Epic Correction of the Decade

[Animavore]

MM, after being backed into a corner with no where else to go, resorts to calling science a religion. The circle is complete.

I'm not sure of the value of arguing with tired, old men, who've not much time left for this Earth. His won't inherit the Earth, and they won't be the ones to solve the problems of energy and climate. Send him to the old folk' s home where he can reminisce on the good ol' days with other, dyed-in-the-wool codgers, like 42. There they can bang on about the youth of today, and be adverse to new tech, but in a contained environment, where they won't be a harm to themselves.

[mistermack]

MM, after being backed into a corner with no where else to go, resorts to calling science a religion. The circle is complete.

I'm not sure of the value of arguing with tired, old men, who've not much time left for this Earth. His won't inherit the Earth, and they won't be the ones to solve the problems of energy and climate. Send him to the old folk' s home where he can reminisce on the good ol' days with other, dyed-in-the-wool codgers, like 42. There they can bang on about the youth of today, and be adverse to new tech, but in a contained environment, where they won't be a harm to themselves.

You haven't got the brains to debate, so you attack my date of birth. Well, congratulations on yours. Well done.

You will soon find out how brief your life is going to be. But unlike me, I don't think you're ready for the news.

[Brian Peacock]

I fear you're confusing a snap shot with a trend. As I suggested earlier, you should look out the trends for yourself.

[pErvinalia]

So what is your "reasoning" then? You can't complain that you've been repeatedly ignored while posting some inane diagram, and then when given the opportunity to make your point you drop the ball. Make your point, or stop sooking.

So anything that contradicts your obsessive belief is inane then?

The worlds most foremost authority on arctic sea ice isn't good enough for you?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Funny that you can quote "sceptical science" till the cows come home, even though it's just some bloke's blog.

I'm not debating that predictions have been wrong. I'm trying to work out what your point is? Your point seems to be that because some predictions were wrong, therefore climate change isn't real and we have nothing to worry about. If that's it, then it's no wonder you won't state it. I'd be embarrassed to state something as stupid as that too.

[pErvinalia]

MM, after being backed into a corner with no where else to go, resorts to calling science a religion. The circle is complete.

I'm not sure of the value of arguing with tired, old men, who've not much time left for this Earth. His won't inherit the Earth, and they won't be the ones to solve the problems of energy and climate. Send him to the old folk' s home where he can reminisce on the good ol' days with other, dyed-in-the-wool codgers, like 42. There they can bang on about the youth of today, and be adverse to new tech, but in a contained environment, where they won't be a harm to themselves.

You haven't got the brains to debate, so you attack my date of birth. Well, congratulations on yours. Well done.

He's wiped the floor with you in debate. You are impervious to reason.

[Animavore]

Funny that you can quote "sceptical science" till the cows come home, even though it's just some bloke's blog.

About John Cook
Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

[Woodbutcher]

So what is your "reasoning" then? You can't complain that you've been repeatedly ignored while posting some inane diagram, and then when given the opportunity to make your point you drop the ball. Make your point, or stop sooking.

So anything that contradicts your obsessive belief is inane then?

The worlds most foremost authority on arctic sea ice isn't good enough for you?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Funny that you can quote "sceptical science" till the cows come home, even though it's just some bloke's blog.

You never read the article, did you? Just looked at the picture. The article states that the ice extent and volume is steadily declining. While there may be anomalies where one year is lower than the following year, the trend is clear: the ice is receding. Or to put it in terms you would understand: Ice melting more now. Also, you are cherrypicking the starting point, 2012 was an anomaly. Silly boy!

[Animavore]

The worlds most foremost authority on arctic sea ice isn't good enough for you? https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Is it good enough for you?

The Arctic region is warmer than it used to be and it continues to get warmer. Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth. Most scientists agree that Arctic weather and climate are changing because of human-caused climate change.

Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the extent of permafrost in the Arctic. In the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the Arctic were 4° Celsius (7° Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1968 to 1996 reference period, according to NOAA. Satellite data show that over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice cover has declined by 30 percent in September, the month that marks the end of the summer melt season. Satellite data also show that snow cover over land in the Arctic has decreased, and glaciers in Greenland and northern Canada are retreating. In addition, frozen ground in the Arctic has started to thaw out. Scientists first started to see changes in the Arctic climate in the 1970s and 1980s.

Changes in the Arctic climate are important because the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the rest of the world. The Arctic region gives off more heat to space than it absorbs from outside, which helps cool the planet. So changes in the Arctic climate could affect the climate in the rest of the world.

Arctic amplification

Researchers say that the changes in the Arctic are worrisome, because they could lead to feedback effects that spur further warming. For instance, when the white sea ice melts in summer, areas of dark open water are exposed which can absorb more heat from the sun. That extra heat then helps melt even more ice. Permafrost may also be involved in feedbacks. As permafrost thaws, plants and animals that were frozen in the ground begin to decay. When they decay, they release carbon dioxide and methane back to the atmosphere that contributes to further warming.

Scientists have already seen evidence that positive feedbacks are occurring in the Arctic. They call this Arctic amplification. Predicting the Arctic climate is difficult. Some of the changes in the Arctic could also have negative feedback effects, or effects that reduce the amount of warming. For example, if warm temperatures make the Arctic growing season longer, more plants can survive and take up more carbon from the air. However, most evidence suggests that the positive feedback effects outweigh the negative effects. A recent report by NOAA concluded that Arctic climate is unlikely to return to previous conditions.

Scientists are studying the many factors that influence Arctic climate to help figure out how feedbacks work and what will happen in the future. Researchers are also investigating how the changes in the Arctic climate will affect climate in other parts of the world. Scientists study data collected by satellites and at ground stations and also used use sophisticated computer models.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-met ... hange.html

[Animavore]

So what is your "reasoning" then? You can't complain that you've been repeatedly ignored while posting some inane diagram, and then when given the opportunity to make your point you drop the ball. Make your point, or stop sooking.

So anything that contradicts your obsessive belief is inane then?

The worlds most foremost authority on arctic sea ice isn't good enough for you?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Funny that you can quote "sceptical science" till the cows come home, even though it's just some bloke's blog.

You never read the article, did you? Just looked at the picture. The article states that the ice extent and volume is steadily declining. While there may be anomalies where one year is lower than the following year, the trend is clear: the ice is receding. Or to put it in terms you would understand: Ice melting more now. Also, you are cherrypicking the starting point, 2012 was an anomaly. Silly boy!

And about that picture; MM seems to think the reduction in the ice extent isn't much because it doesn't look much on a map. Reminds me of this.

[Brian Peacock]

...
I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

Indeed. Now all you need to do is account for lag in the system. I'm sure common sense will tell you that global temperatures will not rise instantly with every additional x-tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, there'll be some lag,

Why? Is that your own "common sense" deduction?

Can you offer a reason why?

No, it's not my common sense (I was just trying to appeal to your common sense, being as you place an amount of personal value on it), it's just a fact. There's a lag. CO2 absorbs IR radiation, heat. A slightly hotter CO2 molecule is not going make all the other molecules around it hotter instantly. If you keep adding energy then, in time, the ambient temperature of the volume will rise, and if you keep adding CO2 as well the temperature will rise more quickly, but it's not an instant reaction.

Are you suggesting that there should be no lag?

effects on humans of, say, a 7 degree rise in global temperatures and the impact that would have on us as a species,

You did notice, I hope, that CO2 levels in the Cambrian were up to 7,000 parts per million?
Even the top alarmists aren't forecasting that any time soon.

But you said that was 'OK', so what was your point?

[pErvinalia]

This will be the point where MM will mysteriously opt out of the debate... until next time he tries to present the same debunked nonsense again.

[mistermack]

I fully expect the sea ice to decline. There has been a small amount of warming, and I expect that to have an effect.
The effect on the arctic has been constantly trumpeted as both proof and the risk of global warming.
I'm surprised myself by how little it's changed. I expected more.
As well as the measured one degree of warming, since a very cold period around 1900, there is also the soot factor, that decreases the reflection of sunlight off the ice. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the predictions of no ice at the pole had come true.

But they haven't.

On the subject of the albedo of the planet, the previously mentioned Cambrian period, about 500 million years ago, had CO2 levels of 7,000 ppm, as opposed to todays value of 400. It had temperatures about 7 deg higher than today.
So it ALSO had no ice to reflect the sun's energy.
So with CO2 about fifteen times today's levels, and no ice, the Earth still didn't get any hotter than 7 deg warmer than today.
And don't forget, we are actually still in an ice-age. We are in a warm interglacial period of the current ice-age.
We are due to drop anytime now, into a new glaciation, which would make global warming a fond memory.

So don't wish for what you might not like when you get it. The arctic sea ice might not be academic. It might be coming to a place near you. Sooner than you think.

[Animavore]

That NSIDC is a great resource for debunking denialist claims. How ironic.

[Tero]

Isn't there some kind of catch all "anything but CO2 effect"?

My Finnish nationalist friend does not believe in global warming because of Muskims. The Finnish green party supports bringing in Muslim refugees. And cutting down global warming. He hates Muslims, therefore no global warming.

[Animavore]

I'd like a good reference for 7000ppm in the Cambrian. I can only find a reference to denialist blogs. None of them link a source.