I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast for August, due Monday August 6th. Poll follows:
Smokey, please list papers that are directly relevant to the 5 points you made in your earlier post. That is what I’ve been asking for and you continue to skirt the issue. You have to base your beliefs on something besides blogging as anyone can post on a blog with or without any scientific knowledge. I would hope you’ve actually read some peer-reviewed literature to base your beliefs on.
tjfolkerts
August 11, 2012 3:19 pm
DANG! I seem to have erased my comments, Richard, so here is the short version.
* Here is the HADCRUT3 data since 1850 with 10-yr, 30-yr, and 50-yr slopes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgM8XE4GABYQdFBCNXdNWmh1Q3l1dWk3c2tsWHRkUmc
* the 50-year slope has some major oscillations, but the steepest 11 of the 50-year slopes occurred in the last 11 years. The over all trend in the slope is upward (ie the slope of the slopes is rising, so the “50-year acceleration” is confirmed.
* the 30-year slope has dropped fairly steadily since 2004 (although it is still positive – still warming, just at a slightly reduced pace). But since similar temporary declines have happened before, this doesn’t necessarily indicate a change.
* the 10-year slope has been declining, and is indeed actually negative this past year (ie the world had a cooling decade)! If you believe that a 10 year trend is enough to portend a change, then maybe we have entered a period of cooling. But I would not bet on it based on a SINGLE cooling 10-year period.
* Statistically speaking, the case for global warming was probably stronger in 2006 or 1998 than it is now. The warming trends have been slowing. It would have been much easier to make the case for CO2 without the last couple years. But given the plethora of others climate drivers (eg soot or a quiet sun) that can affect yearly or decadal trends, this short pause in the previous upward trend is not enough to “put the nail in the coffin” of CO2 as a cause (among others) of climate change.
dave,
You do not assign homework, puppy. I have read more papers than you have by far. Most all of Lindzen’s, Christy’s Spencer’s, etc., etc. The only reason I respond is to make certain that new readers don’t read only your human-caused Arctic melting nonsense. After reading both sides they can make up their own minds. The alarmist crowd always loses in open debate. I’m just making sure our record remains unbroken.
Why do you think RealClimate, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, Closed Mind, and the rest of the alarmist blogs heavily censor the comments of scientific skeptics? They censor because if they didn’t, they would quickly be laughed out of the blogosphere for their anti-science views. The truth is not in them, and they cannot abide the scientific method, with its requirement for transparency.
You stated above: “I told you before, I am willing to read any scientific papers that support your view”. So I provided you with a reading list. Now you are weaseling out. Typical of the closed-minded alarmist nonsense cult.
dave
August 11, 2012 8:57 pm
Smokey, you only provided a CV, that is not a reading list of papers to support the 5-points you raised. Since you have read as many as you say you have, it should be easy for you to simply point to papers that make your 5 points. You keep stalling.
just so you know, I’m not an alarmist, I’m a conservative who believes that human activities are helping the planet to warm further and I stand to profit off of that. Just because someone admits that increases in CO2 from human activities leads to warming does not in anyway mean that I’m an alarmist. Not at all. that is a tag you blindly apply to all those you disagree with your narrow point of view. The fact that you will only read papers from climate skeptics and no papers from any other scientists show you are one of closed mind.
tjfolkerts:
Thankyou for your post at August 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm.
It admits that global warming has not been accelerating – indeed, it has been decelerating – in recent decades. And I thank you for your honesty in this correction to your earlier statement.
As you say, what this deceleration means is a different matter which cannot be resolved at present.
Richard
Rob Dekker
August 12, 2012 12:41 am
Smokey said :
What is your point? Do you actually believe that CO2 congregates in the Arctic, causing ice melt? That is crazy. The Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles. This happens regularly, and it is due to factors like wind and ocean currents. Running around in circles and waving your arms over a completely natural occurrance is irrational.
When I factually report NSIDC’s Arctic sea ice extent over the past 5 days, relevant both to the subject of this thread and the Arcus forecast, and suggest we check again in a couple of days, I seem to have caused enough “waving arms” and “irrational” behavior by apparently “running around in circles” and apparently have suggested that “CO2 aggregates in the Arctic” for Smokey to present this knee-jerk response.
While my notion that currently “2012 is now cruising well below the curve of the previous record 2007” means to Smokey that “the Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles”.
Who is “irrational” now ?
Rob Dekker
August 12, 2012 12:56 am
Smokey said :
Admit it, you are just a pretend scientist.☺
The question is not who I am, Smokey. I explained many times who I am and I post with my full name.
You on the other hand are hiding under a pseudonym, suggesting you are reluctant to reveal your identity.
Let me ask you a simple and direct question : [snip – such speculation is inappropriate here ~jove, Mod]
tim folkerts says:
“The warming trends have been slowing.”
Thank you for that. No acceleration of warming is occurring. Therefore, human emitted CO2, which has only ramped up significantly since WWII, cannot be causing the claimed effect.
Further, most of the 0.8ºC rise happened from about 1910 – 1940. That does not support the conjecture that human CO2 emissions cause measurable global warming. It now appears that the rise in 20th Century CO2 was largely the result of warming, not the cause. The ocean outgases CO2 as it warms the same way that a warming Coke outgases CO2. The natural recovery from the LIA resulted in higher CO2 levels. Human activity adds some CO2, but it does not add any measurable warming.
Regarding the natural Arctic variability we are observing, this is completely normal. Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years, and throughout the Holocene. The Arctic is often ice free in the summer. That is a fact, as eyewitness reports show. And since many of those observations happened when CO2 was well under 300 ppmv, the obvious conclusion is that CO2 has nothing whatever to do with the ebb and flow of Arctic ice cover.
Gail Combs
August 12, 2012 9:31 am
dave says:
August 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Smokey, please list papers that are directly relevant to the 5 points you made in your earlier post….
_______________________________
If you want peer-reviewed papers you can sift through Pop Tech’s list of 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm for those on the Arctic and on Smokey’s 5 points.
James Abbott
August 12, 2012 11:44 am
Arctic sea ice area now appears to be in freefall. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
shows current area already close to the record melt years recently, except its not yet the middle of August. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.23518.png
shows comparison with 2007 for date – concentration is way lower this year with a lot of weak ice still vulnerable to melting.
Smokey says “Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years”.
Can we have some hard evidence for that claim ?
And where is the reliable documented evidence that “The Arctic is often ice free in the summer” in modern history ?
Its total **** Smokey – its not true.
The C19th expeditions to try to get through the North West passage resulted in many deaths due to ships being ice bound (sometimes for years, with ships sometimes crushed) and crews having to try to survive on land, or expeditions turning back – all well documented. In the C20th many early attempts were made to get to the north pole by submarine, air and walking/sled – some successful – but all finding the arctic was iced. http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
explains that reliable ice charts back to the 1950s and shipping logs back to the 1700s, published in research papers, show that
“However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
James Abbott:
At August 12, 2012 at 11:44 am you say
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
explains that reliable ice charts back to the 1950s and shipping logs back to the 1700s, published in research papers, show that
“However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
I sincerely doubt that the assertion you quote is correct. However, for sake of argument, let us assume it is correct.
Assuming the assertion is correct then
1. Why does it matter if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
2. Why should anybody care if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
3. Would there not be a benefit to shipping and trade if the current decline continues?
and
4. What problems could there be if the current decline continues?
I await your answers to these questions with interest.
Richard
James Abbott says:
“Can we have some hard evidence for that claim ?” Sheesh, how many links do I have to post before the alarmist crowd stops acting like this?? History is filled with accounts of a warming Arctic.
And what is the problem, anyway? The alarmist cult clings to normal Arctic variability like a drowning man clings to a stick. But there is NO scientific evidence linking Arctic ice melt with human activity. None.
As Abbott writes : “However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
So think about it: that means that several hundred years ago the same thing happened. Thanx for pointing out that this happens routinely.
And the null hypothesis has never been falsified…
James Abbott
August 12, 2012 2:20 pm
richardscourtney
Its not my “assertion” that the current melting is unprecedented in several hundred years – it comes from the NSIDC as quoted.
and Smokey
thanks for accepting that fact because it means that your earlier assertion that
“Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years” must be wrong.
1. Why does it matter if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
Because the arctic ice cap is an important regulator in the climate. The temperature gradient between the equator and poles drives weather systems and the jet streams. Lose the ice and the arctic will warm even faster as the albedo changes. We don’t know the exact impacts, but it is likely that weather patterns could change dramatically, affecting large parts of the northern hemisphere.
Less ice in the arctic will speed up the melt of the Greenland ice cap, accelerating sea level rise with obvious risks to coastal cities and communities in the future.
Major impacts to arctic species that rely on the ice.
2. Why should anybody care if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
See 1 – most people will care.
3. Would there not be a benefit to shipping and trade if the current decline continues?
Yes. No doubt there will be a rush to exploit the arctic and damn the consequences.
4. What problems could there be if the current decline continues?
See 1. Single biggest impact is long term melting of land based ice, raising sea level. Yes it has happened before, many thousands of years ago, but that was before millions of people were living in low lying areas and coastal cities. If (as the scientific evidence strongly suggests) human induced global warming is the primary driver of a warming arctic, surely only the most careless people would advocate doing nothing ?
Smokey your “alarmist cult” phrase may suit your purpose, but (a) to sound an alarm when a threat could occur is a sensible thing to do and (b) cults don’t usually base their position on science. The only “cult” I can see in this debate is that of the sceptics, who circulate the same flakey stories around the internet so often they actually believe them and who denounce mainstream scientists in religious terms.
James Abbott says:
““Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years” must be wrong.”
Thanx for your personal opinion. I have posted numerous links in my comments, but your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing. Here is another one. And as we see from the ice core evidence, the Holocene was routinely warmer than now. Anyone with common sense can understand that there would be less Arctic ice than now. You are only fooling yourself.
Abbott says: “Single biggest impact is long term melting of land based ice, raising sea level.:
Well then, let’s look at the sea level. So much for that scare tactic, eh?
Abbott continues: “…(a) to sound an alarm when a threat could occur is a sensible thing to do”
Don’t be silly. I can sound an alarm when you are getting in your car: an accident could kill you. The only time to sound an alarm is when there is credible evidence of fast approaching danger. In the case of Arctic ice cover, we see that it has been like today, and even ice-free in the past, with no problems. Therefore, to ‘sound an alarm’ is alarmist hyperbole.
And: “…(b) cults don’t usually base their position on science.” Which is exactly why the runaway global warming scare is anti-science.
In order to be convincing, you will have to provide solid testable evidence, showing conclusively, per the scientific method, that human activity is the driver of Arctic ice melt. Good luck with that; if you can do so, you will be the first. That is why the basis of this particular scare is “people will care”. Well, some people care about astrology. That doesn’t make it valid.
This Arctic scare surfaces regularly. It sells newspapers. But when it comes to testable science, it is sadly lacking.
James Abbott
August 12, 2012 3:51 pm
Smokey
I looked at your links. They relate to many thousands of years ago. I agree that there is evidence that after the most recent ice age and during previous interglacials there may well have been less arctic ice.
But you stated, and I was commenting on:
“Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years”
You were wrong – why not admit it instead of flailing around with different epochs ?
And instead of chucking phrases like “baseless opinion” around (which you are guilty of re the 150 year claim), have another look at my posting. I quoted the NSIDC – so its not my opinion, its their conclusion. Unless you are saying that the NSIDC are guilty of “baseless opinion ” ?
You have a point re absolute proof linking human induced global warming to ice loss. It probably is the major driver, but I agree its too early to be 100% sure. Its the most likely explanation.
The alternative sceptic explanations such as soot and icebreakers are barking. There is about as much emperical evidence for those reasons as there is for alien canals on Mars (and some people once believed in those).
Finally, you say that a melting is arctic is OK because
“In the case of Arctic ice cover, we see that it has been like today, and even ice-free, with no problems”.
No problems ?
The Holocene Thermal Maximum that you like to refer to was in an era of still recovering sea level post the last ice age. It was also an era when there were about 5 million people on the planet (less than 1/1000 of the current world population).
But from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#summer_ice
we learn that
“The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets had partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.”
So are you seriously saying no problem if sea level rises 4 to 6 meters ?
James Abbott:
Thankyou for your answers to my questions which you provide at August 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm .
Frankly, if that is all you can say about consequences of total loss of the Arctic ice cap then I can see no reason for any concern.
(a) The Arctic ice is not “an important regulator in the climate” as you assert. On the contrary, it is a consequence of climate.
(b) As you say, “The temperature gradient between the equator and poles drives weather systems and the jet streams.” Indeed so. And, therefore, a reduction to that temperature gradient would decrease the frequency and magnitude of weather extremes (e.g. storms). I fail to see how that would not be a net benefit.
(c) Melting of the Greenland ice sheets would take millenia (even if Greenland were transported to the tropics) so the putative melting would have no problematic increase to the rate of sea level rise which has been happening for the last 10,000 years.
(d) I would welcome knowledge of the species which “rely” on the existence of the Arctic ice cap. I doubt any exist.
Considering my rebuttals (a) to (d) of your points, I cannot agree that many people would care if the Arctic ice cap disappeared. In fact, few people would notice .
And I must say I am surprised at your immoral assertion statement that increased trade and shipping are damning “consequences”. Such benefits should be celebrated.
Anyway, this is all moot because we are not likely to gain the great benefits from total loss of the Arctic ice cap. Such total loss is very unlikely to happen before the next Ice Age commences. Of course, this does lead to your question to me; viz.
“surely only the most careless people would advocate doing nothing ?”
I answer that we could cover the Arctic ice cap with dark material to assist it to melt and thus gain the benefits of its total loss, but I have little hope that this would be sufficient to obtain the total melt.
Richard
James Abbot says, regarding my comment that Arctic ice has been as low as it is currently within the past 150 years:
“You were wrong – why not admit it instead of flailing around with different epochs ?”
No, I was correct. Plenty more links here showing recent Arctic ice declines. It is a routine occurrence.
Next, I give no reasons for Arctic ice decline, other than changing wind and ocean currents. Soot and other factors may be relevant, but my intent is to show that the current Arctic is no different that in the past, when CO2 was much lower. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause of Arctic ice decline because CO2 levels make no difference, either in the Arctic or the Antarctic.
Abbott quotes a source that claims: “Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.”
That is pure speculation. There is zero testable evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of Arctic ice decline. If it were the cause, then the Antarctic, with more than ten times the amount of Arctic ice, would be declining. It is not. So much for that alarmist conjecture. But I suppose it sells magazines.
There certainly would be a problem if sea levels rose 4 – 6 meters. But that is not happening. Quite the opposite. I already provided two charts showing multiple satellite sea level data. The sea level rise is decelerating. Thus, the sea level scare – a corollary of the Arctic ice scare – is debunked. So relax, this is completely normal. It has happened repeatedly in the past, including the recent past. There is nothing to be alarmed about. It is just natural variability, nothing more.
Rob Dekker
August 13, 2012 12:22 am
Smokey said
‘dave‘ is a textbook example of psychological projection
he appears to be an uneducated noob
It almost seems like tjfolkerts is seeing the light. However, being a student of human nature, I predict he will revert to his contrary belief system
NSIDC cheats
As usual, Smokey plays the smart ass with snark. [*Snip* That will do. ~ Evan]
Rob Dekker
August 13, 2012 12:46 am
Richardcourtney said
This meme that global temperature has recently accelerated seems to be a use of the Big Lie propaganda technique (i.e. proclaim an untruth often in hope that people will come to believe it). For example, Jan P Perlwitz tried to make the same silly claim recently in the thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/
Richard, where exactly did Perlwitz suggest that the “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that threat ?
I answer: At August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm.
Subsequent to that his entire discussion with me was about that fallacious suggestion.
Please explain why you asked instead of reading the discussion in the thread.
Richard
Warm:
re. your comment at August 13, 2012 at 2:14 am.
Please remember that the Arctic region is a net emitter of radiation. It obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months.
The Arctic region obtains most of its energy from ocean currents that transport energy from warmer regions, and the Arctic region radiates much of this transported energy from its surface. Importantly, the Arctic ice cap inhibits the emission of energy from the Arctic ocean. Simply, the ice cap is an insulator that keeps the heat in the ocean.
This ‘insulating’ effect of the ice cap is counterbalanced to a small degree by the albedo of ice being greater than that of water: ice reflects more solar radiation than water surface. However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation. Absorbtion of solar radiation by the Arctic waters requires surface waves which provide absorbing regions over some of their surfaces. Hence, reduction of the polar ice cap makes very little difference to the absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean.
Existing data is not sufficient to determine if loss of the Arctic ice cap would warm or cool the Arctic ocean, but – on balance – it seems likely that loss of the ice cap would cool the Arctic ocean by reducing the ‘insulating’ effect.
Hence, it seems very unlikely that “summer insolation” being “much higher” in the Arctic region would have any discernible effect on temperatures and ice cover in the Arctic region. Perhaps an increase to “summer insolation” in the tropics might significantly increase the transport of energy to the polar regions, but there are reasons to doubt this, too.
Furthermore, variations in winds are by far the most important observed cause of variations in Arctic ice cover.
Hence, variations to summer insolation may be significant to the degree of polar ice cover, but it is very probable that they are not relevant.
Richard
Warm:
As an afterthought to my post addressed to you, I think I should have explicitly stated that “insolation” is the solar radiation received by the region. However, the important point is how much of that radiation is absorbed by the region: if all the radiation is reflected then none is absorbed whatever the insolation.
Richard
Warm
August 13, 2012 5:10 am
“Existing data is not sufficient to determine if loss of the Arctic ice cap would warm or cool the Arctic ocean, but – on balance – it seems likely that loss of the ice cap would cool the Arctic ocean by reducing the ‘insulating’ effect.”
Please read the recent litterature about “polar amplification” before building “innovative” theories. http://scholar.google.ch/scholar?as_ylo=2008&q=%22polar+amplification%22&hl=fr&as_sdt=0
Among others:
The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic
temperature amplification http://earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~ihs/publication_pdfs/screen_simmonds_arctic_amplification_nature_2010_with_supplementary_info.pdf
“Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the
surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with
reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast,
have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in
atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced
sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the
atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that
diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature
amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong
positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic,
increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss,”
Effect of changes in insolation in a complex climate model http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072025/pdf/1755-1315_6_7_072025.pdf
“In boreal summer stronger insolation leads to a strong warming of North America
and Eurasia. […]. In the vicinity of the Arctic ocean the reduction (and thinning) of Arctic sea ice leads to warmer surface air temperatures over the ocean and in adjacent land areas. The warmer summer temperatures lead to northward shift of the tundra/taiga boundary. The albedo effect further amplifies Arctic summer warming.”
Evolution of the seasonal temperature cycle in a transient Holocene
simulation: orbital forcing and sea-ice http://www.clim-past.net/7/1139/2011/cp-7-1139-2011.pdf
“Changes in the Earth’s orbit lead to changes
in the seasonal and meridional distribution of insolation.
We quantify the influence of orbitally induced changes
on the seasonal temperature cycle in a transient simulation
of the last 6000 years – from the mid-Holocene to today
– using a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation
model (ECHAM5/MPI-OM) including a land surface model
(JSBACH).
The seasonal temperature cycle responds directly to the insolation
changes almost everywhere. In the Northern Hemisphere,
its amplitude decreases according to an increase in
winter insolation and a decrease in summer insolation. In the
Southern Hemisphere, the opposite is true.
Over the Arctic Ocean, decreasing summer insolation
leads to an increase in sea-ice cover. The insulating effect
of sea ice between the ocean and the atmosphere leads to
decreasing heat flux and favors more “continental” conditions
over the Arctic Ocean in winter, resulting in strongly
decreasing temperatures. Consequently, there are two competing
effects: the direct response to insolation changes and
a sea-ice insulation effect. The sea-ice insulation effect is
stronger, and thus an increase in the amplitude of the seasonal
temperature cycle over the Arctic Ocean occurs. This
increase is strongest over the Barents Shelf and influences
the temperature response over northern Europe.”
“Perhaps an increase to “summer insolation” in the tropics might significantly increase the transport of energy to the polar regions, but there are reasons to doubt this, too.”
Does not compute… Strictly speaking, no summer in the tropics.. It’s a symmetrical band on each side of the equator.
Smokey, please list papers that are directly relevant to the 5 points you made in your earlier post. That is what I’ve been asking for and you continue to skirt the issue. You have to base your beliefs on something besides blogging as anyone can post on a blog with or without any scientific knowledge. I would hope you’ve actually read some peer-reviewed literature to base your beliefs on.
DANG! I seem to have erased my comments, Richard, so here is the short version.
* Here is the HADCRUT3 data since 1850 with 10-yr, 30-yr, and 50-yr slopes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgM8XE4GABYQdFBCNXdNWmh1Q3l1dWk3c2tsWHRkUmc
* the 50-year slope has some major oscillations, but the steepest 11 of the 50-year slopes occurred in the last 11 years. The over all trend in the slope is upward (ie the slope of the slopes is rising, so the “50-year acceleration” is confirmed.
* the 30-year slope has dropped fairly steadily since 2004 (although it is still positive – still warming, just at a slightly reduced pace). But since similar temporary declines have happened before, this doesn’t necessarily indicate a change.
* the 10-year slope has been declining, and is indeed actually negative this past year (ie the world had a cooling decade)! If you believe that a 10 year trend is enough to portend a change, then maybe we have entered a period of cooling. But I would not bet on it based on a SINGLE cooling 10-year period.
* Statistically speaking, the case for global warming was probably stronger in 2006 or 1998 than it is now. The warming trends have been slowing. It would have been much easier to make the case for CO2 without the last couple years. But given the plethora of others climate drivers (eg soot or a quiet sun) that can affect yearly or decadal trends, this short pause in the previous upward trend is not enough to “put the nail in the coffin” of CO2 as a cause (among others) of climate change.
dave,
You do not assign homework, puppy. I have read more papers than you have by far. Most all of Lindzen’s, Christy’s Spencer’s, etc., etc. The only reason I respond is to make certain that new readers don’t read only your human-caused Arctic melting nonsense. After reading both sides they can make up their own minds. The alarmist crowd always loses in open debate. I’m just making sure our record remains unbroken.
Why do you think RealClimate, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, Closed Mind, and the rest of the alarmist blogs heavily censor the comments of scientific skeptics? They censor because if they didn’t, they would quickly be laughed out of the blogosphere for their anti-science views. The truth is not in them, and they cannot abide the scientific method, with its requirement for transparency.
You stated above: “I told you before, I am willing to read any scientific papers that support your view”. So I provided you with a reading list. Now you are weaseling out. Typical of the closed-minded alarmist nonsense cult.
Smokey, you only provided a CV, that is not a reading list of papers to support the 5-points you raised. Since you have read as many as you say you have, it should be easy for you to simply point to papers that make your 5 points. You keep stalling.
just so you know, I’m not an alarmist, I’m a conservative who believes that human activities are helping the planet to warm further and I stand to profit off of that. Just because someone admits that increases in CO2 from human activities leads to warming does not in anyway mean that I’m an alarmist. Not at all. that is a tag you blindly apply to all those you disagree with your narrow point of view. The fact that you will only read papers from climate skeptics and no papers from any other scientists show you are one of closed mind.
tjfolkerts:
Thankyou for your post at August 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm.
It admits that global warming has not been accelerating – indeed, it has been decelerating – in recent decades. And I thank you for your honesty in this correction to your earlier statement.
As you say, what this deceleration means is a different matter which cannot be resolved at present.
Richard
Smokey said :
When I factually report NSIDC’s Arctic sea ice extent over the past 5 days, relevant both to the subject of this thread and the Arcus forecast, and suggest we check again in a couple of days, I seem to have caused enough “waving arms” and “irrational” behavior by apparently “running around in circles” and apparently have suggested that “CO2 aggregates in the Arctic” for Smokey to present this knee-jerk response.
While my notion that currently “2012 is now cruising well below the curve of the previous record 2007” means to Smokey that “the Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles”.
Who is “irrational” now ?
Smokey said :
The question is not who I am, Smokey. I explained many times who I am and I post with my full name.
You on the other hand are hiding under a pseudonym, suggesting you are reluctant to reveal your identity.
Let me ask you a simple and direct question : [snip – such speculation is inappropriate here ~jove, Mod]
tim folkerts says:
“The warming trends have been slowing.”
Thank you for that. No acceleration of warming is occurring. Therefore, human emitted CO2, which has only ramped up significantly since WWII, cannot be causing the claimed effect.
Further, most of the 0.8ºC rise happened from about 1910 – 1940. That does not support the conjecture that human CO2 emissions cause measurable global warming. It now appears that the rise in 20th Century CO2 was largely the result of warming, not the cause. The ocean outgases CO2 as it warms the same way that a warming Coke outgases CO2. The natural recovery from the LIA resulted in higher CO2 levels. Human activity adds some CO2, but it does not add any measurable warming.
Regarding the natural Arctic variability we are observing, this is completely normal. Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years, and throughout the Holocene. The Arctic is often ice free in the summer. That is a fact, as eyewitness reports show. And since many of those observations happened when CO2 was well under 300 ppmv, the obvious conclusion is that CO2 has nothing whatever to do with the ebb and flow of Arctic ice cover.
dave says:
August 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Smokey, please list papers that are directly relevant to the 5 points you made in your earlier post….
_______________________________
If you want peer-reviewed papers you can sift through Pop Tech’s list of 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm for those on the Arctic and on Smokey’s 5 points.
Arctic sea ice area now appears to be in freefall.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
shows current area already close to the record melt years recently, except its not yet the middle of August.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.23518.png
shows comparison with 2007 for date – concentration is way lower this year with a lot of weak ice still vulnerable to melting.
Smokey says “Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years”.
Can we have some hard evidence for that claim ?
And where is the reliable documented evidence that “The Arctic is often ice free in the summer” in modern history ?
Its total **** Smokey – its not true.
The C19th expeditions to try to get through the North West passage resulted in many deaths due to ships being ice bound (sometimes for years, with ships sometimes crushed) and crews having to try to survive on land, or expeditions turning back – all well documented. In the C20th many early attempts were made to get to the north pole by submarine, air and walking/sled – some successful – but all finding the arctic was iced.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
explains that reliable ice charts back to the 1950s and shipping logs back to the 1700s, published in research papers, show that
“However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
James Abbott:
At August 12, 2012 at 11:44 am you say
I sincerely doubt that the assertion you quote is correct. However, for sake of argument, let us assume it is correct.
Assuming the assertion is correct then
1. Why does it matter if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
2. Why should anybody care if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
3. Would there not be a benefit to shipping and trade if the current decline continues?
and
4. What problems could there be if the current decline continues?
I await your answers to these questions with interest.
Richard
James Abbott says:
“Can we have some hard evidence for that claim ?”
Sheesh, how many links do I have to post before the alarmist crowd stops acting like this?? History is filled with accounts of a warming Arctic.
And what is the problem, anyway? The alarmist cult clings to normal Arctic variability like a drowning man clings to a stick. But there is NO scientific evidence linking Arctic ice melt with human activity. None.
As Abbott writes : “However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
So think about it: that means that several hundred years ago the same thing happened. Thanx for pointing out that this happens routinely.
And the null hypothesis has never been falsified…
richardscourtney
Its not my “assertion” that the current melting is unprecedented in several hundred years – it comes from the NSIDC as quoted.
and Smokey
thanks for accepting that fact because it means that your earlier assertion that
“Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years” must be wrong.
1. Why does it matter if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
Because the arctic ice cap is an important regulator in the climate. The temperature gradient between the equator and poles drives weather systems and the jet streams. Lose the ice and the arctic will warm even faster as the albedo changes. We don’t know the exact impacts, but it is likely that weather patterns could change dramatically, affecting large parts of the northern hemisphere.
Less ice in the arctic will speed up the melt of the Greenland ice cap, accelerating sea level rise with obvious risks to coastal cities and communities in the future.
Major impacts to arctic species that rely on the ice.
2. Why should anybody care if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
See 1 – most people will care.
3. Would there not be a benefit to shipping and trade if the current decline continues?
Yes. No doubt there will be a rush to exploit the arctic and damn the consequences.
4. What problems could there be if the current decline continues?
See 1. Single biggest impact is long term melting of land based ice, raising sea level. Yes it has happened before, many thousands of years ago, but that was before millions of people were living in low lying areas and coastal cities. If (as the scientific evidence strongly suggests) human induced global warming is the primary driver of a warming arctic, surely only the most careless people would advocate doing nothing ?
Smokey your “alarmist cult” phrase may suit your purpose, but (a) to sound an alarm when a threat could occur is a sensible thing to do and (b) cults don’t usually base their position on science. The only “cult” I can see in this debate is that of the sceptics, who circulate the same flakey stories around the internet so often they actually believe them and who denounce mainstream scientists in religious terms.
James Abbott says:
““Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years” must be wrong.”
Thanx for your personal opinion. I have posted numerous links in my comments, but your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing. Here is another one. And as we see from the ice core evidence, the Holocene was routinely warmer than now. Anyone with common sense can understand that there would be less Arctic ice than now. You are only fooling yourself.
Abbott says: “Single biggest impact is long term melting of land based ice, raising sea level.:
Well then, let’s look at the sea level. So much for that scare tactic, eh?
Abbott continues: “…(a) to sound an alarm when a threat could occur is a sensible thing to do”
Don’t be silly. I can sound an alarm when you are getting in your car: an accident could kill you. The only time to sound an alarm is when there is credible evidence of fast approaching danger. In the case of Arctic ice cover, we see that it has been like today, and even ice-free in the past, with no problems. Therefore, to ‘sound an alarm’ is alarmist hyperbole.
And: “…(b) cults don’t usually base their position on science.” Which is exactly why the runaway global warming scare is anti-science.
In order to be convincing, you will have to provide solid testable evidence, showing conclusively, per the scientific method, that human activity is the driver of Arctic ice melt. Good luck with that; if you can do so, you will be the first. That is why the basis of this particular scare is “people will care”. Well, some people care about astrology. That doesn’t make it valid.
This Arctic scare surfaces regularly. It sells newspapers. But when it comes to testable science, it is sadly lacking.
Smokey
I looked at your links. They relate to many thousands of years ago. I agree that there is evidence that after the most recent ice age and during previous interglacials there may well have been less arctic ice.
But you stated, and I was commenting on:
“Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years”
You were wrong – why not admit it instead of flailing around with different epochs ?
And instead of chucking phrases like “baseless opinion” around (which you are guilty of re the 150 year claim), have another look at my posting. I quoted the NSIDC – so its not my opinion, its their conclusion. Unless you are saying that the NSIDC are guilty of “baseless opinion ” ?
You have a point re absolute proof linking human induced global warming to ice loss. It probably is the major driver, but I agree its too early to be 100% sure. Its the most likely explanation.
The alternative sceptic explanations such as soot and icebreakers are barking. There is about as much emperical evidence for those reasons as there is for alien canals on Mars (and some people once believed in those).
Finally, you say that a melting is arctic is OK because
“In the case of Arctic ice cover, we see that it has been like today, and even ice-free, with no problems”.
No problems ?
The Holocene Thermal Maximum that you like to refer to was in an era of still recovering sea level post the last ice age. It was also an era when there were about 5 million people on the planet (less than 1/1000 of the current world population).
But from
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#summer_ice
we learn that
“The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets had partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.”
So are you seriously saying no problem if sea level rises 4 to 6 meters ?
James Abbott:
Thankyou for your answers to my questions which you provide at August 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm .
Frankly, if that is all you can say about consequences of total loss of the Arctic ice cap then I can see no reason for any concern.
(a) The Arctic ice is not “an important regulator in the climate” as you assert. On the contrary, it is a consequence of climate.
(b) As you say, “The temperature gradient between the equator and poles drives weather systems and the jet streams.” Indeed so. And, therefore, a reduction to that temperature gradient would decrease the frequency and magnitude of weather extremes (e.g. storms). I fail to see how that would not be a net benefit.
(c) Melting of the Greenland ice sheets would take millenia (even if Greenland were transported to the tropics) so the putative melting would have no problematic increase to the rate of sea level rise which has been happening for the last 10,000 years.
(d) I would welcome knowledge of the species which “rely” on the existence of the Arctic ice cap. I doubt any exist.
Considering my rebuttals (a) to (d) of your points, I cannot agree that many people would care if the Arctic ice cap disappeared. In fact, few people would notice .
And I must say I am surprised at your immoral assertion statement that increased trade and shipping are damning “consequences”. Such benefits should be celebrated.
Anyway, this is all moot because we are not likely to gain the great benefits from total loss of the Arctic ice cap. Such total loss is very unlikely to happen before the next Ice Age commences. Of course, this does lead to your question to me; viz.
“surely only the most careless people would advocate doing nothing ?”
I answer that we could cover the Arctic ice cap with dark material to assist it to melt and thus gain the benefits of its total loss, but I have little hope that this would be sufficient to obtain the total melt.
Richard
James Abbot says, regarding my comment that Arctic ice has been as low as it is currently within the past 150 years:
“You were wrong – why not admit it instead of flailing around with different epochs ?”
No, I was correct. Plenty more links here showing recent Arctic ice declines. It is a routine occurrence.
Next, I give no reasons for Arctic ice decline, other than changing wind and ocean currents. Soot and other factors may be relevant, but my intent is to show that the current Arctic is no different that in the past, when CO2 was much lower. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause of Arctic ice decline because CO2 levels make no difference, either in the Arctic or the Antarctic.
Abbott quotes a source that claims: “Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.”
That is pure speculation. There is zero testable evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of Arctic ice decline. If it were the cause, then the Antarctic, with more than ten times the amount of Arctic ice, would be declining. It is not. So much for that alarmist conjecture. But I suppose it sells magazines.
There certainly would be a problem if sea levels rose 4 – 6 meters. But that is not happening. Quite the opposite. I already provided two charts showing multiple satellite sea level data. The sea level rise is decelerating. Thus, the sea level scare – a corollary of the Arctic ice scare – is debunked. So relax, this is completely normal. It has happened repeatedly in the past, including the recent past. There is nothing to be alarmed about. It is just natural variability, nothing more.
Smokey said
As usual, Smokey plays the smart ass with snark. [*Snip* That will do. ~ Evan]
Richardcourtney said
Richard, where exactly did Perlwitz suggest that the “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that threat ?
“There certainly would be a problem if sea levels rose 4 – 6 meters. But that is not happening. Quite the opposite. I already provided two charts showing multiple satellite sea level data. ”
Plesase update your sources:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel3/sl_ns_global.pdf
Rob Dekker:
August 13, 2012 at 12:46 am you ask me:
I answer: At August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm.
Subsequent to that his entire discussion with me was about that fallacious suggestion.
Please explain why you asked instead of reading the discussion in the thread.
Richard
“Soot and other factors may be relevant, but my intent is to show that the current Arctic is no different that in the past, when CO2 was much lower.”
But summer insolation much higher…
http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/milankovitch-cycles-and-the-arctic-climate-in-the-early-holocene/
Warm:
re. your comment at August 13, 2012 at 2:14 am.
Please remember that the Arctic region is a net emitter of radiation. It obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months.
The Arctic region obtains most of its energy from ocean currents that transport energy from warmer regions, and the Arctic region radiates much of this transported energy from its surface. Importantly, the Arctic ice cap inhibits the emission of energy from the Arctic ocean. Simply, the ice cap is an insulator that keeps the heat in the ocean.
This ‘insulating’ effect of the ice cap is counterbalanced to a small degree by the albedo of ice being greater than that of water: ice reflects more solar radiation than water surface. However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation. Absorbtion of solar radiation by the Arctic waters requires surface waves which provide absorbing regions over some of their surfaces. Hence, reduction of the polar ice cap makes very little difference to the absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean.
Existing data is not sufficient to determine if loss of the Arctic ice cap would warm or cool the Arctic ocean, but – on balance – it seems likely that loss of the ice cap would cool the Arctic ocean by reducing the ‘insulating’ effect.
Hence, it seems very unlikely that “summer insolation” being “much higher” in the Arctic region would have any discernible effect on temperatures and ice cover in the Arctic region. Perhaps an increase to “summer insolation” in the tropics might significantly increase the transport of energy to the polar regions, but there are reasons to doubt this, too.
Furthermore, variations in winds are by far the most important observed cause of variations in Arctic ice cover.
Hence, variations to summer insolation may be significant to the degree of polar ice cover, but it is very probable that they are not relevant.
Richard
Warm:
As an afterthought to my post addressed to you, I think I should have explicitly stated that “insolation” is the solar radiation received by the region. However, the important point is how much of that radiation is absorbed by the region: if all the radiation is reflected then none is absorbed whatever the insolation.
Richard
“Existing data is not sufficient to determine if loss of the Arctic ice cap would warm or cool the Arctic ocean, but – on balance – it seems likely that loss of the ice cap would cool the Arctic ocean by reducing the ‘insulating’ effect.”
Please read the recent litterature about “polar amplification” before building “innovative” theories.
http://scholar.google.ch/scholar?as_ylo=2008&q=%22polar+amplification%22&hl=fr&as_sdt=0
Among others:
The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic
temperature amplification
http://earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~ihs/publication_pdfs/screen_simmonds_arctic_amplification_nature_2010_with_supplementary_info.pdf
“Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the
surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with
reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast,
have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in
atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced
sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the
atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that
diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature
amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong
positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic,
increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss,”
Effect of changes in insolation in a complex climate model
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072025/pdf/1755-1315_6_7_072025.pdf
“In boreal summer stronger insolation leads to a strong warming of North America
and Eurasia. […]. In the vicinity of the Arctic ocean the reduction (and thinning) of Arctic sea ice leads to warmer surface air temperatures over the ocean and in adjacent land areas. The warmer summer temperatures lead to northward shift of the tundra/taiga boundary. The albedo effect further amplifies Arctic summer warming.”
Evolution of the seasonal temperature cycle in a transient Holocene
simulation: orbital forcing and sea-ice
http://www.clim-past.net/7/1139/2011/cp-7-1139-2011.pdf
“Changes in the Earth’s orbit lead to changes
in the seasonal and meridional distribution of insolation.
We quantify the influence of orbitally induced changes
on the seasonal temperature cycle in a transient simulation
of the last 6000 years – from the mid-Holocene to today
– using a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation
model (ECHAM5/MPI-OM) including a land surface model
(JSBACH).
The seasonal temperature cycle responds directly to the insolation
changes almost everywhere. In the Northern Hemisphere,
its amplitude decreases according to an increase in
winter insolation and a decrease in summer insolation. In the
Southern Hemisphere, the opposite is true.
Over the Arctic Ocean, decreasing summer insolation
leads to an increase in sea-ice cover. The insulating effect
of sea ice between the ocean and the atmosphere leads to
decreasing heat flux and favors more “continental” conditions
over the Arctic Ocean in winter, resulting in strongly
decreasing temperatures. Consequently, there are two competing
effects: the direct response to insolation changes and
a sea-ice insulation effect. The sea-ice insulation effect is
stronger, and thus an increase in the amplitude of the seasonal
temperature cycle over the Arctic Ocean occurs. This
increase is strongest over the Barents Shelf and influences
the temperature response over northern Europe.”
“Perhaps an increase to “summer insolation” in the tropics might significantly increase the transport of energy to the polar regions, but there are reasons to doubt this, too.”
Does not compute… Strictly speaking, no summer in the tropics.. It’s a symmetrical band on each side of the equator.