet you feel completely justified to insult me. gator has some knowledge, even if in my opinion he’s misguided and ignoring important information. you only have vitriol.
@nuju505: Completely out of curiosity … do you have a background in evolutionary biology?
It always amazed me how my climatology professor looked at climates as static. We studied maps of the Earth that had climate conditions assigned, as if they never changed. There is no new regime in climate, this is nonsense and is what makes the new ‘science’ of climatology more of a religion, they treat the Earth as if it were ‘perfected’. I am so very glad that I first studied the entirety of the planet, before being subjected to such a narrow minded culture.
nuju505 needs to open his mind, go back to school to obtain a broad perspective, and learn what truly possible on this awesome planet. Climatology needs a reformation.
I wonder what the name nuju is short for?
Reformation.
Good idea.
Where’s Luther when you need him?
The mistake you are making is one of timescale. Climate change in the past has occurred in periods of anywhere from 10,000 to millions of years. It’s happening now in 50. And no, we’re not talking about Little Ice Age for MCA stuff here. If we were, it wouldn’t be a big deal. We’re talking about true climate change, doing something within 100 years that usually takes nature tens of thousands. And once it’s done it’s done. The earth will be like this for thousands of years into the future, because we have no power to undo the damage, while nature takes its sweet time about this sort of thing.
That’s why your climatology professor looked at climates as static. They are, compared to the lifetime of one or even several generations of human beings.
Wrong again.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here. Your claim is an unsubstantiated alarrnist talking point, and that is all.
Get a grip, go the school, learn Earth history.
well, fellas, this sure has been fun. of all the denier blogs i’ve read, this is the most belligerent. i thought maybe i’d point out a few errors in goddard’s “analysis” and for that i’m belittled, vilified and figuratively kicked in the balls. it is you that need to open your minds, and maybe your hearts just a bit. signing off–you don’t have to worry about me trying to inject a different point of view into your little mutual admiration society any more. if i feel like beating my head against a brick wall, there’s one a few feet away in my office.
ps. Nuju is the Toa of Ice from the Lego Bionicle series that my son used to love. pretty subversive.
From your original post…
“…a bunch of people who will clearly never change their minds.”
Yeah… you are a great guy and we are a bunch of lunatic a-holes. I actually left the gate open for the possibility of AGW, until I saw the fraudulent data manipulations, and that was long before I found this site. Again, I have formal training in this arena and do know of what I speak.
Can you provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes?
You need to broaden YOUR mind, Doc.
I posted a study filling those criteria here yesterday, and you have the audacity today to pretend that you don’t know of any such papers? You lie and deceit without shame it seems.
BS Gondo. You posted no such thing.
ok–here are some references. as noted earlier, they are able to only attribute about 1/2 of the change to natural variability. we all know that NV is a part of the story.
On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature
Wu, ZH ; Huang, NE ; Wallace, JM ; Smoliak, BV ; Chen, XY ; et al.
CLIMATE DYNAMICS (AUG 2011) Vol.37, iss.3-4, p.759-773
Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures
Chylek, P ; Folland, CK ; Lesins, G ; Dubey, MK
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS (APR 22 2010) Vol.37 L08703
First reference…
“A model-based method to evaluate the role of weather noise forcing…”
Just how do you model this…
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
Model driven drivel. (puke)
Second reference discusses NV.
What are you smoking?
Here it is again for the satanist republicans amongst us:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL051094
Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat
🙂
Are you really that thick? We covered this yesterday.
Once again, from the abstract…
” For examining the validity of this claim, previously IPCC model simulations have been used.”
How does one model this?…
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
You are citing model driven drivel.
GIGO.
As I have stated before, you cannot find even one peer reviewed paper that refutes NV as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
Period.
“Here it is again for the satanist republicans amongst us:”
You’re right Gond, it is political, and that is all that it is!
Gator, as I have indicated in prior comments, Gond is not capable of critical thought.
Hey Squid! Yes, I know. The saddest form of child abuse is teaching them WHAT to think rather than how. I may be one of the last generation who actually studied logic and critical thinking as part of a regular curriculum. Most public schools eschew these courses now, and have for decades. We now see the end result in cult like belief systems.
Ha ha Gator, you cannot even process what you read:
“For examining the validity of this claim, previously IPCC model simulations have been used. ”
PREVIOUSLY, capischi?!
“Here, we focus on the available observational record to examine if this record allows us to identify either internal variability, self-acceleration, or a specific external forcing as the main driver for the observed sea-ice retreat. ”
Here, OBSERVATIONAL RECORD, can you get that?
Capischi?? Can you even read??
HA HA, Full retard, HA HA 😀 😀
Dr Gond, I know you don’t understand why the use of IPCC models is a gross error, so I will not waste my time. You have yet to be able to grasp the simple fact that the IPCC does not know climate forcings from their ass. By their own admission, they have a ‘low to very low’ understanding of 81% of the NV they have identified, and they have not identified all forcings.
Logic DICTATES that they cannot know what is melting the ice, except temperatures at which ice melts.
Ice melts.
Big deal.
NV is still the most likely driver of climate change.
You denialists are really going full retard on this, I cannot see other reason for your denial of research than petty political or religious motives. Oh dear 🙂
You have yet to provide the paper I have requested time and again. I am asking for hard science, not BS.
You fail to see that you have been set up. I know from decades of study that there is no paper that refutes NV as the cause of recent or any global climate change. I sent you on a fool’s errand and you were more than happy to comply. Too bad you learned nothing and will simply be fooled again and again.
What political motives? many commentators here live in different countries and have different political processes unique to their country. I don’t know of any global political party that people vote for because they are skeptical of man made global warming. Your attempt to polarize and stifle debate is all to obvious with that comment.
There is really only one side that has politicized this debate, and that would be the alarmists. They are those who have chosen to take this into the political arena, with the UN and other governing bodies who will require us to work for them.
Skeptics put no such pressures upon their brothers and sisters, we ask nothing of alarmists except to let us be. We are simply playing defense against this most offensive form of slavery. All we ask is for scientific proof of alarmist claims before we bow our heads, and all future generations heads, to yet another dictator.
Until someone science can show this is not just another natural cycle, alarmists will get more than that for which they bargained.
“Until someone science can…”
Sorry, should read simply, “Until science can…”
No coffee or breakfast yet, and I am trying to get to the kitchen while typing…
pjie2 says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“we can very approximately say that the effect of current CO2 levels on Arctic ice is equivalent to an ~8% increase in solar input. In comparison, the total peak-to-trough variation across the sunspot cycle is around 0.1%”
That is utter nonsense, Higher more active solar cycles equate to more energy not atmospheric CO2, CO2 does not increase energy levels stop suggesting that it does. CME’s travel faster than previous CME’s when in succession for example.
Carrington Super Flare.
From August 28, 1859, until September 2, numerous sunspots and solar flares were observed on the sun. Just before noon on September 1, the British astronomer Richard Carrington observed the largest flare, which caused a major coronal mass ejection to travel directly toward Earth, taking 17 hours. Such a journey normally takes three to four days. This second CME moved so quickly because the first one had cleared the way of the ambient solar wind plasma.
An active Solar cycle with Large CME’s Increases the rate at which the solar energy reaches the earth, It’s a scientific fact.
The link for the Carrington Super Flare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859