Global warming...debunked?

[Matilda]

OK.
Now, please remember I am learning on this one..., but it makes no sense to me if the breadth of the ice is bigger than it used to be, it is not colder. What it does suggest is that the level of 'coldness' is broader but not as intense in the centre.
So, we have a situation where it is colder over a larger area, but warmer in the smaller core area.

I think the problem is you mistake fluctuations with trends. Ice fluctuates from year to year. To get an idea whether ice is declining as a trend you need to look at decades rather than year to year. Even when the ice grows back for a time over a larger region, it's shallow and slushy.

You've been shown the data showing the trend in sea ice over thirty years in this thread. It's declining.

Assuming this is the case, how do we reconcile this as warming?

The arctic is warming faster than other regions of the planet, and faster than the global temperature. That warming is what's causing the decline in sea ice. That warming is what's thawing the permafrost, releasing methane and CO2.

Honestly, it makes no sense to me (I am not even sure what I have said makes sense).

What do you think is causing the sea ice to thin?
What do you think is causing the permafrost to melt?

 

[lomiller]

Has there a pause in global warming over the past several years?

Not a staitisticly significant one, no

If so, was this pause predicted by computer models before the fact?

Periods where the short term (10-20 year) trends are flat despite the long term trend continuing to increase are common in the models. Because they arise from short term chaotic effects specific instances are not considered predictable but they occur at some point in most runs.

If not, why should I accept, unskeptically, computer modelling which predicts that warming will re-commence at some time in the future?

Science is about using models to predict the natural world. You either accept science as a valid methodology or you don't. If you chose not to accept science as a valid methodology don't expect anyone to consider you a legitimate skeptic.

 

[lomiller]

OK.

So, we have a situation where it is colder over a larger area, but warmer in the smaller core area.
Assuming this is the case, how do we reconcile this as warming?

Direct meransurments confirmes the entire area is warmer, this is rather easy to reconcile this as warming.

 

[Peephole]

Has there been pause in global warming over the past several years?

No.

 

[mhaze]

....I'm not sure to what extent ENSO and PDO cycles are predictable at the moment (I think ENSO is moreso). If there were such predictions (and I have no idea why it matters if they were made by computer models), then they would have been made based on these factors. ....

PDO has been traced as a 60-80 year cycle going back a good 5000 years, but it is not predictable in a year to year sense. However, in the 1990s, the rising trend of the PDO clearly meant that a declining trend would occur within a decade or so.

.....Do recall the intent with which the increase in ice coverage is touted: Arctic ice coverage is as large or larger than it used to be, therefore global warming is false!

A thin, mushy ice is not quite the same thing as thick pack ice, is it? Indeed, the fact that there's a lot of thin, mushy ice would explain why the surface coverage, as observed by satellites, has increased. Thin, mushy ice could reasonably be expected to spread out over a larger area more easily than robust, thick ice.

From the point of view of the planet's albedo, yes, thin mushy ice is exactly the same as thick ice and may even be better, since old ice can have dirt, dust, or soot on the surface.

Also you miss the essential argument sequence in your comment:

Warmer: Sea ice is decreasing, therefore AGW.
Alarmist Warmer: Sea ice is decreasing and this will change the albedo of the pole which causes an irreversible tipping point.
Skeptic: Not now it's not, so no issue there.
Warmer: But sea is is mushy baby ice!
Skeptic: Moving the goalposts?

 

[fsol]

PDO has been traced as a 60-80 year cycle going back a good 5000 years, but it is not predictable in a year to year sense. However, in the 1990s, the rising trend of the PDO clearly meant that a declining trend would occur within a decade or so.

Cite?

 

[Corsair 115]

Now, please remember I am learning on this one...,

Why not just watch the program I linked to? I think the person interviewed will be more useful to listen to than me on the particulars of Arctic ice.

The episode page is here. Just click the "Watch the episode" link to load up the video in a pop-up window. Watch the episode, and then post your conclusions or comments.

Also you miss the essential argument sequence in your comment:

Warmer: Sea ice is decreasing, therefore AGW.
Alarmist Warmer: Sea ice is decreasing and this will change the albedo of the pole which causes an irreversible tipping point.
Skeptic: Not now it's not, so no issue there.
Warmer: But sea is is mushy baby ice!
Skeptic: Moving the goalposts?

As opposed to the following sequence?

Mental picture of Arctic ice: big, thick, solid.
Statement: There's more ocean surface area covered by Arctic ice.
Mental picture: more of that big, thick, solid ice.
Conclusion: global warming must be wrong since there's more of that big, thick, solid ice.
Reality: that additional ice coverage area is actually thin, mushy ice, not the big, thick, solid ice one might have a mental picture of.

No intent there to mislead, right, by playing upon mental images of thick Arctic ice and then saying ice coverage is as big or bigger than it used to be?

The fact that much of the ice is now a melting mush rather than solid, thick stuff is indicative of nothing at all then? Feel free to watch the interview with Mr. Barber and offer rebuttals.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I think the problem is you mistake fluctuations with trends. Ice fluctuates from year to year. To get an idea whether ice is declining as a trend you need to look at decades rather than year to year. Even when the ice grows back for a time over a larger region, it's shallow and slushy.

You've been shown the data showing the trend in sea ice over thirty years in this thread. It's declining.



The arctic is warming faster than other regions of the planet, and faster than the global temperature. That warming is what's causing the decline in sea ice. That warming is what's thawing the permafrost, releasing methane and CO2.



What do you think is causing the sea ice to thin?
What do you think is causing the permafrost to melt?

Direct meransurments confirmes the entire area is warmer, this is rather easy to reconcile this as warming.

Why not just watch the program I linked to? I think the person interviewed will be more useful to listen to than me on the particulars of Arctic ice.

The episode page is here. Just click the "Watch the episode" link to load up the video in a pop-up window. Watch the episode, and then post your conclusions or comments.





As opposed to the following sequence?

Mental picture of Arctic ice: big, thick, solid.
Statement: There's more ocean surface area covered by Arctic ice.
Mental picture: more of that big, thick, solid ice.
Conclusion: global warming must be wrong since there's more of that big, thick, solid ice.
Reality: that additional ice coverage area is actually thin, mushy ice, not the big, thick, solid ice one might have a mental picture of.

No intent there to mislead, right, by playing upon mental images of thick Arctic ice and then saying ice coverage is as big or bigger than it used to be?

The fact that much of the ice is now a melting mush rather than solid, thick stuff is indicative of nothing at all then? Feel free to watch the interview with Mr. Barber and offer rebuttals.

OK, (say) I accept that the thickness of the ice is thinner, and therefore global warming has affected the 'quality' or thickness.

To all of you - I ask again.
How is the breadth of the ice larger i.e it covers a larger area than it once did. That suggests to me it is now cooler in areas that previously there was no ice.

Remember too, I agree that the earth is warming - I have no argument with you there, but this still makes no sense to me.

 

[Matilda]

How is the breadth of the ice larger i.e it covers a larger area than it once did. That suggests to me it is now cooler in areas that previously there was no ice.

Okay, the warming melts the multi-year thick ice. But the temperature still fluctuates from year to year. In 2007 the ice reached an all time low, and then rebounded a little the following year. But instead of thick multi-year ice, you get thin slushy ice. And the trend in the ice, despite yearly fluctuations, is reduction. The sharp decline in 2007 was a result of weather patterns, a fluctuation. The trend of declining sea ice over decades is attributable to AGW, and not to weather fluctuations.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091015b.html

Remember too, I agree that the earth is warming

What mechanism(s) do you think cause the warming?

- I have no argument with you there, but this still makes no sense to me.

Basically, the next year can have colder weather than the previous year, even while the trend in temperatures is going up.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Okay, the warming melts the multi-year thick ice. But the temperature still fluctuates from year to year. In 2007 the ice reached an all time low, and then rebounded a little the following year. But instead of thick multi-year ice, you get thin slushy ice. And the trend in the ice, despite yearly fluctuations, is reduction. The sharp decline in 2007 was a result of weather patterns, a fluctuation. The trend of declining sea ice over decades is attributable to AGW, and not to weather fluctuations.

I understand all that. I do not understand how the ice is spreading if it is getting warmer.

What mechanism(s) do you think cause the warming?

The same causes that have created temperature fluctuations and variations since the dawn of time.

Basically, the next year can have colder weather than the previous year, even while the trend in temperatures is going up

Still makes no sense.

Let's just leave it - I don't really want to get (you, me, us) bogged down on this point.

 

[Megalodon]

Please note how Alfie ignored the information he requested, and I provided.

Willful ignorance, the real fuel of the climate debate...

 

[Pixel42]

The same causes that have created temperature fluctuations and variations since the dawn of time.

Well let's look at those causes, and see which are actually occuring at the moment shall we?

1. Milankovitch cycles? In a slight cooling phase, so can't be that

2. Continental drift? Much too slow to cause the rapid warming we're seeing

3. Massive vulcanism? Nothing out of the ordinary recently

4. Solar variation? Some increase in first half of 20th century but none in last 30 years so can't be that

That just leaves:

5. Sudden increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases? Yep, that's certainly happening.

Looks like we've found the culprit.

 

[Matilda]

The same causes that have created temperature fluctuations and variations since the dawn of time.

Which causes, specifically, do you think explain current global warming better than AWG, and what specific evidence makes you think that?

 

[lomiller]

How is the breadth of the ice larger i.e it covers a larger area than it once did. That suggests to me it is now cooler in areas that previously there was no ice.

So you are tying to argue that if there is even a single ice-cube in water that has been ice free only once in the last 120 000 years it can’t be warming? As usual your strawman arguments do not make a lot of sense. The artic has a clearly documented warming trend and a clearly documented loss of sea ice, end of story.

 

[BenBurch]

Remember the standard for "ice free" is less than 15% covered.

And there is just a HUGE range above that.

 

[Trakar]

A few questions (and call me a denier if you want, it means nothing to me):

Has there a pause in global warming over the past several years?

no

If not, why should I accept, unskeptically, computer modelling which predicts that warming will re-commence at some time in the future?

Accept nothing unskeptically, if the warming trend has not ceased there is no "re-commencing" to be concerned about.

 

[BenBurch]

Political hacks NEED to spin this to make people falsely believe there is a pause, because they perceive that ecology is a "left" issue, and they need to motivate as much hatred of the left as possible.

 

[Trakar]

OK, (say) I accept that the thickness of the ice is thinner, and therefore global warming has affected the 'quality' or thickness.

To all of you - I ask again.
How is the breadth of the ice larger i.e it covers a larger area than it once did. That suggests to me it is now cooler in areas that previously there was no ice.

Remember too, I agree that the earth is warming - I have no argument with you there, but this still makes no sense to me.

Seems to me to be the issue of absolute linearity that is giving you dificulty. Temps do not have to be absolutely warmer each and every year, than all the years before it, for temp trends to to be increasing. Ice barely bigger than it was on the years of peak record lows does not indicate a trend. Ice that's progressively bigger than record lows for three decades would indicate a trend. 2-3 years in a row of up or down, are insignificant fluctuations in the normal and natural variation of weather.

For instance this graph displays the extent of artic ice in the month of Dec for the last 30 years:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure3.png

While it is obvious that for 2-4 years at a stretch temps vary between increasing and decreasing cycles, it is just as obvious that the last 30 years has displayed a distinct and apparent declining trend.

 

[Belz...]

In your opinion, ... and you may be right.

In my opinion it is more evidence of groupthink by virtue of confirmation bias, ... and I may be right.

Well, I guess it's 50/50 then!!

 

[soylent]

Political hacks NEED to spin this to make people falsely believe there is a pause, because they perceive that ecology is a "left" issue, and they need to motivate as much hatred of the left as possible.

It is indeed true that a bunch of people on the left has embraced global warming as a justification for proposing government solutions; including some things which are pretty close to soviet-style central planning at the nuttier fringes.

It is easy, but counter-productive in the long-term, for people on the right to argue against global warming on the basis that it has been a useful instrument for the left.

The non-lazy approach is to argue that central planning finds very suboptimal solutions and that the government should just tax carbon and get the out of the way, instead of trying to pick winners and losers(e.g. a ~40 euro cents per kWh feed-in tariff for residential solar, like Spain, Germany and others; banning incandecent bulbs).