Global Warming is Stuck in the Ice

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The prediction is also for 2016, not next year.

The article also says nothing about southern polar sea ice. You did say, "For the first time next year, it is projected that all polar ice may melt during the summer". Can you back up your claim or is this just parroting another alarmist hoax?

I misspoke. I meant all arctic ice. "Polar" in my part of the world naturally refers to the North Pole, so I did not think about it when I said it.

The Guardian is also very well known for publishing alarmist propaganda pieces, so I wouldn't rely on it as an accurate source.

If the Guardian, US Navy, and Department of Energy aren't reputable enough for you, then no source is.

 

[Tee Kay]

Dude, the US Navy is practically communist, don't you know.

 

[CavLancer]

If we observe ice increasing globally (Arctic as well as Antarctic, and glaciers) and a general trend towards colder weather for 4-5 decades, then yes, of course I would accept global cooling.

But that's not happening is it. The trend is towards warmer weather and retreating glaciers, land ice and sea ice decade after decade and the only place we get a (relatively small by comparison) trend of increasing ice is certain areas of the Southern Ocean.

So don't pretend the "two sides" have equal weight here.

The trend certainly was towards warming but it no longer is. The PDO has flipped, the sun is taking a break that could last hundreds of years... Certainly the sides are not equal, for once you are right.

 

[Tee Kay]

The trend certainly was towards warming but it no longer is. The PDO has flipped, the sun is taking a break that could last hundreds of years... Certainly the sides are not equal, for once you are right.

Get back to me when this not-warming trend goes on for a couple of decades.

 

[CavLancer]

I don't think I'll need to. By then you will see the writing on the wall. Not much of a guy for "I told you so" replies.

 

[El_Machinae]

We need right-wing warmists to speak.

Winner where are you.

I'm fairly right-wing. My main concern is that the 'right' doesn't really have political theory capable of dealing with AGW concerns. And so, there's an implicit trend towards denial, because it's (at least) a solution. The secondary concern is that AGW specifically is "by the time you're sure, it's too late", which means that only amelioration will be available (i.e., paying to fix) when prevention would have been cheaper. The low-hanging fruit will always be to improve emissions intensity (i.e., progress per unit of carbon), since that will make amelioration effectively cheaper.

 

[Dale]

I misspoke. I meant all arctic ice. "Polar" in my part of the world naturally refers to the North Pole, so I did not think about it when I said it.



If the Guardian, US Navy, and Department of Energy aren't reputable enough for you, then no source is.

I would advise you to read this: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/12/could-arctic-summers-be-sea-ice-free-in-three-years’-time/

Don't worry, Carbon Brief is what I consider to be "heavily alarmist". If even one of the extreme alarmist groups don't believe it, nor the NSIDC, then your claim doesn't have much strong backing.

As I said above, the REAL science is pointing to late 2030's.

 

[Dale]

Get back to me when this not-warming trend goes on for a couple of decades.

Cherry picker. You could also claim that you're "going up the down escalator".

 

[Yeekim]

As I said above, the REAL science is pointing to late 2030's.

Not much of a consolation there, no?

 

[Berzerker]

Dale's kicking butt...again. Whenever I start thinking global warming is real and prevalent he re-introduces me to reality

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I seem to remember Dale does think Global Warming is real. His beef is with those he believes sex up the data to make for better headlines.

So welcome to the club

 

[Dale]

Not much of a consolation there, no?

NSIDC are the true experts on Arctic sea ice. They expect it "in a few decades". http://nsidc.org/news/press/20121002_MinimumPR.html

I seem to remember Dale does think Global Warming is real. His beef is with those he believes sex up the data to make for better headlines.

Mostly true. I just hit out against the wild claims not support by observational science, such as "extreme weather is increasing" and "humans are responsible for all of global warming".

In Jo Nova's terms, I'm a luke-warmer.

 

[Berzerker]

I seem to remember Dale does think Global Warming is real. His beef is with those he believes sex up the data to make for better headlines.

So welcome to the club

Is Michael Mann in the club?

I dont know if global warming is prevalent, I hope it will be when we get hit by a cold snap - we need a warmer world if we're gonna feed 10-15 billion people. But for that dude to go on TV and insult people and then blame pack ice on the cold (duh), global warming and summer all within a minute or two is

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In Jo Nova's terms, I'm a luke-warmer.

I'm just Ziggy

 

[Formaldehyde]

Mostly true. I just hit out against the wild claims not support by observational science, such as "extreme weather is increasing" and "humans are responsible for all of global warming".

Only that doesn't appear what you are doing here at all.

More extreme weather events are indeed anticipated, at least according to NASA and 12 other federal agencies. Do you have any data which contradicts them?

Furthermore, I can't think of anybody who has any understanding of the facts who has ever said "humans are responsible for all of global warming". Can you?

Where is your criticism of global warming deniers who frequently allege the very same things with no apparent basis in fact?

 

[Dale]

Only that doesn't appear what you are doing here at all.

More extreme weather events are indeed anticipated, at least according to NASA and 12 other federal agencies. Do you have any data which contradicts them?

Plenty:
Direct from IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2:

“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"

"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

If you prefer graphs, I can show you them too. Though you might not like them.

Here's one, from Dr Ryan Maue (World's foremost expert on hurricanes, cyclones and tropical storms) showing global hurricane trends:

Spoiler :

Furthermore, I can't think of anybody who has any understanding of the facts who has ever said "humans are responsible for all of global warming". Can you?

unSkeptical Science says in the last 50 years humans are responsible for 120%. They also list a number of model based studies claiming a "minimum of 98%" over the last 50 years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Where is your criticism of global warming deniers who frequently allege the very same things with no apparent basis in fact?

I gave up trying to explain to CavLancer we aren't cooling.........






..... yet.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the least you could do is to provide a URL to this wacky blog you quoted nearly verbatim, which is based on the interpretations of one person regarding what was actually stated:

Spoiler :

It is quite clear they are not by any means dismissing all extreme weather conditions, just some of them.

From the article I posted above:

Even as the panelists spoke, NASA was releasing a report calling 2012 the ninth warmest year since 1880. With the exception of 1988, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 the hottest.

"One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at the New York-based Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which conducted the temperatures study.

"What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it's warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Heat, Flood or Icy Cold, Extreme Weather Rages Worldwide

“Each year we have extreme weather, but it’s unusual to have so many extreme events around the world at once,” said Omar Baddour, chief of the data management applications division at the World Meteorological Organization, in Geneva. “The heat wave in Australia; the flooding in the U.K., and most recently the flooding and extensive snowstorm in the Middle East — it’s already a big year in terms of extreme weather calamity.”

Such events are increasing in intensity as well as frequency, Mr. Baddour said, a sign that climate change is not just about rising temperatures, but also about intense, unpleasant, anomalous weather of all kinds.

unSkeptical Science says in the last 50 years humans are responsible for 120%. They also list a number of model based studies claiming a "minimum of 98%" over the last 50 years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

They seem to be saying that most of the global warming since the middle of the 20th Century is caused by humans, not that all global warming has been historically caused by only one source.

 

[Adjuvant]

Meanwhile...

John C. Beale, the foremost authority and highest paid member of the USA's environmental protection agency, advocate of the theory of human-induced global warming had this to say...

"I need plane tickets and an expense account. My CIA replacement in Pakistan has been compromised. Direct deposit my paychecks."

 

[Dale]

I think the least you could do is to provide a URL to this wacky blog you quoted nearly verbatim, which is based on the interpretations of one person regarding what was actually stated:

Look up the quotes yourself then. Feel free, it's a public document available to all: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf

And as I also said, there's plenty of observational data to support that. Like the one I already posted.

From the article I posted above:

Ooooohhhh......... I see how it works. You're allowed to post "wacky blogs" to support your claim but I'm not (even though I didn't get it from the "wacky blog", I got it from Dr Pielke's site direct)?

At least link to some actual science rather than an editorial.

Arguing with alarmists is like punching yourself in the face.

 

[Berzerker]

Form will leave you black and blue