:shrug: Sea ice in Antartica recently hit an all time high. Well, since they’ve been doing measurements in 1978.
But anyway, there are a million feedback possibilities. I was describing the one which the alarmists have been pushing (to my understanding).
See, that’s the bait and switch. Even Richard Lindzen agrees that increased levels of CO2 have the potential to cause warming. The critical question is whether that warming will be multiplied to a much greater level by feedbacks. As far as I know, this is not a settled question at all.
And there’s reason for me to expect to win the lottery. But I’m not going to quit my job quite yet.
Again, that’s just more Al-Gore hype. A small increase in temperatures will not cause a rise like that. Heck, even the IPCC is not predicting anywhere near a 2 meter sea level rise.
If you think that´s a good thing you´re wrong. That there´s more ice in the water does not mean that things are getting colder. Ice breaks up from the continental shelf, drifts away and is replaced by new ice coming down from the glaciers. This ice flow rate has increased so there´s more ice in the water and less in the glaciers, so the glaciers are melting away.
I’m not making any value judgments. I thought we were discussing albedo. Or have you given up on that point?
Let me ask you this: What if there is a (relatively) low level of Antarctic sea ice for the next few years? In your opinion, would that undermine your position?
Whatever. If you think that more sea ice in Antarctica is “bad,” you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I have no idea if it’s “good” or “bad.” Given the size of the increase, I doubt it will make much difference to anyone one way or another.
Anyway, why not answer my two questions:
Are you giving up on your albedo argument?
What if there is a (relatively) low level of Antarctic sea ice for the next few years? In your opinion, would that undermine your position?
You may enjoy setting little debate pitfalls to see who falls on them, but I don´t find that amusing.
I think that more ice, if it comes from the depletion of inland glaciers, it´s a bad thing; which I think I already explained.
Giving up on the albedo argument?, what´s that about?. It´s a simple physical fact, snow and ice have a much, much higher albedo than bare land or sea water. All other things being equal, less ice coverage, less heat bouncing back into space, ergo, more heating of the surface. There´s no two ways around it.
As for the Antartic ice, you conviniently linked to a cryptic, uncontexted graphic claiming that this year there´s been a record high on ice sea area. That much is true, this year there was an exeptional increase in sea ice coverage, but before we break out the high fives why don´t we look at what really matters, the overall statistical trend instead of abnormalities?. Because the other graph that you forgot to link to shows a constant decline on sea ice area since the measurements began An abnormal high doesn´t invalidate a long term trend average.
It´s the bloody hockey stick trainwreck all over again.
You seemed to be hypothesizing that we are in some kind of feedback loop which involves a lowering of the Earth’s albedo because of a loss of ice, which, according to you, is already happening. Well, it doesn’t seem to be happening in Antartica. Moreover, the other graph you link to shows sea ice coverage to be at essentially the same level it was 28 years ago.
In any event, you again did not answer my earlier question:
What if there is a (relatively) low level of Antarctic sea ice for the next few years? In your opinion, would that undermine your position?
And here’s another:
What if global sea ice levels continue to increase over the next few years? In your opinion, would that undermine your position?
I don’t want this to boil down to a catfight, so I’ll attempt to point this to the subject at hand. You think that because they published your question gives you the equivalent of a PhD in an appropriate science?
And even if, by some magic, you had the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision beamed into your head. Your *one *opinion pales against the *multitudes *of people who have that knowledge and working experience to interpret it better than you. Regardless of your letter to the editor that you hold up like the Scarecrow’s diploma.
Sheesh.
Didn’t you in fact ignorantly parrot the 31,000 scientist claim? Doesn’t that suggest that your interpretation of AGW facts might, in fact, not be as rigorous as you think it is?
No, I did not parrot a 31,000 scientists claim. I said I’d be astounded if there were not a couple dozen qualified climate scientists among the 31,000, plus those that answered the Von Storch survey, plus the 400 who spoke out against AGW in 2007, plus the 41 listed on Wikipedia.
You don’t believe that? Not my problem.
Nor do I think that publishing in Nature equals a PhD, that’s your pile of crap, not mine. It just means that Nature Magazine doesn’t think my opinion on climate science is “worthless”, no matter how worthless you claim both of our opinions are.
w.
PS - Nature has a “Letters to the Editor” section, and a “Communications Arising” section. If you learned the difference, you’d look much smarter.
There´s an ongoing trend of loss of ice mass in the planet. Plain, simple, verifable, hard, concise and undeniable fact.
Snow and ice have a higher albedo than, well, practically anything else on the Earth´s surface. A reduction on ice area will decrease the planet´s albedo. Lower albedo, more heat absortion equals more warming. If that´s not a feedback loop I don´t know what may be.
At present, as far as I know the albedo reduction is too small to have any relevant impact, but if trends in melting continue and ever more ice covered areas turn into open ocean or land the albedo will further decrease and it´s effect on thermal balance will become more evident.
In other news, 2+2 found to be 4.
Essentially the same? excuse me but there´s an obvious, downward trend in that graph all through most of the measured period.
You know, it´s pointless to argue with you if you simply refuse to see what you have in front of your own eyes.
What if my grandma had wheels?, then she´d be a bicycle…
My position is, in this case, that data shows an average trend of diminishing ice surface (increasing CO2 levels, glacier melting, temperature increase, sea acidity, sea levels, etc, etc, etc…). Scratch that, is not a position, it´s a statement of fact. If subsequently the data shows that the ice area increases I will stubornly stick to my preconcived ideas and refuse to change my understanding of the matter… oh no, wait. If the trend is reversed I´d say somethings, “oh, look, the ice area keeps getting bigger and bigger, interesting, how does this fit in the overal climate picture?”
When you, OK, at least me, make a decision I work with known facts and reasonable, logical expectations to arrive at the best choice. Basing decisions on the onging problem of global warming on the hypothetical that the current trends will stop or reverse for some unknown reason is simply irresponsible. Like I said is taking a bet that ignorance of the facts and processes of nature will save the day in the end.
I get that you’re trying to be catty, but you shouldn’t use my exact same snipe against me. It’s not very effective.
You actually said, “Nope. 31,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition. And about a fifth of all climate scientists interviewed for the most recent study said that they didn’t believe in the AGW hypothesis. If there’s not a few dozen in all of that with degrees and tenure, I’d be astounded.”
So you were presenting the survey as something reputable. And it’s run by a quack. So you’re presenting a quack’s list, which any softhead could add his name to by pretending he had a bachelor’s degree, as something worthy of note. To spell it out, it isn’t credible because I could sign your name to it and they’d put it on the list. You gave it credit because you couldn’t be bothered to look into the credentials of the guy sponsoring the list. You’re gullible and easy to mislead.
I’m saying that your contribution is of no import. I’ll take the word of the vast majority of highly trained scientists who actually work in the field over that of someone with no relevant knowledge or abilities any day.
I know, I looked it up when you made the first post trumpeting it. And I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery as to which of us is coming across better.
Lol. Except when the graph starts going up in the last year or two. Or when you look at the graph from 1979 to 2001. Granted, there does appear to be a downward trend from 2001 to 2007.
And why do you refuse to see what happens in the last few years? Or from 1979 to 2001?
And would you agree that if the ice area increases over the next few years, it’s evidence against the AGW hypothesis you subscribe to?
There is a downward trend from 1979 to 2007, specially from the 1990s onwards, I suggest you check your eyes.
Now I´m going to start asking for honesty from you, “the last few years” means this (2008) year, so don´t go saying few when you are refereing to just one, in case you are nt aware, that´s misleading.
The last year in the scale is abnormally high, it doesn´t invalidate a trend.
Do you understand what an average is?
No, of course not. I´d abandon the hypotesis when you can show me that increased athmospheric CO2 levels aren´t correlated to increases in global tempeature. Don´t you understand the theory at all, AWG caused by emissions of CO2 and other gasses into the athmosphere?
If by some miracle ice levels increase against an increase in global temperatures I´d concede that ice levels are increasing.
Are you saying there is a downward trend, just looking at 1979 to 2001?
Are you denying that the trend from mid 2005 to mid 2008 is upwards?
Absolutely. And one could make essentially the same argument about 2006 and 2007 being abnormally low.
In that case, there’s no need to argue over the existence of any trend in ice area, because it’s essentially meaningless.
See, a normal, honest hypothesis works like this: The hypothesis is used to make an interesting prediction. If the prediction comes true, it is evidence in support of the hypothesis. If the prediction does not come true, it is evidence against the hypothesis.
The approach of many alarmists to CAGW is very different. If sea ice area decreases, the response is “Aha! Global Warming!!” If sea ice area increases in Antarctica, the responses is “Aha! Global Warming!!” If global sea ice increases, the response is “That’s just an abnormality!”
As Karl Popper pointed out, evidence in favor of a hypothesis should count only if the hypothesis was actually at risk.
Lol. I guess that means you admit that your own chart shows an upward trend in sea ice area over the last 3 years.
Strictly speaking, my hypothesis is the null hypothesis, i.e. that increases in CO2 levels will NOT cause catastrophic warming.
Probably that’s why you are drawn to the likes of Al Gore, who seems to have all the answers.
Sadly, it’s not a strawman. Many alarmists really do have double-standards of the nature I described. Just look at this thread: You cited an alleged downward trend in sea ice area, seemingly in support of the AGW hypothesis you subscribe to. At the same time, you admit that if sea ice area trends upwards over the next few years, you would not see it as evidence against your hypothesis.
Anyway, have a safe trip. And please don’t feel guilty about the CO2 that’s being emitted to transport you from Bangkok to Hong Kong.
