The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[CultureCitizen]

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

As I said , I could be wrong. Nevertheless your arguments need some checking too :

1) The chart has the title "extent" what about the depth?
2) Most of the melting doesn't come from the artic (where most of the ice is already under the sea, but from greenland, and greenland has been melting steadily.
3) Th other source of the melt is west antartica .

... your turn.

 

[itfitzme]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

You seem a bit vague on the concept of the difference between vague and specific. *You are confusing is with accuracy, precision, confidence level, and probability.

I haven't said anything about a hypothesis of the planet's ecosystem being static. You're having of those alcohol delusions again.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.

Come on oddball.

Yes , and the solar system doesn't have just one gravitational influence , and yet that doesn't stop us from modeling the Earth's orbit using mostly 3 bodies : The Sun , the Earth and the moon.

Now name a feedback and compensatory factor which can account for the 300 billion tons of melted ice ( that would mean something different from warming which is melting those 300 billion tons each year ).

 

[Oddball]

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

You seem a bit vague on the concept of the difference between vague and specific. *You are confusing is with accuracy, precision, confidence level, and probability.

I haven't said anything about a hypothesis of the planet's ecosystem being static. You're having of those alcohol delusions again.

I'm confusing nothing.

The people spouting the vagaries (i.e. could, may, might, possibly, IF etcetera) are the Malthusian declinist misanthrope scaremongers like you.

You have no precision, accuracy or even probability....Then again, you don't even have a static control group, repeatability, quantifiability, falsifiability or any other traditionally accepted measure of provable science.

I can get better guesses form the Old Farmer's Almanac.

 

[Oddball]

The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.

Come on oddball.

Yes , and the solar system doesn't have just one gravitational influence , and yet that doesn't stop us from modeling the Earth's orbit using mostly 3 bodies : The Sun , the Earth and the moon.

Non sequitur.

Now name a feedback and compensatory factor which can account for the 300 billion tons of melted ice ( that would mean something different from warming which is melting those 300 billion tons each year ).

Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.

 

[itfitzme]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

Here is specific;

"Recently analysts, government officials, and the media have drawn increasing attention to the escalating frequency, severity, and costs over and above fire suppression associated with large-scale forest wildfires [1] – including losses of human lives, homes, pets, crops, livestock and environmental damage. "

"The bodies of 19 elite firefighters overtaken by a raging wildfire in central Arizona were recovered and taken to the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office today, Prescott Fire Chief Dan Fraijo said."

What did you say were the "trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions" in that trend?

Oh, you must mean feedbacks like dead fire fighters *results in more burned acreage, thus fewer acres to burn, so fewer fires. *

Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center

Bodies of 19 Firefighters Killed in Arizona Wildfire Recovered, Taken to Medical Examiner's Office - ABC News

 

[itfitzme]

The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.

Come on oddball.

Yes , and the solar system doesn't have just one gravitational influence , and yet that doesn't stop us from modeling the Earth's orbit using mostly 3 bodies : The Sun , the Earth and the moon.

Non sequitur.

Now name a feedback and compensatory factor which can account for the 300 billion tons of melted ice ( that would mean something different from warming which is melting those 300 billion tons each year ).

Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.

There you go, now you're getting specific. No of them are feedbacks, but they at least have the possibility of creating variability in global temp.

And here is a graph which shows the solar variability as a part of temperature change.

It does and has varied. So far, it isn't an overall comtributing factor in mitigating the upward temperature trend.

I wonder what the future varation is with respect to predictable factors. It has a curious upward trend, so far.

 

[itfitzme]

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

Here is specific;

"Recently analysts, government officials, and the media have drawn increasing attention to the escalating frequency, severity, and costs over and above fire suppression associated with large-scale forest wildfires [1] – including losses of human lives, homes, pets, crops, livestock and environmental damage. "

"The bodies of 19 elite firefighters overtaken by a raging wildfire in central Arizona were recovered and taken to the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office today, Prescott Fire Chief Dan Fraijo said."

What did you say were the "trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions" in that trend?

Oh, you must mean feedbacks like dead fire fighters *results in more burned acreage, thus fewer acres to burn, so fewer fires. *

Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center

Bodies of 19 Firefighters Killed in Arizona Wildfire Recovered, Taken to Medical Examiner's Office - ABC News

And your irrefutable proof that Goebbels warming is to blame for that is?....NOTHING, that's what.

Goddammit are you one slimy, ghoulish fucking piece of shit!

You got proof it ain't?

 

[Oddball]

Pretty colored charts of computer models aren't proof.

I never thought anyone cold be a lower slimy piece of shit than Rudy Ghouliani, hiding behind the victims of 9/11™ as a platform for his run at the presidency.

Yet, here you are, you low slimy piece of shit.

 

[itfitzme]

Pretty colored charts of computer models aren't proof.

I never thought anyone cold be a lower slimy piece of shit than Rudy Ghouliani, hiding behind the victims of 9/11™ as a platform for his run at the presidency.

Yet, here you are, you low slimy piece of shit.

You are a moron. *Those firefighters were in Arizona, not in New York. It happened this weekend. *And if you weren't such a self centered, whiny little prick, you'd be as well aware of it as the rest of the county. *19 firefighters got caught in a firestorm in the midst of the worst drought season in Arozona history, a drought contibuted to by climate change.*

And if you gave a shit about any thing else but your next six pack, you'd stop being such a pussy, hiding behind your vague and generalize bulshit.

You don't like theoretical models, you don't like empirical evidence. In other words, your to much of a pussy to deal with reality.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.

Planetary wobble : It is cyclic so the ice melting should at least correlate with the wobble cycle... I don't think so.

The elliptical /oscillating orbit around the sun... very very small variation over a long period of time... I don't think its plausible.

the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second... maybe... if we were passing through a high radiation zone , that would be plausible.

Varying solar output: again , cyclic (11 years if I recall correctly )... maybe, I think that's an interesting factor , but there would have to be some correlation.

 

[westwall]

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

As I said , I could be wrong. Nevertheless your arguments need some checking too :

1) The chart has the title "extent" what about the depth?
2) Most of the melting doesn't come from the artic (where most of the ice is already under the sea, but from greenland, and greenland has been melting steadily.
3) Th other source of the melt is west antartica .

... your turn.

Antarctic sea ice is actually thicker than the AGW cultists thought. In fact this one discovery DOUBLED the known extent of Antarctic sea ice.


Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News


Greenland again huh? We'll ignore the fact that it was much warmer 800 years ago and go with the 150 year cycle that has been deciphered as the cause of the ice melt.

"Jet stream changes cause climatically exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet melt

The research team at the GrISResearch from the University of Sheffield has shown that unusual changes in atmospheric jet stream circulation caused the exceptional surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) in summer 2012.

An international team led by Professor Edward Hanna from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography used a computer model simulation (called SnowModel) and satellite data to confirm a record surface melting of the GrIS for at least the last 50 years - when on 11 July 2012, more than 90 percent of the ice-sheet surface melted. This far exceeded the previous surface melt extent record of 52 percent in 2010.

The team also analysed weather station data from on top of and around the GrIS, largely collected by the Danish Meteorological Institute but also by US programmes, which showed that several new high Greenland temperature records were set in summer 2012.

The research, published today in the International Journal of Climatology, clearly demonstrates that the record surface melting of the GrIS was mainly caused by highly unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream changes, which were also responsible for last summer's unusually wet weather in England."


Jet stream changes cause climatically exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet melt - News releases - News - The University of Sheffield


West Antarctica is one third of the continent. However the warming is only occurring on the peninsula, and even there the rise is covered by the error bands. The warmest period averages 1-2 degrees C and has been that way since measurement began. The "warming is detectable only in statistics....not on the thermometers.

Because the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches north of the Antarctic Circle, is the most northerly part of Antarctica, it has the mildest climates within this continent. Its temperature are warmest in January, averages 1 to 2°C, and coldest in June, averages from -15°C to - 20°C. Its west coast from the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula south to 68 degrees South, which has a maritime Antarctic climate, is the mildest part of Antarctica Peninsula. Within this part of the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures exceed 0°C for 3–4 months during the summer, and rarely fall below -10°C during the winter. Farther south along the west coast and the northeast coast of the peninsula, mean monthly temperatures exceeding 0°C for only 1–2 months of summer and average around -15°C in winter. The coast of the Antarctic Peninsula south of 63°S is generally much colder with mean temperatures exceeding 0°C for only 0–1 months of summer and winter mean temperatures ranging from –5 to –25°C. The colder temperatures of the southeast, Weddell Sea side, of the Antarctica Peninsula are reflected in the persistence of ice shelves that cling to the eastern side.[9][10]

Precipitation varies greatly within the Antarctic Peninsula. From the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula south to 68 degrees South, precipitation averages 35–50 cm per year. a good portion of this rain falls as rain during the summer, on two-thirds of the days of the year, and with little seasonal variation in amounts. Between about 68°S and 63°S on the west coast of the Antarctica Peninsula and along its northeast coast, precipitation is 35 cm or less with occasional rain. Along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula south of 63°S, precipitation ranges from 10–15 cm. In comparison, the subantarctic islands have precipitation of 1–2 m per year and the dry interior of Antarctica is a virtual desert with only 10 cm precipitation per year.[10

Antarctic Peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your turn...

 

[itfitzme]

Your theory has some problems. *Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. *Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

As I said , I could be wrong. Nevertheless your arguments need some checking too :

1) The chart has the title "extent" what about the depth?
2) Most of the melting doesn't come from the artic (where most of the ice is already under the sea, but from greenland, and greenland has been melting steadily.*
3) Th other source of the melt is west antartica .

... your turn.

Antarctic sea ice is actually thicker than the AGW cultists thought. *In fact this one discovery DOUBLED the known extent of Antarctic sea ice.


Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News


Greenland again huh? *We'll ignore the fact that it was much warmer 800 years ago and go with the 150 year cycle that has been deciphered as the cause of the ice melt.

"Jet stream changes cause climatically exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet melt

The research team at the GrISResearch from the University of Sheffield has shown that unusual changes in atmospheric jet stream circulation caused the exceptional surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) in summer 2012.

An international team led by Professor Edward Hanna from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography used a computer model simulation (called SnowModel) and satellite data to confirm a record surface melting of the GrIS for at least the last 50 years - when on 11 July 2012, more than 90 percent of the ice-sheet surface melted. This far exceeded the previous surface melt extent record of 52 percent in 2010.

The team also analysed weather station data from on top of and around the GrIS, largely collected by the Danish Meteorological Institute but also by US programmes, which showed that several new high Greenland temperature records were set in summer 2012.

The research, published today in the International Journal of Climatology, clearly demonstrates that the record surface melting of the GrIS was mainly caused by highly unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream changes, which were also responsible for last summer's unusually wet weather in England."


Jet stream changes cause climatically exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet melt - News releases - News - The University of Sheffield


West Antarctica is one third of the continent. *However the warming is only occurring on the peninsula, and even there the rise is covered by the error bands. *The warmest period averages 1-2 degrees C and has been that way since measurement began. *The "warming is detectable only in statistics....not on the thermometers.

Because the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches north of the Antarctic Circle, is the most northerly part of Antarctica, it has the mildest climates within this continent. Its temperature are warmest in January, averages 1 to 2°C, and coldest in June, averages from -15°C to - 20°C. Its west coast from the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula south to 68 degrees South, which has a maritime Antarctic climate, is the mildest part of Antarctica Peninsula. Within this part of the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures exceed 0°C for 3–4 months during the summer, and rarely fall below -10°C during the winter. Farther south along the west coast and the northeast coast of the peninsula, mean monthly temperatures exceeding 0°C for only 1–2 months of summer and average around -15°C in winter. The coast of the Antarctic Peninsula south of 63°S is generally much colder with mean temperatures exceeding 0°C for only 0–1 months of summer and winter mean temperatures ranging from –5 to –25°C. The colder temperatures of the southeast, Weddell Sea side, of the Antarctica Peninsula are reflected in the persistence of ice shelves that cling to the eastern side.[9][10]

Precipitation varies greatly within the Antarctic Peninsula. From the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula south to 68 degrees South, precipitation averages 35–50 cm per year. a good portion of this rain falls as rain during the summer, on two-thirds of the days of the year, and with little seasonal variation in amounts. Between about 68°S and 63°S on the west coast of the Antarctica Peninsula and along its northeast coast, precipitation is 35 cm or less with occasional rain. Along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula south of 63°S, precipitation ranges from 10–15 cm. In comparison, the subantarctic islands have precipitation of 1–2 m per year and the dry interior of Antarctica is a virtual desert with only 10 cm precipitation per year.[10

Antarctic Peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your turn...

The first article does not say anything about the ice being thicher than thought. * It simply refines the understanding of how the measured thickness forms.

The second says nothing with regard to the 50 year trend

The total volume of land ice is as shown

And clearly, on a seasonal basis, the volume decreases and increases. But it decreases more than it increases, with each cycle.

You are simply, and desperately, trying to force short term weather variability into having meaning in the long term climate. The long term trends remain the same, regardless of how the seasonal variations occur, variability betwen regions, or how the heat moves about the globe.

Indeed, the massive Greenland melt actually goes towards supprting heat being absorbed by ice melt, though we have no specific value to assign so no indication of scale.

 

[itfitzme]

Yep, Greenland experiencex exceptional warming due to the combination of climate change and unique weather patterns.

"Greenland’s surface melting in 2012 was intense, far in excess of any earlier year in the satellite record since 1979. In July 2012, a very unusual weather event occurred. For a few days, 97% of the entire ice sheet indicated surface melting. "

"Warm conditions in 2012 were caused by a persistent high pressure pattern that lasted much of the summer. Since September, temperatures have remained warmer than average, but dropped well below freezing as autumn and winter arrived. We review the year’s events, and introduce some general characteristics of the Greenland ice sheet"

"Overall, melt extent was the largest in the satellite record since 1979, and melting lasted almost two months longer than average. This was the first year in the satellite record that the entire ice sheet experienced melt at some point in the season."

"A major signal of climate change for Greenland is the steady climb of these facies uphill as melt seasons and summer temperatures increase. The changes in facies also pre-condition the surface of the ice sheet for even more melting."

"*The data from 1991 to 2012 show that some locations in western Greenland have warmed 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) during summer, while some locations along the west and northwest coasts of Greenland warmed as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) during winter."

An intense Greenland melt season: 2012 in review | Greenland Ice Sheet

 

[PMZ]

The rest of the universe is a long ways away for us to gather evidence from and about, but the state of human knowledge so far is that there is one thing about earth that is unique.

Life in general, and human knowledge that resulted from it, specifically. What brought that about? Climate. Both the static and dynamic aspects of it have been truly the cradle of life.

Life, thanks to evolution and natural selection, is pretty robust and resilient. Now that life on earth is ubiquitous, I doubt that our bumbling could put it all at risk. We could change it substantially, but not erase it.

Human knowledge though is a luxury that we can only invest in after all necessities have been satisfied.

Consider a world whose climate is changing in such a way that basic human necessities are put at risk for some of our immense population. What will people do in order to survive? What will those not at risk have to do to protect their position?

What we know beyond the shadow of any doubt is that our current energy infrastucture is changing the climate, and will increasingly continue to.

What we don't know with certainty are the weather consequences of that, and even less certain are the human and lower life form's reactions to the stress of something as essential as weather different than what brought us this far.

We can only speculate. But the speculation has to consider the entire range of possibilities in order to plan for the best outcome. Which could be much worse than what we have become accustomed to.

The next few hundred years will be epic and define forever the role of human knowledge in both endangering and potentially saving, life. It has become our game.

While some would say that our future is apocalyptic, others will believe that the human knowledge that brought us here can also get us through.

 

[westwall]

The rest of the universe is a long ways away for us to gather evidence from and about, but the state of human knowledge so far is that there is one thing about earth that is unique.

Life in general, and human knowledge that resulted from it, specifically. What brought that about? Climate. Both the static and dynamic aspects of it have been truly the cradle of life.

Life, thanks to evolution and natural selection, is pretty robust and resilient. Now that life on earth is ubiquitous, I doubt that our bumbling could put it all at risk. We could change it substantially, but not erase it.

Human knowledge though is a luxury that we can only invest in after all necessities have been satisfied.

Consider a world whose climate is changing in such a way that basic human necessities are put at risk for some of our immense population. What will people do in order to survive? What will those not at risk have to do to protect their position?

What we know beyond the shadow of any doubt is that our current energy infrastucture is changing the climate, and will increasingly continue to.

What we don't know with certainty are the weather consequences of that, and even less certain are the human and lower life form's reactions to the stress of something as essential as weather different than what brought us this far.

We can only speculate. But the speculation has to consider the entire range of possibilities in order to plan for the best outcome. Which could be much worse than what we have become accustomed to.

The next few hundred years will be epic and define forever the role of human knowledge in both endangering and potentially saving, life. It has become our game.

While some would say that our future is apocalyptic, others will believe that the human knowledge that brought us here can also get us through.

Wrong on almost every count.

 

[flacaltenn]

Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.

Planetary wobble : It is cyclic so the ice melting should at least correlate with the wobble cycle... I don't think so.

The elliptical /oscillating orbit around the sun... very very small variation over a long period of time... I don't think its plausible.

the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second... maybe... if we were passing through a high radiation zone , that would be plausible.

Varying solar output: again , cyclic (11 years if I recall correctly )... maybe, I think that's an interesting factor , but there would have to be some correlation.

And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?

Solar influences are NOT well known.. You cannot accurately measure solar output from the ground and separate Watts from atmospheric absorption.. We have BARELY a 20 year record of sat data.. And it's NOT the 11 yr sun spot cycles. It's the Total Solar Irradiation number that has increased the temp forcing at the surface by 1W/m2 since the mid 18th century..

[/IMG]

The "squigglies" you see on the chart are individual "sun spot cycles".. But it's the TREND line of TOTAL irradiation that is ignored and discounted by the AGW clergy. 1W/m2 is approx 33% of the warming that we are trying to account for. You mention TSI --- "they" automatically start deflecting about sun spot cycles. WITH THE TSI removed --- of course... Just watch. Some cheesehead will post a "sun spot activity" chart within the next 10 posts...

And please note the "leveling off" of TSI towards the end of 20th century.. Popular AGW mythology today is just discovering the huge thermal "storage" effect of the oceans and even the land. They just discovered the diff btwn POWER (w/m2) and ENERGY (accumulated over time). So TSI is the ONE INDICATOR that would suggest a "pause" in the warming cycle that we are JUST NOW --- observing..

Now that is also "correlation" not a proof.. But that correlates BETTER with observations than just mere CO2 vs Temp for the past 20 years. Just with a delay due to "thermal inertia"....

We need ANOTHER 20 yrs of solar measurement from space to even BEGIN to understand the nuances of the PRIMARY source of thermal energy to the planet. Even a small shift in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation ---- could operate on the Greenhouse "window" and be a primary cause of warming or cooling.. What "color" is our sun??? How stable is THAT?

We don't have enough data to comment..

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

 

[flacaltenn]

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

As I said , I could be wrong. Nevertheless your arguments need some checking too :

1) The chart has the title "extent" what about the depth?
2) Most of the melting doesn't come from the artic (where most of the ice is already under the sea, but from greenland, and greenland has been melting steadily.
3) Th other source of the melt is west antartica .

... your turn.

I don't argue about "sea ice". The game is rigged by the definitions.. Sea Ice Extent (SIE) is usually defined as a fixed patched of ocean with MORE than 25% ice.. That's A LOT of open water, and tells you more about storms and currents -- than it does about climate.

If you go for VOLUMES --- there are other problems with that. The best measurement is probably "surviving age" and that can't be measured from satellite.. (to my knowledge).

 

[Oddball]

Planetary wobble, varying nature of the magnetosphere, varying solar output, the elliptical/oscillating orbit around the sun, the fact that the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second....Those are just off the top of my head.

Planetary wobble : It is cyclic so the ice melting should at least correlate with the wobble cycle... I don't think so.

The elliptical /oscillating orbit around the sun... very very small variation over a long period of time... I don't think its plausible.

the entire solar system is hurtling through space at thousands of miles per second... maybe... if we were passing through a high radiation zone , that would be plausible.

Varying solar output: again , cyclic (11 years if I recall correctly )... maybe, I think that's an interesting factor , but there would have to be some correlation.

Nobody asked what you thought was plausible...You wanted a list of possible mechanisms and feedbacks, and I gave it to you.

Then, any/all of those in concert, to go with the billions of other Earth-bound variables and feedbacks....Which cannot all be possibly accounted for in any of the warmerist scaremonger models.

 

[SSDD]

Yep, Greenland experiencex exceptional warming due to the combination of climate change and unique weather patterns.

"Greenland’s surface melting in 2012 was intense, far in excess of any earlier year in the satellite record since 1979. In July 2012, a very unusual weather event occurred. For a few days, 97% of the entire ice sheet indicated surface melting. "

"Warm conditions in 2012 were caused by a persistent high pressure pattern that lasted much of the summer. Since September, temperatures have remained warmer than average, but dropped well below freezing as autumn and winter arrived. We review the year’s events, and introduce some general characteristics of the Greenland ice sheet"

"Overall, melt extent was the largest in the satellite record since 1979, and melting lasted almost two months longer than average. This was the first year in the satellite record that the entire ice sheet experienced melt at some point in the season."

"A major signal of climate change for Greenland is the steady climb of these facies uphill as melt seasons and summer temperatures increase. The changes in facies also pre-condition the surface of the ice sheet for even more melting."

"*The data from 1991 to 2012 show that some locations in western Greenland have warmed 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) during summer, while some locations along the west and northwest coasts of Greenland warmed as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) during winter."

An intense Greenland melt season: 2012 in review | Greenland Ice Sheet

You have obviously been listening to the fear mongering regarding Greenland instead of reading the published, peer reviewed literature. If you had been reading the peer reviewed literature, you would not be promoting doom and gloom and gyrating hysterically trying to instill fear in others. If you had been reading the peer reviewed literature, you would be asking yourself why idiots are always taken in by fearmongers.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Greenland Ice Sheet Growing 5.4 cm/yr

According to an article published in Science, the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet as a whole has been growing at the rate of 5.4 cm/yr (following correction for isostatic uplift). The only areas thinning are selected coastal areas exposed to periodic warm ocean oscillations. This change is also consistent with the natural behavior of ice sheets.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows 'dramatic slow down of ice loss in southeast Greenland'

A paper published online yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds "the loss rate in southeast Greenland for the more recent period has become almost negligible, down from 109 ± 28 Gt/yr of just a few years ago. The rapid change in the nature of the regional ice mass in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions." Global warming allegedly due to greenhouse gases would not be expected to cause such regional interannual variability in Greenland ice loss, thus pointing to shifts in weather instead.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland was much warmer in the past & is less vulnerable to thaw than previously thought

A new paper published in Nature finds from ice cores that Greenland was 8C warmer than the present during the last interglacial period from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. The authors also find "only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming," during which the ice sheet was 130 meters lower than the present. Needless to say, no "tipping point" occurred when Greenland warmed by more than 2C, as claimed by climate alarmists.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows Greenland was warmer during the 1930's and 1400's than the present

A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs Greenland temperatures over the past 800 years and shows that reconstructed temperatures were higher in the 1930's and 1400's than at the end of the record in the year 2000. The paper also finds Greenland temperatures correlated to "solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation patterns such as those produced by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO)." The Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago is not included in this 800 year reconstruction, but Greenland ice cores demonstrate that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, and other unnamed warming periods were all warmer than modern Greenland temperatures.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Search results for greenland

A new paper from the 2011 Antarctic Science Symposium presents new ice core data from Greenland and finds that not even the southern portion of Greenland was ice-free during the Eemian period, despite temperatures much higher than the present (5°C or 9°F) lasting for 16,000 years (from 130,000 to 114,000 years ago). Meanwhile, alarmists such as Richard Alley (buddy of Michael Mann at Penn State) and James Hansen claim "The entire ice mass of Greenland will disappear from the world map if temperatures rise by as little as 2°C." Note global temperatures have recovered by a mere 0.7°C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 and have been flat to declining since 1998.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland Istorvet icecap was smaller than the present 1000 years ago

A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews examines fossilized plants at the edge of the Istorvet ice cap in East Greenland and determines the ice cap "was smaller than the present from AD 200 to AD 1025." The ice cap subsequently grew during the Little Ice Age [LIA] and then retreated to the present size significantly larger than was present during the Medieval & Roman warming periods.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland was 2?3°C warmer than today 4000 years ago

A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews finds west Greenland was "2–3°C warmer than today" from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago and that "summer temperatures were warmer than present by at least 7,100 years ago." According to the authors, "the local Greenland Ice Sheet margin was most retracted behind its present position between 6,000 and 5,000 years ago." The paper corroborates ice core data from central Greenland indicating that Greenland was significantly warmer than the present several times over the past 8,000 years despite "safe" levels of CO2. This paper and many others demonstrate that alarmist claims of a 2°C "tipping point" for the Greenland ice sheet are nonsense.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Greenland surface melt was due to natural variability

Last summer, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that a brief 4-day surface melt over the Greenland ice sheet represented evidence of man-made global warming. However, a paper published today in The Cryosphere finds that "the recent warmer summers over [the Greenland ice sheet] cannot be considered as a long-term climate warming but are more a consequence of [the natural North Atlantic Oscillation] variability affecting atmospheric heat transport." In other words, the brief Greenland surface melt was related to natural variability rather than alleged man-made global warming

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows Greenland has cooled ~2.5C over past 8,000 years

A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs temperatures from ice cores and finds the Greenland ice sheet has cooled about 2.5C over the past 8,000 years. Needless to say, no "tipping point" was triggered as claimed by climate alarmists when Greenland was more than 2C warmer than the present.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows no correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperatures over past 7,200 years

A recent paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews shows no rational nor consistent relationship between CO2 levels and July air temperatures in West Greenland over the past 7,200 years. The authors also find "summer temperatures were 2-3°C warmer than present" between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows W Greenland glacier retreat has decelerated about 50% over past 70 years

A new paper published in The Cryosphere examines historical length changes of glaciers in W Greenland from 1800-2010 and finds "the average rate of retreat was largest in the first half of the 20th century." Data from the paper shows the average rate of retreat peaked at 25 meters per year during the 1930's and has decelerated to about half that rate over the past 70 years. Note glaciers have been generally retreating for 20,000 years since the peak of the last major ice age, and since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds an accelerating increase of snow accumulation on Greenland

A paper published today in The Journal of Climate reconstructs snow accumulation of the Greenland ice sheet from 1600-2009 and finds "a 12% or 86 Gigaton/yr increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate."

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Melting ice caps update: New paper shows no change in elevation or mass of ice cap at Northern tip of Greenland

Warmists tell us the effects of AGW should be most evident at the poles. A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research closely examines the Flade Isblink Ice Cap at the northern tip of Greenland using data from two satellites from 2002-2009 and finds a slightly positive/near zero change in surface elevation and no change whatsoever in mass. However, according to the experts at The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, this entire ice cap has completely disappeared.

And the list of published papers that contradict your alarmist handwaving goes on and on. No point, I suppose in posting more as you aren't likely to read what I have already given you.