Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth

Image Credit – Wood For Trees and Werner Brozek

From the Investor’s Business Daily:

The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.

Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don’t.

But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.

This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” and this group is categorized as the “Comply with Kyoto” cohort.

Members of this group, not unexpectedly, “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists. Read More At IBD

The study, Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, by Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer can be found here.

A couple interesting quotes within:

“Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”

“The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”

The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that:

If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

“This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.

At the same time, the Antarctic “is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area,” says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that “the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal” was Nov. 22, 2011.

Read More At IBD

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
DaveG

justthefactswuwt say:
Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth
That is the whole point, the alarmist have very little to work with so the regurgitate the same old worn out models and weather gone mild with occasional weather gone wild as proof of their doom and gloom predictions. All predicated on lies and misinformation!

Jantar

But, but, but……… 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that man is the primary cause.
Now it turns out to be only 36%. Is this an inverse relationship between CO2 concentration and the number of scientists who believe in concensus?

D.B. Stealey

The “consensus” from the 1970’s. This is actually quite a good video, which shows how different perceptions were, only a few decades ago. Narrated by Spock. Fascinating.
Nothing unusual has happened since then. In fact, the global temperature has changed by less than during most of the Holocene. Temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 16 years. But the public’s perceptions have changed, due to the relentless propaganda raining down on them 24/7/365.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Cowburg

There’s an entire cadre of critics of this paper already…because the polled professionals belong to APEGGA, otherwise known as the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists of Alberta. “Shills for Big Oil”. Yawn. I don’t belong to APEGGA, never have. I work overseas, so paying a dues to an organization that doesn’t even give you a cool hat is pointless. Regardless, A great many people there are NOT oil-related. But no matter. The shill-brand has gotten out of the bag, and therefore the findings are instantly invalid. (/sarc for safety’s sake). But, I’ll betcha the numbers are correct. People who think for a living tend to despise the Klimate Kooks Klan.

Justthinkin

Every honest climate scientist,in fact,all honest scientists(no,I don’t count the mental manipulators as scientists) are complicent in this scam by their silence.

Jeff Norman

I agree with Mike Bromley. IMO confining this kind of survey to members of organizations like the APPEGA is just asking for criticism. I am also somewhat disappointed that I have never been asked to complete such a survey despite being a professional engineer.

Latitude

“This is only the third winter in history,”
=====
I hate this……..define history first

Jim Clarke

Well, if the APEGGA is comprised of shills for big oil, then it only stands to reason the IPCC is comprised of shills for big government. Even more so. Many in the APEGGA are not paid by oil companies, while nearly everyone associated with the IPCC is paid by government.
So the questions to all those warmists out there…who pays you or gives you money, and why are you ‘shilling’ for them? Why have you sold out by taking grants or salaries? If the only valid scientific information comes from scientists who accept no compensation for their scientific work, who among you can throw the first stone?
Hypocrites!

Mindert Eiting

Well said, Stealey at 9:40 am. It reminds me of a story in my newspaper about a man who was wrongly diagnosed Alzheimer by his neurologist. While he got the wrong medicines, his doctor let raining down on him relentless propaganda, making him to believe the diagnosis more and more but at the same time noticing that nothing went wrong with his memory. After a few years of maltreatment he found out the truth. So people do more than listening to propaganda.

mark fraser

As a former APEGGA member, I’ll state that I have no “big oil” dependencies (other than wanting to have affordable energy) and that I’m as skeptical as anyone I know. I suspect that most of those polled are less dependent upon the petroleum industry than the alarmists are on alarmism.

Mario Lento

Leonard Nimoy, does not like being called Spock.
Anyway – I am amazed at the number of people (who still believe in AGW) who also are completely unaware that the “natural” short term warming trend stopped around 1997/1998 with the El Nino. They just don’t have the time or desire to find out the facts, yet they still have the time to vote and defend their choice (based on what?). This to me, is in fact the definition of a low information voter.
Of course we should refrain from using terms like “Low Information Voter”, as the left has labelled people like me “Deniar”.

While I am as big a skeptic as there is and believe that mankind’s contribution is something less than 25% (possibly FAR less), I cringe whenever our “side” brings up the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. It seems a bit disingenuous because of course a higher melt off will bring a more dramatic freeze up. It is sort of like getting the dreaded “most improved” award when you are young. “You still suck, but you have come a long way Johnny!” Ok…that’s all…

Mark and two Cats

The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that: … skeptical website Watts Up With That…
—————————————
Recognition – YAY!
[Reply: But they didn’t make it a hot link. ☹ — mod.]

Andrew Harding

The AGW crowd have been trotting out the same cliches for years eg “It’s worse than we thought” (It has never been better than they thought!!). “The science is settled” to give just two.
The problem is not the scientists it is the governments, they have got an awful lot of revenue to lose if AGW is publicly disproved; taxes on air travel, petrol, diesel, car taxes other green taxes etc etc. AGW is not going to be publicly disproven, we have the BBC the Met Office and the EU and over the other side of the Atlantic, Obama, in Australia they have Gillard! Propaganda which would be worthy of Goebels, is the mainstay of AGW, mantra rather than scientific reasoning, ardour rather than logic, ridicule and insults rather than debate.The science never made any sense, it confuses weather with climate, it is based on computer models only, any evidence that is contrary to AGW is very quietly publicised.
In my view the only way that AGW can be publicly disproved is if legal action is taken against one or more of the organisations that have provided bad advice to governments. I don’t know if that is even possible.

manicbeancounter

There is always a rider that should be put on any look at warming trends. A small amount of historical warming is nothing to be concerned about. It is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that justifies government policies. This is projected as something for the future. Demonstration that warming is happening, along with signposts of the impending adverse consequences are necessary, but far from sufficient, conditions to substantiate these claims. The many failures in short-term predictions reduces the weighting (credibility) that is given to the CAGW projections. This, in turn, affects the cost-benefit justifications for policy.

Athelstan.

“Klimate Kooks Klan”
Poetic alliteration Mike Bromley luv it. Strike one for Canuckistan!
Btw, is it cold in Cowburg and do bears s*7t in the woods?

Steve from Rockwood

Mr. Africa says:
February 17, 2013 at 10:50 am
——————————————-
You have a good point about the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. However, doesn’t the fact that the Arctic is rebounding so quickly make the alarmism of the Arctic ice loss that much less alarming?

Edohiguma

I’m still amused how they call it “climate change”. One look at this planet’s history shows that the climate has never been stable and has always changed. Sure, from a human point of view climate is long term stable, but what are 2,000 years, for example, when dealing with Earth itself? Nothing. And even in those last 2,000 years we’ve had several climate changes, far bigger than what is happening today and there’s no way that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods (which were global as one look into Asian history proves without a doubt) were triggered or “made worse” by humans.

“with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
Perfectly normal and in fact expected . After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback. Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ). That’s why in the final analysis area and extent are not the best metrics for understanding the total picture. That’s why volume in the end is a better metric. Although we do amuse ourselves watching area and extent and area and extent are more important during the melt season ( when albedo feedback can operate cause the sun is up) Put another way, the more record losses in area you see in the melt season, the more records in rapid gains you will see when there is no sun in the arctic.
Basically, a record that doesnt matter as much in terms of albedo.

Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis)

CAVEAT EMPTOR
The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.
Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.
So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.

pokerguy

“But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.”
This is actually a radical view.

D.B. Stealey

Steven Mosher,
What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.
Give me a scare story, I’m going thru withdrawal.☺

Jeff Alberts

Of course one can point out that the CRU received big money from major oil companies. And then there’s Al Jazeera-Gore. Apparently you’re only a shill if you think the sky isn’t falling.

Wayne d

As a Life Member of APEGGA and a member of the first Civil Engieering class to specialize in Water and Pollution at the University of British Columbia, I am not at all surprised by this paper. We learned about “Climate Change” being the norm way back in elementary school. I just wonder whatever happened to our education system? Politicization? Merde.

Chris Beal @NJSnowFan

Most has to do with the sun and that .02% of sunspot energy. .02% is a big deal with the size of the sun. It takes time for earth to cool down coming out of historical high sunspot cycles. I do agree there is Urban Global Warming but it is located near citys only. Cut down trees that release on av. 4 tons of water water vapor per tree and replace it with pavement and you will get higher temp readings and dryer air. Most Temp reading sites were sourounded by farms and trees in the past 30 to 100 years.
BC (Black Carbon)that is dumped into the areas that jets fly 25,000 to 40,000 feet is main cause for BC deposits in the N hem ice caps/snow resulting in much faster summer melting. Jets that fly are like GIANT blower heaters heating so much air it is amazing. Look at this chart when Jut fuel consumpion rose and so dit global temps. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption
I see a pice of another puzzle. Also look at global temps when the economy came to a stand still in 2008, Global temps took a short but sharp drop off.

“Green shirts”… I like it.
And if Michael Mann were to bust in to our house and start trying to peddle his leftist hooey about global warming er climate change, I would say: “Quit what you’re saying. Cease and desist immediately from uttering your fallacious drivel. Because I don’t think it’s right that you green shirts try to push your leftist vision and ideas on the rest of us. At best what you fear-mongers holler about is extreme exaggeration; at worst, it’s an outright fabrication, like your hockey. stick. And without the hockey stick, there’s nothing unusual about current temperatures or the climate, it’s just another day on Planet Earth. Be gone bad Mann!! Before I call the cops!”

D.B. Stealey

For proof that WUWT allows comments by blinkered True Believers, check out the post by Vince Wilkinson above.
Wilkinson doesn’t understand some things. I’m here to help:
First, this survey was done by people very sympathetic to the catastrophic AGW scare. So all favorable numbers are padded, and 36% was all they could muster. The respondents who say that global warming was “partly” human-caused do not even know what they were responding to. Weasel words like “partly” can mean anything, so they mean nothing. “Partly” can mean 0.001%, or 40%, or anything. Since “partly” is not defined, it is meaningless and can be disregarded for all practical purposes.
There are no empirical, testable measurements available which confirm that belief. None. AGW is simply a conjecture. It has never been credibly measured. The ONLY cause-and-effect relationship between temperature and CO2 shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T — not vice-versa. Wilkinson cannot produce a similar chart showing that CO2 leads T. There are no such measurements available, but not for lack of searching.
The alarmist crowd started out with a faulty premise [CO2 causes measurable global warming], so they necessarily ended up with a faulty conclusion. CO2 may cause some minuscule warming, but any such warming is entirely beneficial. And for the past 16 years, there has been no global warming despite a steady rise in harmless, beneficial CO2.
The consternation expressed by people like Wilkinson stems from the falsification of their basic belief system. The globe is not warming, as was universally predicted by the entire alarmist crowd. Now their belief is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. The inevitable result is wild-eyed comments like Wilkinson’s. It’s just cognitive dissonance from the True Believers in the catastrophic AGW scare.

chris y

Steven Mosher-
“After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback.”
When the sun drops sufficiently low in the sky, there is negative feedback, independent of ice loss. Except for May, June and July, the net radiative forcing is negative.
“Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ).”
Ice has a thermal conductivity more than 3 times higher than water. It is a lousy insulator. However, ice can reduce heat transport from the underlying water by creating a dead air space between the water surface and the underside of the ice, and/or by providing a shelf upon which an overcoat of insulating low density snow ( as low as 0.03 W/m-K for fresh snow versus 0.6 W/m-K for water and 2 W/m-K for ice) can find a perch.

DB Stealey,
what is the problem with an ice free arctic?
None that I can see. Look at what I wrote. quote my words exactly.
There are some simple facts that folks really dont have to deny, but they get trapped into denying them because they dont like the policies of the folks who point out the facts.
1. The arctic summer volumes, area and extent continue to decline.
You can attack satillites, or accuse them of fraud, but the summer ice is on a downtrend.
2. There may have been times in human history when it was less. Data here is less certain
than data in the past 30 years. So, one should not go around as you have, claiming
with certitude that there has been less ice. That’s a bad as alarmists claiming the loss
is unprecedented.
3. there are many potential causes for this, Among them: changes in SST, changes
in circulation patterns, changes in wind, soot, changes in clouds, salinity, and yes
changes in warming. For example, in the 30s when it was warmer low and behold there
is some evidence ( not proof) of less ice. And when it was warmer in the holocene, you
guessed it.. less ice. Did AGW cause all the loss? dont be silly. Does increased warmth
have nothing to do with? dont be silly.
4. The causes for ice gain and loss in the north pole and south pole are different. For example,
you see increased ice in the south. Does soot have anything to do with that? haha. The point
is you can’t really compare the north and south without attending to a host of different
factors that can drive the metrics in opposite directions over short time scales.
5 Effects. understanding the effects of less ice is at the Bleeding edge of science. With only a few datapoints, say 5-6 years ( 2007 and on ) the best you can expect is a variety of possible
impacts. Its clear however that one cannot conclude that there will be no problem. There isnt enough data to conclude there will be a problem and the converse holds as well. That same lack of data cannot support your certitude that there will be no problem. Ignorance is not bliss.
Here are some possible issues that bear looking into: changes in weather patterns in the NH.
Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution. Like heavier snowfalls in the NH during winter? record snowfalls?
not necessarily. will you see it every year? nope, its weather. But on average, if the hypothesis hold up, you’ll see heavier than normal over long periods.
In short, there is no reason for alarm but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.
There is no reason to bury your head in the sand. No reason to deny facts. No reason to trust reconstructions of the past over measure data from the present. No reason invent wacko ideas for why ice melts. No reason to attack the satellite community. just as on the other side there is no reason to extrapolate from a change in ice to the end of the world.
Finally it really is silly to find the most extreme alarmists and argue the exact opposite of what they claim. two wrongs …. the saying goes..

Chris.
Compare water covered by ice with water not covered by ice.
you get the idea.

And chris ” Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
reading is fundamental

Peter Miller

Vince Wilkinson says: “The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint.”
What complete BS. As an active geo-scientist, I know absolutely no others (like me) who think CAGW is anything other than a complete crock. As for engineers, I have met a couple of lukewarmers, but the rest are hard core sceptics.
At the end of the day, it boils down to this: if you are a government geo-scientist, you believe in global warming – you have to, or there are serious employment consequences.
If you work in the private sector, you can make up your own mind, which is why there is almost universal scepticism towards global warming.

D.B. Stealey says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm
For proof that WUWT allows comments by blinkered True Believers, check out the post by Vince Wilkinson above.
Wilkinson doesn’t understand some things. I’m here to help: [etc.]
*
Well put, D.B. You did a far better job than I could have done.
What I would add is that I’ve only known the skeptical side to actually put their science on the table. The alarmists are too busy hiding theirs. WUWT is the best site in the world, IMHO, thick with REAL science, REAL scientists and REAL research. I know where to come to find out the truth AND have a decent discussion. Can anyone say that about the alarmists sites? No, not even close.
You pointed out the facts beautifully and very neatly. Cheers. 🙂

Oflot

some things here:
*could we please move away from words like “alarmists” and “denialists”, it just comes off as childish and unprofessional
*the study makes it pretty clear its targetting an “skeptical” group, yet they the majority still believed in humans influence
*why such missleading titles?

Latitude

Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Perfectly normal and in fact expected . After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback. Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area )
======
Mosh, can you define this with numbers?
How low was the ice loss? how much more was gained?
Does that amount of ice loss justify this much gain?

Crob

Vince Wilkinson..thank you for bringing possible problems with the study to light. Any true skeptic on this board should be encouraged by, not bothered by, your advice to “read beyond the headlines.” Actually looking at the data from such studies and checking whether the conclusions actually follow is at the core of many skeptical posts on this site, so your input is appreciated.
I haven’t had a chance to read referenced study, but could you go into more detail about how the non-controlled nature of the study impacts any of the conclusions cited? What variables do you think should have been controlled that were not?
I should also note that, while your input is appreciated, your tone towards the other readers of this blog is not. Please try to be respectful, even if some responding to you have not been.

Gary Pearse

The IBD article notes that 75% of climate papers were pro anthropo in 2004 and 46% in 2008. and that was before the gatekeepers who kept skeptical papers out of the main journals and had editors fired for admitting skeptical papers were hit by climategate. There has been a flood of skeptical papers since.

Well, if you had absolutely no chance to think on your own and still had to test consensus position on a particular topic of science, correct methodology requires genuine experts of that very field to be excluded from the poll.
If you wanted to know for example, that homeopathy was science or pseudoscience, so it deserved financial support from government on taxpayer’s money, you’d never ask a group of homeopaths if they believed substances diluted until not a single molecule of the supposed agent remained in them had still beneficial effect, would you? Even if you would and found 98% consensus on this issue among them, it would be utterly meaningless.
On the other hand, asking experts of neighboring disciplines like doctors, pharmacologists, biologists, nurses and the like makes sense.
It is the same with climatology. As soon as the scientific value of the basic paradigm of a field, in this case fitting multiple computational models of high complexity to a single run of a unique physical instance is questioned, it is up to experts of neighboring fields to decide its validity. They may not be able to do their own research in that field, but they do have ample background to understand and evaluate the methods applied in the field in question.

chris y

Steven Mosher-
The ice is not acting like an insulator. The air space is acting like an insulator. The snow is acting like an insulator.
“you get the idea.”
“reading is fundamental.”
Perhaps these reflexive snarks are indicative of some sort of climo-coprolalic malady.
More likely that you have been spending too much time over at RC or SS.

Camburn

Climate Science is settled. There is now no reason to continue to fund research.
Time to remove it from the US federal budget

Jeff Alberts

Mosher: “In short, there is no reason for alarm but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.”
What possible impacts? There needs to be evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening for there to be impacts which can be attributed to humans.
Mosher: “There isnt enough data to conclude there will be a problem and the converse holds as well. That same lack of data cannot support your certitude that there will be no problem. Ignorance is not bliss.”
Hmm. there’s a chance my car might just explode, even though I have no evidence to support it. I mean, it’s got a 12 gallon tank filled with volatile gasoline. One little spark is all it takes. I’d better not go near it, even though there’s no evidence that it can spontaneously explode. Better not leave your house. There are all sorts of things out there which can kill you. Precautionary Principle, and all that.
Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution. Like heavier snowfalls in the NH during winter? record snowfalls?
not necessarily. will you see it every year? nope, its weather. But on average, if the hypothesis hold up, you’ll see heavier than normal over long periods. ”
Ok, so on average we haven’t seen an increase in extreme weather, unless you have data to the contrary. Hypothesis falsified, again.

D.B. Stealey

Steven Mosher,
I can’t answer all those strawman arguments, I have things to do!
You didn’t cut & paste the words you were responding to, and I’m not willing to re-read every comment to try and figure out what you mean. All I asked was:
What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.
I didn’t try to “prove” anything, I didn’t take an extreme position, and I wasn’t arguing. I was just asking.
“We don’t know yet” is not a good answer. It is the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy, and it is used to try and prop up “what if” arguments. The fact is that there are no credible scare stories resulting from an ice-free Arctic.
I still see nothing alarming about an ice-free Arctic. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Naturally. And I can find no verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that human activity has anything at all to do with it.
• • •
Oflot,
H.L. Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
What else would you call people whose every effort is to alarm the public over an imaginary scare?
• • •
A.D. Everard,
Thanks.

Latitude

Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
“but the summer ice is on a downtrend.”
======
well yeah, when you start measuring at the coldest winter…
seals, whales, polar bears, birds, etc are all increasing in numbers….they think that’s a good thing
Who decided what was “normal” for Arctic ice in the first place?
=====
“but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.”
=====
so far it’s only the product of an over active imagination……
0.039 – 0.028 = 0.011

Latitude

Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution.
===========
Mosh, in your opinion are we going to see the “dust bowl” more or less frequently?

Camburn

Actually, the Arctic has been ice-free during every interglacial of the past. During MIS-11, both polar areas had large ice free areas.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm#ixzz2LAtp1Qee
During MIS-5, the temps were approx 5.0C warmer than present temps:
http://www.moraymo.us/Raymo+Mitrovica_2012.pdf
“The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5 °C warmer than today.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/abs/nature02805.html
I don’t understand why anyone is getting upset that the Arctic Ice is melting. It is a normal occurrence during inter-glacial periods.

I love it when the likes of Vince Wilkinson come on. That awful squealing noise he made is certain sure proof that we are hitting the targets…again and again and again.
We haven’t won the war yet, but we’re starting to win battles.

davidmhoffer

Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm
And chris ” Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
reading is fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, and it suppresses evaporation too… not that there is a lot at arctic temps, but the point is that water in all its phases is remarkably complex. One of the complexities which you seem to dismiss out of hand is that ice extent is not particularly significant. Let’s do the math, shall we?
Salt water doesn’t freeze the same way as fresh water. As even a thin layer of ice forms at surface, salt is ejected out of the ice and into the water below. That water, because of the increased salinity, sinks downward, bringing warmer water to the top…which melts that thin layer of ice. This process continues until all the water in the water column reaches the freezing point.
Now the arctic ocean is on the order of 1 km deep, but I am given to understand by another commenter oon another thread that according to NOAA, due to layering in the arctic ocean, this process only extends to about 100 meters to 150 meters. Let’s use NOAA’s number, in fact for easy figuring let’s use the lower end, 100 meters.
So let’s assume a column of water with a surface area of 1 m^2 and a depth of 100 m for a volume of 100 m^3. Let’s assume that it starts out one degree above the freezing point. How much energy must the column of water lose to freeze the top one cm of water?
Heat capacity of water ~ 4,200 joules per kg per degree
Density of water ~ 1,000 Kg per m^3
Energy lost cooling by 1 degree
= 4,200 * 100 * 1000
=420,000,000 joules
Energy to turn top 1 cm to ice
~ 334 kJ/Kg. = 334,000 joules per Kg
1 cm = 0.01 meters
area of water column above is 1 m^2
volume of 1 cm of water
= 0.01 *1 = 0.01 m^3
Density of water ~ 1000 Kg per m^3
energy to turn 1 cm into ice
=0.01 * 1000 * 334,000
=3,340,000 joules
Now I may have well messed up the math in this, counting up the zeros is not my strong suite. But the great thing about WUWT is when you mess up, someone will let you know in short order.
My point however should be clear. Casually dismissing ice extent as being of less importance that ice thickness simply doesn’t stand up to reason. If the ice thickness was 10 times as much, it would still represent only a 1/10 the energy loss required to cool the water column to the freezing point, and that is for water just a single degree above freezing. It would take about 1.27 meter thick ice to match the energy change of the 100 meter water column below it. If the water had to cool from say 3 degrees above freezing, that would represent very nearly 4 meters of ice to match the energy change in the water. So even thin ice represents massive energy changes.
So sorry, while you are perfectly correct that ice extent tells only a part of the story, it is in fact significant.

Robert in Calgary

Bravo! D.B. Stealey at 1:14pm
I would love to see Josh work a lot of that info into a cartoon.
Perhaps with a generic “Vince Wilkinson” with imploding brain.

Skunkpew

And the very day that the antarctic sea ice regresses and goes below “normal” the warmists will point at that as proof that AGW is real.
At some point all you can do is laugh, otherwise the warmists will drag you down with them.

geran

Of course, most readers and commenters here know that “consensus” has little to do with the actual science. So posts such as this are fun because it throws it back in the face of such extreme warmers as commented above. Also, it brings out the “closet” warmers!
Keep it up, WUWT. More, quicker, sooner!