Oh wow!

[flacaltenn]

In general arctic sea ice is at near record low for this time of year. HOWEVER, it's "build rate" is above normal. And the difference between being normal and "below normal" is LITERALLY a couple days of actual loss of ice during Oct/Nov. So when a couple days make the difference in multiple sigmas deviation from "normal" -- that's why I don't "do" Sea Ice.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

A couple of days of multiple sigma deviations? How about since mid September multiple sigma deviations. And at record lows since mid-October.

Sure Sure.. Did you read the "analysis" under the graph. That's where I verified EVERYTHING I said in my previous post.

The differences in those graphs from year depend on single day events or just slightly more to move them out of normal bounds. And right now, the RATE of build is way above average. Which wouldn't be occurring if the Arctic "is melting".

Here's the deal. Arctic Sea Ice is diminishing. It's diminishing whether the temp anomaly is 1 deg or 10 deg in the winter time. And actually WEATHER related events like big moist pushes INTO the arctic when it's 0degF are good for building sea ice.

Now warmer currents moving up there are probably just dissipation of the El Nino warming. Just like this months' GLOBAL temp anomaly has made it's way down the the Tropics. Which is the region that accounted for most of November's GLOBAL warming.

The dynamics of the system can be confusing to folks who think that only CO2 drives the climate system.

Obviously the system is affected by weather. Just as obviously, the long term temperature and ice extent trends are due to global warming and global warming is due to CO2.

The recent 1deg rise in your lifetime has just accelerated the long term Arctic climate trend. Sea ice and glaciers were doomed back in the 18th century or before. Just a matter of whether it would take 200 yrs or a 2000 years.....

 

[Old Rocks]

In general arctic sea ice is at near record low for this time of year. HOWEVER, it's "build rate" is above normal. And the difference between being normal and "below normal" is LITERALLY a couple days of actual loss of ice during Oct/Nov. So when a couple days make the difference in multiple sigmas deviation from "normal" -- that's why I don't "do" Sea Ice.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

A couple of days of multiple sigma deviations? How about since mid September multiple sigma deviations. And at record lows since mid-October.

Sure Sure.. Did you read the "analysis" under the graph. That's where I verified EVERYTHING I said in my previous post.

The differences in those graphs from year depend on single day events or just slightly more to move them out of normal bounds. And right now, the RATE of build is way above average. Which wouldn't be occurring if the Arctic "is melting".

Here's the deal. Arctic Sea Ice is diminishing. It's diminishing whether the temp anomaly is 1 deg or 10 deg in the winter time. And actually WEATHER related events like big moist pushes INTO the arctic when it's 0degF are good for building sea ice.

Now warmer currents moving up there are probably just dissipation of the El Nino warming. Just like this months' GLOBAL temp anomaly has made it's way down the the Tropics. Which is the region that accounted for most of November's GLOBAL warming.

The dynamics of the system can be confusing to folks who think that only CO2 drives the climate system.

Obviously the system is affected by weather. Just as obviously, the long term temperature and ice extent trends are due to global warming and global warming is due to CO2.

The recent 1deg rise in your lifetime has just accelerated the long term Arctic climate trend. Sea ice and glaciers were doomed back in the 18th century or before. Just a matter of whether it would take 200 yrs or a 2000 years.....

That is simply so wrong on so many fronts. Here is NASA's take on it;

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Global Warming : Feature Articles

By that graph, for the last 1000 thousand years it has been cooling, right up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[flacaltenn]

In general arctic sea ice is at near record low for this time of year. HOWEVER, it's "build rate" is above normal. And the difference between being normal and "below normal" is LITERALLY a couple days of actual loss of ice during Oct/Nov. So when a couple days make the difference in multiple sigmas deviation from "normal" -- that's why I don't "do" Sea Ice.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

A couple of days of multiple sigma deviations? How about since mid September multiple sigma deviations. And at record lows since mid-October.

Sure Sure.. Did you read the "analysis" under the graph. That's where I verified EVERYTHING I said in my previous post.

The differences in those graphs from year depend on single day events or just slightly more to move them out of normal bounds. And right now, the RATE of build is way above average. Which wouldn't be occurring if the Arctic "is melting".

Here's the deal. Arctic Sea Ice is diminishing. It's diminishing whether the temp anomaly is 1 deg or 10 deg in the winter time. And actually WEATHER related events like big moist pushes INTO the arctic when it's 0degF are good for building sea ice.

Now warmer currents moving up there are probably just dissipation of the El Nino warming. Just like this months' GLOBAL temp anomaly has made it's way down the the Tropics. Which is the region that accounted for most of November's GLOBAL warming.

The dynamics of the system can be confusing to folks who think that only CO2 drives the climate system.

Obviously the system is affected by weather. Just as obviously, the long term temperature and ice extent trends are due to global warming and global warming is due to CO2.

The recent 1deg rise in your lifetime has just accelerated the long term Arctic climate trend. Sea ice and glaciers were doomed back in the 18th century or before. Just a matter of whether it would take 200 yrs or a 2000 years.....

That is simply so wrong on so many fronts. Here is NASA's take on it;

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Global Warming : Feature Articles

By that graph, for the last 1000 thousand years it has been cooling, right up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

And exactly how is it fair or ethical to compare modern instrumentation, which resolution of HOURS to proxy data with resolutions of 400 or 500 years??

Even with the deception, If you look at the error band for the proxy data, you will see SEVERAL peaks exceeding 0.30degC anomalies.. Dontcha?

 

[Old Rocks]

Draw a line along the tops of the error bars. Then along the bottoms of the error bars. Then a median line from 1000 AD to present. What are the slopes of those lines? Is that a positive or negative slope? And, since it is a negative slope, how are you going to have glaciers melting when the temperature is going down? And what is the history of the era in Europe? I think that you will find that most of the European glaciers were growing for much of the period.

 

[Crick]

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

A couple of days of multiple sigma deviations? How about since mid September multiple sigma deviations. And at record lows since mid-October.

Sure Sure.. Did you read the "analysis" under the graph. That's where I verified EVERYTHING I said in my previous post.

The differences in those graphs from year depend on single day events or just slightly more to move them out of normal bounds. And right now, the RATE of build is way above average. Which wouldn't be occurring if the Arctic "is melting".

Here's the deal. Arctic Sea Ice is diminishing. It's diminishing whether the temp anomaly is 1 deg or 10 deg in the winter time. And actually WEATHER related events like big moist pushes INTO the arctic when it's 0degF are good for building sea ice.

Now warmer currents moving up there are probably just dissipation of the El Nino warming. Just like this months' GLOBAL temp anomaly has made it's way down the the Tropics. Which is the region that accounted for most of November's GLOBAL warming.

The dynamics of the system can be confusing to folks who think that only CO2 drives the climate system.

Obviously the system is affected by weather. Just as obviously, the long term temperature and ice extent trends are due to global warming and global warming is due to CO2.

The recent 1deg rise in your lifetime has just accelerated the long term Arctic climate trend. Sea ice and glaciers were doomed back in the 18th century or before. Just a matter of whether it would take 200 yrs or a 2000 years.....

That is simply so wrong on so many fronts. Here is NASA's take on it;

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Global Warming : Feature Articles

By that graph, for the last 1000 thousand years it has been cooling, right up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

And exactly how is it fair or ethical to compare modern instrumentation, which resolution of HOURS to proxy data with resolutions of 400 or 500 years??

Even with the deception, If you look at the error band for the proxy data, you will see SEVERAL peaks exceeding 0.30degC anomalies.. Dontcha?

This idea that, when convenient, deniers can claim ALL proxy data have huge resolution values needs to be exposed. Proxy data from 1850 does not have a time resolution of 400 or 500 years. And the cooling trend Rocks mention has a trend far longer than even that ridiculous limit. The world has been cooling for the last thousand years, right up until CO2 from the Industrial Revolution began to increase our greenhouse warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Weather Map

On this map, one can click on the weather stations, and get the present temperature, and the temperatures for the last five to ten days. And you can see the effects of that tongue of warm air that entered the Arctic before Christmas.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure Sure.. Did you read the "analysis" under the graph. That's where I verified EVERYTHING I said in my previous post.

The differences in those graphs from year depend on single day events or just slightly more to move them out of normal bounds. And right now, the RATE of build is way above average. Which wouldn't be occurring if the Arctic "is melting".

Here's the deal. Arctic Sea Ice is diminishing. It's diminishing whether the temp anomaly is 1 deg or 10 deg in the winter time. And actually WEATHER related events like big moist pushes INTO the arctic when it's 0degF are good for building sea ice.

Now warmer currents moving up there are probably just dissipation of the El Nino warming. Just like this months' GLOBAL temp anomaly has made it's way down the the Tropics. Which is the region that accounted for most of November's GLOBAL warming.

The dynamics of the system can be confusing to folks who think that only CO2 drives the climate system.

Obviously the system is affected by weather. Just as obviously, the long term temperature and ice extent trends are due to global warming and global warming is due to CO2.

The recent 1deg rise in your lifetime has just accelerated the long term Arctic climate trend. Sea ice and glaciers were doomed back in the 18th century or before. Just a matter of whether it would take 200 yrs or a 2000 years.....

That is simply so wrong on so many fronts. Here is NASA's take on it;

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Global Warming : Feature Articles

By that graph, for the last 1000 thousand years it has been cooling, right up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

And exactly how is it fair or ethical to compare modern instrumentation, which resolution of HOURS to proxy data with resolutions of 400 or 500 years??

Even with the deception, If you look at the error band for the proxy data, you will see SEVERAL peaks exceeding 0.30degC anomalies.. Dontcha?

This idea that, when convenient, deniers can claim ALL proxy data have huge resolution values needs to be exposed. Proxy data from 1850 does not have a time resolution of 400 or 500 years. And the cooling trend Rocks mention has a trend far longer than even that ridiculous limit. The world has been cooling for the last thousand years, right up until CO2 from the Industrial Revolution began to increase our greenhouse warming.

What "proxy data" from 1850 are you talking about. And what bearing does that have on the hockey sticks from Mann, Marcott, et al ??

The "trend line" was about 0.4degC/1000years.. That's 0.04degC/100yrs.. The bigger influence over the last 1000 years is the actual VARIANCE -- which no one really knows..

Now for specific locations on the globe. And specific TYPES of proxies -- you can get a MUCH better idea of the variance. But these zealots needed to FORCE "a global number" so that the propaganda could flow out to the masses..

When you attempt to combine just 74 location proxies for 1000s of years back in time -- you get nothing but highly filtered "mean" guesses.. Even if you used 74 highly accurate weather stations TODAY to 'cover the globe' -- your error on a GMAST number would be higher than the actual variance in a 50 or 100 year data period.

 

[Crick]

I'm talking about the proxy data that was mated up to the lower end of the instrumental data and that you claimed had a resolution of 400-500 years when you said:

"And exactly how is it fair or ethical to compare modern instrumentation, which resolution of HOURS to proxy data with resolutions of 400 or 500 years??"

 

[ding]

In general arctic sea ice is at near record low for this time of year. HOWEVER, it's "build rate" is above normal. And the difference between being normal and "below normal" is LITERALLY a couple days of actual loss of ice during Oct/Nov. So when a couple days make the difference in multiple sigmas deviation from "normal" -- that's why I don't "do" Sea Ice.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

A couple of days of multiple sigma deviations? How about since mid September multiple sigma deviations. And at record lows since mid-October.

Sure Sure.. Did you read the "analysis" under the graph. That's where I verified EVERYTHING I said in my previous post.

The differences in those graphs from year depend on single day events or just slightly more to move them out of normal bounds. And right now, the RATE of build is way above average. Which wouldn't be occurring if the Arctic "is melting".

Here's the deal. Arctic Sea Ice is diminishing. It's diminishing whether the temp anomaly is 1 deg or 10 deg in the winter time. And actually WEATHER related events like big moist pushes INTO the arctic when it's 0degF are good for building sea ice.

Now warmer currents moving up there are probably just dissipation of the El Nino warming. Just like this months' GLOBAL temp anomaly has made it's way down the the Tropics. Which is the region that accounted for most of November's GLOBAL warming.

The dynamics of the system can be confusing to folks who think that only CO2 drives the climate system.

Obviously the system is affected by weather. Just as obviously, the long term temperature and ice extent trends are due to global warming and global warming is due to CO2.

The recent 1deg rise in your lifetime has just accelerated the long term Arctic climate trend. Sea ice and glaciers were doomed back in the 18th century or before. Just a matter of whether it would take 200 yrs or a 2000 years.....

That is simply so wrong on so many fronts. Here is NASA's take on it;

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Global Warming : Feature Articles

By that graph, for the last 1000 thousand years it has been cooling, right up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Yep, and that same behavior can be seen in just about every other interglacial or glacial cycle.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm talking about the proxy data that was mated up to the lower end of the instrumental data and that you claimed had a resolution of 400-500 years when you said:

"And exactly how is it fair or ethical to compare modern instrumentation, which resolution of HOURS to proxy data with resolutions of 400 or 500 years??"

Make up your mind squidward. Is it proxy data or instrumentation data? Because the instrumentation data from the 1850s ain't much more reliable for a GMAST than the proxy data.

 

[Crick]

Are you unwilling to admit that, in general, the younger the proxy data, the lower the resolution? It appears you are. How about this, then. Tell us at what point proxy data from MBH 99 or Marcotte 15 reaches a resolution of 400-500 years.

 

[The Great Goose]

Why do you hate water so much?

 

[Crick]

Do you mean why am I concerned about rapidly rising sea levels?

 

[ding]

Do you mean why am I concerned about rapidly rising sea levels?

"... to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty." Roy Spencer

 

[Crick]

Let's see. It happened before, without humans. Therefore, humans cannot have caused it now. Is that your logic?

 

[ding]

Let's see. It happened before, without humans. Therefore, humans cannot have caused it now. Is that your logic?

No. My logic is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change. For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. It is only relatively recently (i.e. for the last 3 million years that we have become an icehouse world. The oxygen isotope curve is widely accepted in the scientific community as a proxy for temperature. The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a cooling planet. Over the last 5 million years there has been a rapid cooling of the planet. The conditions which led to this are isolated poles from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of ~400 ppm. Conditions which still exist today with the northern hemisphere being more sensitive to warming than the southern hemisphere. Primarily due to landmass distribution. Over the last 400,000 years we have cycled between glacial and interglacial cycles. We are presently in an interglacial cycle and the warming we are experiencing is normal. I do not believe that CO2 is the dominant driver at all. I am confident that when the political rhetoric is removed and science is allowed to fully investigate this phenomenon, that CO2 will be found to have a minimal impact on temperature change.

 

[Crick]

Let's see. It happened before, without humans. Therefore, humans cannot have caused it now. Is that your logic?

No. My logic is that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.

The geological record certainly shows that CO2 has reinforced climate change. In fact, on multiple occasions, as shown in the work of Marcotte and Shakun, it took over as the primary forcing agent after having been released by Milankovitch warming. Your problem, is to explain how if CO2 is capable of producing a radiative forcing function that has been shown to warm the planet, how can CO2 released by human's use of fossil fuel NOT be doing the same thing? What do you believe is preventing it from doing so?

For most of earth's history we have been a greenhouse world. It is only relatively recently (i.e. for the last 3 million years that we have become an icehouse world. The oxygen isotope curve is widely accepted in the scientific community as a proxy for temperature. The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a cooling planet. Over the last 5 million years there has been a rapid cooling of the planet.

No one is disputing proxy temperature curves.

The conditions which led to this are isolated poles from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of ~400 ppm.

Antarctica was roughly in its current position approximately 25 million years ago, but did not immediately freeze. By 15 million years ago, it had frozen over.

From NSIDC
Has the Arctic Ocean always had ice in summer?
We know for sure that at least in the distant past, the Arctic was ice-free. Fossils from the age of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, indicate a temperate climate with ferns and other lush vegetation.

Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last warm period in the Arctic peaked about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum. Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.

The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets had partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.

According to analyses at NASA and NOAA, the past decade has been the warmest in the observational record dating back to the 19th century and the Arctic has been substantially higher than the global average.

So, the South Pole froze over 15-20 million years ago, many millions of years after arriving in its current position. The North Pole has been open ocean as recently as 8,000 years ago. These do not support your contention.

Conditions which still exist today with the northern hemisphere being more sensitive to warming than the southern hemisphere. Primarily due to landmass distribution.

The difference between the northern and southern hemispheres are due to landmass distribution. The differences between the north and south poles are due to one being a continent surrounded by ocean while the other is an ocean surrounded by continents. The low temperatures at the poles are due to the angle of incidence of the sun's rays and are modified by atmospheric effects such as greenhouse warming and long term weather conditions.

Over the last 400,000 years we have cycled between glacial and interglacial cycles. We are presently in an interglacial cycle and the warming we are experiencing is normal.

Glaciation cycles have taken place throughout the Quaternary and reach back almost 1.5 million years. Further back, glaciation cycles took place throughout the Phaerozoic period reaching back over 2.5 billion years. The glacial/interglacial cycle is driven almost entirely by the Milankovtich cycles of the Earth's orbit, then reinforced by GHGs released and sequestered by temperature changes. But, this is precisely the logical fallacy you rejected in the previous post. At no point since the KT impact has CO2 been released into the atmosphere in the quantities which we are producing without solar-driven temperature changes to initiate it. Thus the geological record you are relying on is not an analogy for current conditions.

I do not believe that CO2 is the dominant driver at all.

Then, with TSI headed for a new Maunder Minimum:

what do you believe is causing the warming we're experiencing? Plate tectonics?

I am confident that when the political rhetoric is removed and science is allowed to fully investigate this phenomenon, that CO2 will be found to have a minimal impact on temperature change.

You voted for Trump. There's the mark of intelligence.

 

[ding]

The geological record certainly shows that CO2 has reinforced climate change. In fact, on multiple occasions, as shown in the work of Marcotte and Shakun, it took over as the primary forcing agent after having been released by Milankovitch warming. Your problem, is to explain how if CO2 is capable of producing a radiative forcing function that has been shown to warm the planet, how can CO2 released by human's use of fossil fuel NOT be doing the same thing? What do you believe is preventing it from doing so?

First of all I don't believe that the radiative forcing of CO2 is well understood in terms of magnitude and timing. Secondly, I don't believe the so-called feedback is well understood in terms of direction, magnitude and timing. And lastly, CO2 and methane are not the only gases in the atmosphere, so I don't believe we understand the overall impact of all gases and we may be assigning forcing to CO2 that belongs to O2 and N2.

 

[ding]

So, the South Pole froze over 15-20 million years ago, many millions of years after arriving in its current position. The North Pole has been open ocean as recently as 8,000 years ago. These do not support your contention.

I don't see how they don't. What exactly are you questioning?

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation (PDF Download Available)

 

[ding]

The difference between the northern and southern hemispheres are due to landmass distribution. The differences between the north and south poles are due to one being a continent surrounded by ocean while the other is an ocean surrounded by continents. The low temperatures at the poles are due to the angle of incidence of the sun's rays and are modified by atmospheric effects such as greenhouse warming and long term weather conditions.

Yep. I think I already stated this before.