Evidence and data can also ruin a debate. Like looking at the temperature data for Antarctica.
So the INCREASE in sea ice must be a relatively minor consideration but the strong decline of some areas must be considered the major consideration. That’s not unexpected at all.
Yes, but this implies that the opposing viewpoint isn’t nonsense, and that there aren’t more legitimate opposing viewpoints that are far more worth one’s time. It’s not “leave the thread because I disagree with you”, it’s “leave the thread because your opinion is scientifically illiterate, incredibly dumb, and you should be embarrassed about it”, with a helping of “feel free to come back when you have something of value to add to the conversation”.
That graph sure is odd, because that sure as hell ain’t what GISS is saying.
Volume is not just surface area.
As Tamino showed, the distraction here is to ignore what is happening in the north.
Oh Jesus, seriously? You link to a Jan. 21, 2009 article?
Did you forget the OP that you created already? The one that talks about the gaps in the GISS data?
Point taken, that was stupid of me.
It certainly sounds like you want someone to leave the thread because you don’t accept their position and therefore, they should not be heard. While that’s one way to try to win a debate, it doesn’t help the credibility of the position of those demanding the opposition stop asking questions or talking. Present your side and let others present their side.
No. I’ve explained at least three times why Arctic sea ice (the dominant ice form there) and Antarctic sea ice (a seasonal phenomenon) are completely different beasts because of the completely different and indeed almost diametrically opposite geographical topologies of the two areas. There seems little point in repeating basic science yet a fourth time to those who refuse to understand it. It’s like talking to a brick wall. What is significant in the Antarctic is the mass loss of the permanent continental ice sheet.
No worries. In fact, your quick realization and comment just won you major points. Seriously, that’s a rare thing to see online.
I’m going to have to be nicer to you now.
GRACE data shows Antarctica is gaining mass. And has been since the GRACE data starts.
http://geoid.colorado.edu/grace/
EOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052559
Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml#content
I would just like to point out, once again, that it’s not surprising that global temperatures are rising. That’s kind of expected at this point in the intra-glacial cycle. In addition, it should be pointed out that the key point of contention between many scientists who agree that global warming is occurring regards the existence of an overall positive feedback mechanism that will drive warming well past the point of CO2 forcing alone.
None of the information in this thread, both pro and con, sheds any light on that at all. If what we are seeing is just the effect of forcing from CO2 without any positive feedbacks, it would be consistent with current observations. If there’s no overall warming at all, it would be consistent with current observations because the decadal variance in the temperature signal is much larger than the effect of warming - as AGW proponents themselves point out repeatedly when we talk about a decade of no warming.
Both sides are playing games with noisy data at this point. The theory of climate change is becoming uinfalsifiable, because climate is a complex adaptive system and as such you can always find data in it to support your position.
Not long ago when it looked like the ice sheets were expanding, it was suggested that global warming could cause this by increasing evaporation of water, which would then be deposited at the poles, increasing the ice caps. But if the ice is shrinking, well… That’s global warming too.
When the global little ice age was seen as harming the case for global warming, data was found to suggest it was a local phenomenon, and local phenomena don’t count. But now a localized change in temperature in one region of the arctic is used to validate global warming theory.
Not long ago, it was predicted that global warming would cause an increase in extreme weather events. Now the number of extreme events has declined, so suddenly we have evidence that global warming can cause a decrease in the number of extreme weather events.
At this point, what evidence would any side accept that would disprove their argument?
We remain with the basic science, which is the part that the ‘overwhelming number of scientists’ agree with: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased substantially, and man is no doubt partially to blame for this. Basic thermodynamics and atmospheric chemistry tells us that increasing CO2 should result in more energy trapping which should result in higher temperatures, all else being equal.
There truly is consensus around those basic facts. But complex adaptive systems aren’t like machines. They consist of millions of nodes networked in complicated ways with feedback loops, and changes to their inputs cause unpredictable behavior. So once you get beyond the basic chemistry of the atmosphere and start trying to predict temperature and economic effects decades from now, you enter the land of speculation.
That’s funny, that link shows me nothing but a home page with the opportunity to do your own calculations, which I can only imagine that you did in your own unique and inimitable way.
Even funnier: the GRACE home page has the following current news headline at the top:
“RECENT NEWS: Global glaciers, ice caps, shedding billions of tons of mass annually” 
Read the damn actual science papers I posted.
Jesus H. Christ, the “science guy” is now linking to “climate4you”. :smack:
How about some actual papers in Nature? Or some actual facts? The west Antarctic has experienced spectacularly rapid warming, less so in the eastern parts of the continent, and some cooling in some central regions, but with an overall positive trend greater than 0.05°C/decade since 1957. Another paper here.
Assessments of Antarctic temperature trends have long recognized that ground stations provide more reliable (and also longer) records than satellite observations, and generally incorporate a mix of different temperature sources. Satellite data alone, like that provided by the esteemed “climate4you”, is subject to a variety of different biases – like clear-sky bias in particular – and is known to disagree with the ground station data. A variety of heuristic bias corrections can be applied, but sadly, the UAH satellite record has even more problems than that. The MSU measurements used to build that graph are subject to significant additional calibration problems and the entire show at UAH is run by John Christy, a sort of closet denialist, and Roy Spencer, an outright crusading denialist lunatic. So that’s the data that you have chosen – via the inimitable “climate4u” – to convince us that the refereed journal papers I posted are wrong! Okee-doke!
Oh I know, but the irony, the wonderful irony of it all. It’s that satellite data that they want to graft onto the GISS data to say, well, what the topic title says. It’s in the OP. Isn’t that funny?
Oh sweet, the very data, the very evidence that this topic is built upon, the satellite data for the polar regions, you don’t like it, especially because the people that run the programs, who actually have seen the data all along, they are “deniers”.
Priceless.
That’s not it at all. The MWP and the LIA were relatively localized. The premise of the OP is simply that when certain local Arctic temperatures which were hitherto excluded are now included in the temperature record, it changes the shape of the recent global temperature trend line. Seems like a perfectly valid point.
I’ve never heard either a claim or any scientific basis for a decline of extreme weather, and the consensus is clear that the odds of extreme temperatures and extreme events are shifting toward higher probabilities. You might possibly be thinking of a recent decline in North Atlantic hurricanes, but that’s actually consistent with predictions of increased wind shear shown in some models, which also predict that when hurricanes do occur, higher SSTs will result on average in storms with higher energies.
As I keep saying, there aren’t any “sides” on the core issues in science. In the public sphere, the sides are the science on one side and a well-funded denialist campaign by a $12 trillion global energy industry on the other.
Basic thermodynamics also tells us that when net forcings are increasingly at a historically unnaturally rapid rate of change, the earth’s total energy budget must be increasing at a corresponding rate. The dynamics of feedbacks and land-ocean circulation and all other such phenomena are internal variabilities that affect the regional impact of these changes, but not the global magnitude or the degree of climate destabilization due to the rapid forcings. I don’t want to sound like I’m oversimplifying, because the issues are indeed dauntingly complex, but there is no denying the fact that driving CO2 to 400 ppm in just a few hundred years is driving the climate to an entirely new regime that has not existed in many millions of years, and it’s doing so with unnatural force and speed.
And once again, a huge claim with zero evidence to support it.
The only thing priceless here is once again demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what Cowtan and Way published, which involved a statistical extrapolation of all available data sets. I don’t suppose you know what kriging is. Moreover, they did so to arrive at a hypothesis, one which may or may not be correct, and which given other evidence pertaining to ocean heat uptake (e.g.- Balmaseda et al. 2012) I’m convinced is only a partial explanation. You, on other other hand, posted a steaming pile of crap from Spencer and Christie as God’s own truth that supposedly totally contradicts a well-established body of evidence.
It’s called the paleoclimate record. Go study it. I’m not running a climate science seminar here.
**wolfpup **did a great job with other items, but really Sam, unfalsifiable? That is indeed dropping all what even you claim to accept already. As pointed before there are issues were there is need for more research, but the overall picture is very clear. To falsify that overall picture one has to go through the whole list of empirical evidence and publish research with data that debunks all those.
Are you suggesting that there’s no evidence that an atmospheric CO2 level of 400ppm is unprecedented within the past several million years? Because that is indeed very well documented.
Or are you asking for evidence that such high atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be expected to drive a very different climate environment than our familiar Holocene pattern? That’s a much more complicated question, but here’s an article discussing reconstructions of high CO2 as a climate driver.