how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Oh please. That myth largely came from one science paper. Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.

What is not in doubt is the fact that the Arctic was at a very high level of ice. The highest seen in decades as evidenced by the even earlier newspaper reports of the Arctic ice caps demise....

And you honestly believe that those news clippings make your case for you? Oh my. Where's my facepalm image?

Why yes, they DO. You see mr. geologist they are DATA. Unlike your computer fictions. What the DATA shows is that the Arctic has enjoyed low ice cover at many times in the past, and the not too distant past at that.

 

[orogenicman]

What is not in doubt is the fact that the Arctic was at a very high level of ice. The highest seen in decades as evidenced by the even earlier newspaper reports of the Arctic ice caps demise....

And you honestly believe that those news clippings make your case for you? Oh my. Where's my facepalm image?

Why yes, they DO. You see mr. geologist they are DATA. Unlike your computer fictions. What the DATA shows is that the Arctic has enjoyed low ice cover at many times in the past, and the not too distant past at that.

As opposed to today's very low ice cover simply being a continuation of the ice melt that started 100 years ago? Really? You should think before you post.

 

[westwall]

And you honestly believe that those news clippings make your case for you? Oh my. Where's my facepalm image?

Why yes, they DO. You see mr. geologist they are DATA. Unlike your computer fictions. What the DATA shows is that the Arctic has enjoyed low ice cover at many times in the past, and the not too distant past at that.

As opposed to today's very low ice cover simply being a continuation of the ice melt that started 100 years ago? Really? You should think before you post.

My gosh, you actually claim to be a geologist. There is more ice today than there was in the 1980's when subs were regularly surfacing at the North Pole. They haven't been able to do that for awhile. There is more ice today than there was when the sailing ships were looking for the Northwest passage and were able to sail further north than they ever could today....

In other words, the ice ebbs and flows due to natural cycles. It always has and it always will.

 

[orogenicman]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]

Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade; splitting this into wind-forced and temperature forced components shows it to be essentially all caused by the temperature forcing. A computer-based, time-resolved calculation of sea ice volume, fitted to various measurements, revealed that monitoring the ice volume is much more significant for evaluating sea ice loss than pure area considerations.[4]

The trends from 1979 to 2002 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade.[5] Climate models simulated this trend in 2002,[6] and attributed it to anthropogenic forcing.

The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[7]

In 2007 the ice melt accelerated. The minimum extent fell by more than a million square kilometers, the biggest decline ever, to 4,140,000 km2 (1,600,000 sq mi), then by far the lowest ever. New research shows the Arctic Sea ice to be melting faster than predicted by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its 2007 assessments.[8] In 2012, a new record low of about 3,500,000 km2 (1,400,000 sq mi) was reached.[9][10]

While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi).[11]

The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[12] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al.[13] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not.

In the overall mass balance, the volume of sea ice depends on the thickness of the ice as well as the areal extent. While the satellite era has enabled better measurement of trends in areal extent, accurate ice thickness measurements remain a challenge. "Nonetheless, the extreme loss of this summer’s sea ice cover and the slow onset of freeze-up portends lower than normal ice extent throughout autumn and winter, and the ice that grows back is likely to be fairly thin".[3]

As more and more of the sea ice is thinner first-year ice the greater effect storms have on its stability with turbulence resulting from major extratropical cyclones resulting in extensive fractures of sea ice.[14]

 

[PMZ]

Hahahaha. What makes you think I wasn't reading them as they were posted?

Were you?

Is there anything in his MATLAB model that you took exception to?

I read a lot of things. SoD made quite a few errors along the way. The difference is that he responded to criticism and made his position stronger. AGW fights making even the simplest of corrections. Errors stand that should have been corrected as soon as they were pointed out. Mann used a proxy upside down!! He is still using it upside down, and so are the people referencing Mann in their own work. What good is a proxy if orientation doesn't matter? Actually it does matter, but it suited Mann's purposes better upside down.

I was hoping for more specifics.

You certainly are different than the other deniers here. It's like you know and respect science but are hoping that the IPCC people fail. Something personal?

Unfortunately for your position they have been relentlessly right given the always evolving nature of their mission.

Science is certainly way ahead of politics for instance in the line of international cooperation and team work. That may well end up to be what history finds notable about their effort on top of their environmental contribution.

 

[PMZ]

So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites! BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!

Here, you can learn about asteroids too.

Top Ten Asteroid Factoids - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

They don't become meteors until they're in our atmosphere. By then their energy and mass are already part of earth's.

What did I call them? Oh yeah..................... METEORITES!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]

Meteorites are little meteors.

 

[SSDD]

So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites! BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!

Over and over. Guess he is unaware of cosmic radiation as well which has been proven to have an effect on the energy budget. Radiant in and radiant out he says. What a goober.

 

[SSDD]

Oh please. That myth largely came from one science paper. Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.

Actually, NCAR, CRU, NAS, and NASA were warning of a coming ice age...in fact, they prompted the CIA to issue a rather lengthy and detailed paper on the security ramifications of the coming ice age.

 

[SSDD]

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]

Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade; splitting this into wind-forced and temperature forced components shows it to be essentially all caused by the temperature forcing. A computer-based, time-resolved calculation of sea ice volume, fitted to various measurements, revealed that monitoring the ice volume is much more significant for evaluating sea ice loss than pure area considerations.[4]

The trends from 1979 to 2002 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade.[5] Climate models simulated this trend in 2002,[6] and attributed it to anthropogenic forcing.

The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[7]

In 2007 the ice melt accelerated. The minimum extent fell by more than a million square kilometers, the biggest decline ever, to 4,140,000 km2 (1,600,000 sq mi), then by far the lowest ever. New research shows the Arctic Sea ice to be melting faster than predicted by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its 2007 assessments.[8] In 2012, a new record low of about 3,500,000 km2 (1,400,000 sq mi) was reached.[9][10]

While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi).[11]

The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[12] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al.[13] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not.

In the overall mass balance, the volume of sea ice depends on the thickness of the ice as well as the areal extent. While the satellite era has enabled better measurement of trends in areal extent, accurate ice thickness measurements remain a challenge. "Nonetheless, the extreme loss of this summer’s sea ice cover and the slow onset of freeze-up portends lower than normal ice extent throughout autumn and winter, and the ice that grows back is likely to be fairly thin".[3]

As more and more of the sea ice is thinner first-year ice the greater effect storms have on its stability with turbulence resulting from major extratropical cyclones resulting in extensive fractures of sea ice.[14]

Quoting Wikipedia we learn that agw models predict agw...shocking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[RollingThunder]

Why yes, they DO. You see mr. geologist they are DATA. Unlike your computer fictions. What the DATA shows is that the Arctic has enjoyed low ice cover at many times in the past, and the not too distant past at that.

As opposed to today's very low ice cover simply being a continuation of the ice melt that started 100 years ago? Really? You should think before you post.

My gosh, you actually claim to be a geologist.

LOLOLOLOL....oh, walleyed, all of your claims to be anything other than a clueless uneducated nutjob have long since been debunked by your own posts.

There is more ice today than there was in the 1980's when subs were regularly surfacing at the North Pole. They haven't been able to do that for awhile.

Pure BS. Submarines that travel beneath the Arctic ice have always surfaced in temporary openings in the ice called 'leads'. These 'leads' or openings have always been opening and closing with the movement of the ice packs and they are just as common today (or even more common due to the thinner ice) as they were in the 1950's.

Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic
(excerpts)
The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other. Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time, and following a joint operational exercise under the polar ice cap, both submarines surfaced and the crews met on the ice. Crewmembers had been crammed on board the submarines under the ice for weeks, so they were glad to get out for a stroll and take in the stark beauty of the Arctic wilderness.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.

There is more ice today than there was when the sailing ships were looking for the Northwest passage and were able to sail further north than they ever could today....

In other words, the ice ebbs and flows due to natural cycles. It always has and it always will.

LOLOLOL. Well there's a fine combination of deranged unscientific denier cult myths and your own insanity, walleyed.

Arctic Sea Ice Decline
Dr. Jeff Masters' Wunderground.com
(excerpts)
In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation. Satellite data show that since the late 1970s, September Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by about 12% per decade. What's especially alarming is the decrease in multi-year ice. Sea ice is classified by age, usually as "new ice" or "multi-year" ice (meaning it survived many summer melting seasons). While new ice is very shallow, multi-year ice can grow to be quite thick, typically between 6 and 12 feet, and is very stable. A remarkable study was published in 2007 which measured the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic. In 1987, 57% of the observed ice pack was at least 5 years old, and around 25% of it was at least 9 years old. When they surveyed the Arctic again in 2007, only 7% of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and the ice that was at least 9 years old had all but vanished. Likewise, sea ice thickness and volume have decreased markedly since the beginning of the satellite era.

Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic in 2012 shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, 2012, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The record minimum extent of 3.41 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000. We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) show that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 -3 °C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.

 

[PMZ]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]

Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade; splitting this into wind-forced and temperature forced components shows it to be essentially all caused by the temperature forcing. A computer-based, time-resolved calculation of sea ice volume, fitted to various measurements, revealed that monitoring the ice volume is much more significant for evaluating sea ice loss than pure area considerations.[4]

The trends from 1979 to 2002 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade.[5] Climate models simulated this trend in 2002,[6] and attributed it to anthropogenic forcing.

The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[7]

In 2007 the ice melt accelerated. The minimum extent fell by more than a million square kilometers, the biggest decline ever, to 4,140,000 km2 (1,600,000 sq mi), then by far the lowest ever. New research shows the Arctic Sea ice to be melting faster than predicted by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its 2007 assessments.[8] In 2012, a new record low of about 3,500,000 km2 (1,400,000 sq mi) was reached.[9][10]

While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi).[11]

The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[12] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al.[13] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not.

In the overall mass balance, the volume of sea ice depends on the thickness of the ice as well as the areal extent. While the satellite era has enabled better measurement of trends in areal extent, accurate ice thickness measurements remain a challenge. "Nonetheless, the extreme loss of this summer’s sea ice cover and the slow onset of freeze-up portends lower than normal ice extent throughout autumn and winter, and the ice that grows back is likely to be fairly thin".[3]

As more and more of the sea ice is thinner first-year ice the greater effect storms have on its stability with turbulence resulting from major extratropical cyclones resulting in extensive fractures of sea ice.[14]

Quoting Wikipedia we learn that agw models predict agw...shocking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Actually they are climate models. Run using the data the reflects today's atmosphere including the high levels of CO2 that we put there by burning fossil fuels. And yes, they predict the average amount of warming that the earth must do to overcome the back radiation the CO2 causes.

Still to come, what weather patterns will be created as that global warming interacts among the land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. Finally, what impact will that weather have on civilization and what actions on our part will be required to mitigate it.

Science has an appropriate lead through all of this but the hard work is ahead of us.

 

[PMZ]

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

Neither you nor I have any idea where your data came from so it is unworthy of comment.

Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air. As the earth system warms, higher energy longwave is produced which at some point restores the balance required for that level of GHG. By the time that happens though we have that level of GHG and created a higher level.

Now you show us the output of your model that predicts the pattern of outgoing longwave that this situation should create and how that would look measured in the way that your graph is measured.

 

[westwall]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]

Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade; splitting this into wind-forced and temperature forced components shows it to be essentially all caused by the temperature forcing. A computer-based, time-resolved calculation of sea ice volume, fitted to various measurements, revealed that monitoring the ice volume is much more significant for evaluating sea ice loss than pure area considerations.[4]

The trends from 1979 to 2002 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade.[5] Climate models simulated this trend in 2002,[6] and attributed it to anthropogenic forcing.

The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[7]

In 2007 the ice melt accelerated. The minimum extent fell by more than a million square kilometers, the biggest decline ever, to 4,140,000 km2 (1,600,000 sq mi), then by far the lowest ever. New research shows the Arctic Sea ice to be melting faster than predicted by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its 2007 assessments.[8] In 2012, a new record low of about 3,500,000 km2 (1,400,000 sq mi) was reached.[9][10]

While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi).[11]

The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[12] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al.[13] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not.

In the overall mass balance, the volume of sea ice depends on the thickness of the ice as well as the areal extent. While the satellite era has enabled better measurement of trends in areal extent, accurate ice thickness measurements remain a challenge. "Nonetheless, the extreme loss of this summer’s sea ice cover and the slow onset of freeze-up portends lower than normal ice extent throughout autumn and winter, and the ice that grows back is likely to be fairly thin".[3]

As more and more of the sea ice is thinner first-year ice the greater effect storms have on its stability with turbulence resulting from major extratropical cyclones resulting in extensive fractures of sea ice.[14]

ANYONE, and I mean anyone, who claims to be a scientist and then trots out a wiki link, is clearly not.

 

[westwall]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]

Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade; splitting this into wind-forced and temperature forced components shows it to be essentially all caused by the temperature forcing. A computer-based, time-resolved calculation of sea ice volume, fitted to various measurements, revealed that monitoring the ice volume is much more significant for evaluating sea ice loss than pure area considerations.[4]

The trends from 1979 to 2002 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade.[5] Climate models simulated this trend in 2002,[6] and attributed it to anthropogenic forcing.

The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[7]

In 2007 the ice melt accelerated. The minimum extent fell by more than a million square kilometers, the biggest decline ever, to 4,140,000 km2 (1,600,000 sq mi), then by far the lowest ever. New research shows the Arctic Sea ice to be melting faster than predicted by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its 2007 assessments.[8] In 2012, a new record low of about 3,500,000 km2 (1,400,000 sq mi) was reached.[9][10]

While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi).[11]

The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[12] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al.[13] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not.

In the overall mass balance, the volume of sea ice depends on the thickness of the ice as well as the areal extent. While the satellite era has enabled better measurement of trends in areal extent, accurate ice thickness measurements remain a challenge. "Nonetheless, the extreme loss of this summer’s sea ice cover and the slow onset of freeze-up portends lower than normal ice extent throughout autumn and winter, and the ice that grows back is likely to be fairly thin".[3]

As more and more of the sea ice is thinner first-year ice the greater effect storms have on its stability with turbulence resulting from major extratropical cyclones resulting in extensive fractures of sea ice.[14]

Quoting Wikipedia we learn that agw models predict agw...shocking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

What do you expect Frank, these guys think the back of their cereal box is entertaining too!

 

[westwall]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quoting Wikipedia we learn that agw models predict agw...shocking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Actually they are climate models. Run using the data the reflects today's atmosphere including the high levels of CO2 that we put there by burning fossil fuels. And yes, they predict the average amount of warming that the earth must do to overcome the back radiation the CO2 causes.

Still to come, what weather patterns will be created as that global warming interacts among the land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. Finally, what impact will that weather have on civilization and what actions on our part will be required to mitigate it.

Science has an appropriate lead through all of this but the hard work is ahead of us.

Ahhhhh yes. The idiots ever popular appeal to the models! How good are these models anyway? Well, according to the Institute for Energy Research at Harvard, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit. Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!


Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]


Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models

 

[SSDD]

Neither you nor I have any idea where your data came from so it is unworthy of comment.

The graph comes from NOAA data via The KNMI Climate Explorer so it is worthy of comment. Sorry that it doesn't agree with your hypothesis.

Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air. As the earth system warms, higher energy longwave is produced which at some point restores the balance required for that level of GHG. By the time that happens though we have that level of GHG and created a higher level.

So you say except that outgoing OLR is increasing. Your hypothesis also says that because magic CO2 backradiates energy it will cause a hot spot which has also never materialized. In short, your hypothesis has failed at every possible stage.

Now you show us the output of your model that predicts the pattern of outgoing longwave that this situation should create and how that would look measured in the way that your graph is measured.

Not my graph, the graph reflects NOAA data and is perfectly predictable. CO2 being a radiative gas moves energy more quickly than either convection or conduction so acts as a cooling mechanism. More CO2 results in more energy being transported to the TOA...more energy being transported should result in more OLR at the TOA which is precisely what the NOAA satellite data show.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite observations

Global warming theory proposes that CO2 traps longwave (infrared) radiation in the troposphere to reduce outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] to space. However, satellite measurements since 1975 indicate that global OLR has instead increased by about 1.3 Wm-2. This is in direct contradiction to global warming theory that "trapping" of radiation by CO2 should have instead reduced* OLR by .93 Wm-2 since 1975.

In addition, the theory predicts the "trapping" of OLR should cause a "hot spot" in the tropical mid- upper troposphere to warm faster than the Earth surface. However, satellite observations are again contrary to the theory and instead show that the "hot spot" does not exist, that the mid-troposphere has warmed at the same rate as the surface, while the upper troposphere has cooled since 1979.

 

[Abraham3]

Quoting Wikipedia we learn that agw models predict agw...shocking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Actually they are climate models. Run using the data the reflects today's atmosphere including the high levels of CO2 that we put there by burning fossil fuels. And yes, they predict the average amount of warming that the earth must do to overcome the back radiation the CO2 causes.

Still to come, what weather patterns will be created as that global warming interacts among the land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. Finally, what impact will that weather have on civilization and what actions on our part will be required to mitigate it.

Science has an appropriate lead through all of this but the hard work is ahead of us.

Ahhhhh yes. The idiots ever popular appeal to the models! How good are these models anyway? Well, according to the Institute for Energy Research at Harvard, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit. Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!


Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]


Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models

How many different places are you going to go attempting to badmouth climate models with a critique of a completely different critter? It amazes me that anyone can be that blatantly dishonest. You KNOW that Pin-Dick isn't talking about climate models and you KNOW that his comments do not apply where you are pretending to apply them. You are knowingly conveying a falsehood. How can you do that? Are you conscience-less? Incredible.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ahhhhh yes. The idiots ever popular appeal to the models! How good are these models anyway? Well, according to the Institute for Energy Research at Harvard, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit. Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!

Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses.

Institute for Energy Research

How many different places are you going to go attempting to badmouth climate models with a critique of a completely different critter? It amazes me that someone can be that blatantly dishonest. You KNOW that Pin-Dick isn't talking about climate models and you KNOW that his comments do not apply where you are pretending to apply them. You are knowingly conveying a falsehood. How can you do that? Are you conscience-less?

Jeez dude, haven't you noticed yet? Ol' walleyed lies all the time. He may indeed be "conscience-less" but more significantly, he is a brainwashed, scientifically ignorant, rather retarded denier cult troll, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. His alligence is to the deranged dogmas of his little cult of reality denial, not the truth, so never expect anything from him but lies and parroted propaganda. Just look at all of the outrageously idiotic lies he spewed in post #2823 on the previous page.

And then there are his fraudulent oil industry sponsored sources.....in this case the fossil fuel industry front group and propaganda outlet called the 'Institute for Energy Research'....which, BTW, has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard" - that was just another one of ol' walleyed's lies to try to make this sleazy industry propaganda front group look better...

Institute for Energy Research
SourceWatch
(excerpts)
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless. It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron. IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Dr. Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the IER, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. About ALEC - ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org. According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307,000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175,000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.

 

[westwall]

Actually they are climate models. Run using the data the reflects today's atmosphere including the high levels of CO2 that we put there by burning fossil fuels. And yes, they predict the average amount of warming that the earth must do to overcome the back radiation the CO2 causes.

Still to come, what weather patterns will be created as that global warming interacts among the land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. Finally, what impact will that weather have on civilization and what actions on our part will be required to mitigate it.

Science has an appropriate lead through all of this but the hard work is ahead of us.

Ahhhhh yes. The idiots ever popular appeal to the models! How good are these models anyway? Well, according to the Institute for Energy Research at Harvard, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit. Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!


Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]


Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models

How many different places are you going to go attempting to badmouth climate models with a critique of a completely different critter? It amazes me that anyone can be that blatantly dishonest. You KNOW that Pin-Dick isn't talking about climate models and you KNOW that his comments do not apply where you are pretending to apply them. You are knowingly conveying a falsehood. How can you do that? Are you conscience-less? Incredible.

Really man, just