Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
That isn't an answer. If the water is warmer, why would it freeze faster and more extensively that before?
 
r-j said:
If the arctic is actually warmer, why would anyone expect it to refreeze more than it was before?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
Click to expand...

Looking at the graph you link to it seems there is a downward trend in the max ice extent as well as in the min, though not as large, so the area melting and refreezing every year is getting larger. As the min gets smaller the amount of open ocean in the artic circle which can potentially refreeze in the winter gets larger, however as this ice is only one season old it's thinner and more prone to melt in the summer.

much more telling is the ice volume

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017c36ad8939970b-pi
 
r-j said:
That isn't an answer. If the water is warmer, why would it freeze faster and more extensively that before?
Click to expand...

It's not more extensive. When the Sun goes down for weeks or months on end the water freezes. At maximum it pretty much fills the basin, so that does not vary much. The re-freeze is hence dependent on the amount of open water available to freeze over. Last year's record minimum means this winter's record amount of re-freeze.

What else could it mean? Deniers have nothing else to tout so they bray about this as if it is significant. In what way they fail to specify. You seem to think it means the water isn't warmer, or am I reading too much into your question?
 
r-j said:
If the arctic is actually warmer, why would anyone expect it to refreeze more than it was before?
Click to expand...

Because it's still winter and there are is far more open water available to freeze than there was just a decade ago,
 
An even better article on the volume problem for Arctic ice:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/

I particularly like their "death spiral" plot:

arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.jpg


At the rate of decline that has happened in the past it looks like there will be no summer ice within 10 years.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
That isn't an answer. If the water is warmer, why would it freeze faster and more extensively that before?
Click to expand...

"If there's global warming why is it cold outside?"

The Arctic is magic... even with all the warming it still gets pitch dark in the Winter (explain that, warmistas!!1!).

New plan! The warming doesn't like the dark, so we should all put out the lights and it will be colder!
 
lomiller said:
Because it's still winter and there are is far more open water available to freeze than there was just a decade ago,
Click to expand...

What is amazing is that this massive change to the sea ice is happening in the context of only a small (so far) change in the global average temperature. Winter is still below zero in the Arctic. The slight increase in warmth was all it took to melt the ice far more than predicted in the summer.
 
Subduction Zone said:
An even better article on the volume problem for Arctic ice:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/

I particularly like their "death spiral" plot:

[qimg]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.jpg[/qimg]

At the rate of decline that has happened in the past it looks like there will be no summer ice within 10 years.
Click to expand...


Nice graphic!
 
Dancing David said:
Nice graphic!
Click to expand...

Thank you. I used to be a rare bird. I was a true AGW skeptic. Of course the same thing happened to me that happens to true evolution skeptics. I studied the material available, looked at the debating methods of both sides, and there is an amazing Monckton /Hovind equivalency, and realized I was wrong all along.

So, don't give up on debating people. There are a few who can be convinced. Like the scientist who found out that he was wrong and praised the man who demonstrated this I am happiest when I learn. And the only way to learn is to find out how you were wrong before.
 
Subduction Zone said:
Thank you. I used to be a rare bird. I was a true AGW skeptic. Of course the same thing happened to me that happens to true evolution skeptics. I studied the material available, looked at the debating methods of both sides, and there is an amazing Monckton /Hovind equivalency, and realized I was wrong all along.

So, don't give up on debating people. There are a few who can be convinced. Like the scientist who found out that he was wrong and praised the man who demonstrated this I am happiest when I learn. And the only way to learn is to find out how you were wrong before.
Click to expand...

Same for me. I even used to have my own facebook group denying AGW. I remember watching a Richard Lindzen (or what his name was) speech and just accepting every word he said. I dont really remember what convinced me that I was wrong but certainly this thread has made me realise how wrong I was.

Do you have any more information about that scientist you mentioned?
 
macdoc said:
This one??



he was hired by deniers to disprove the warming and ended up acknowledging that it is indeed warming due to human activities.
Click to expand...

You always take that risk when you hire a true skeptic.

That is why skeptics about evolution are extremely rare. It is very easy to show the evidence for evolution and it does not take to long before one either has to become an evolutionist or a denier. Sadly many choose the latter. The evidence for AGW is a bit more involved. And it can take some real investigation to convince a true skeptic.
 
macdoc said:
This one??



he was hired by deniers to disprove the warming and ended up acknowledging that it is indeed warming due to human activities.
Click to expand...

Still holding to scientists being alarmist about the consequences, and course still considering himself the arbiter of any science's validity. Still addicted to his own celebrity.
 
Subduction Zone said:
You always take that risk when you hire a true skeptic.
Click to expand...

It was a very foolish move to include a true statistician in the team (along with Muller's daughter) and I was amazed when I saw that Muller had sold this project to the Kochs. Deniers have assiduously (and wisely) avoided doing their own analysis since the start, preferring instead to simply declare the real analysis faked or alternatively fake their own graphs, the sources of which they say must be kept secret for the safety of the scientists involved. It was clearly game-over when they made this mistake.

My suspicion is that the Koch's didn't for a moment imagine they wouldn't get the result they wanted - after all that's what they've always got before. He who pays the piper calls the tune, right? Except it ain't always so.
 
Interesting article on zero emissions scenario and committed warming:

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2013/02/how-big-is-the-climate-change-deficit/

The idea that there is some additional warming owed, no matter what emissions pathway we follow is incorrect. Zero future emissions means little to no future warming, so future warming depends entirely on future emissions. And while the idea of zero future emissions isn’t policy-relevant (because zero emissions is impossible, at least in the near future), it does have implications for how we discuss policy choices. In particular, it means the idea that CO2 emissions cuts will not have an effect on temperature change for several decades is also incorrect. Every tonne of CO2 emissions avoided has an immediate effect on reducing the temperature response.

Another source of confusion is the emissions scenarios used in the IPCC report. They don’t diverge significantly for the first few decades, largely because we’re unlikely (and to some extent unable) to make massive emissions reductions in the next 1-2 decades, because society is very slow to respond to the threat of climate change, and even when we do respond, the amount of existing energy infrastructure that has to be rebuilt is huge. In this sense, there is some inevitable future warming, but it comes from future emissions that we cannot or will not avoid. In other words, political, socio-economic and technological inertia are the primary causes of future climate warming, rather than any properties of the physical climate system.
Click to expand...
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Do you have any more information about that scientist you mentioned?
Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:
I can't remember the name of the scientist right now. It was from a video by Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was from the 2006 documentary The Root of All Evil?, later retitled The God Delusion, the following quote from which I pulled off Wikipedia here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh, a number of years, and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I have been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal, of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced. (Part 1, 00:13:32)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom