Declining Arctic Sea Ice

Garbage. Your data requirements were self-evidently supererogatory.

No, you are, by requiring an impossible data standard.

That is -- surprise!! -- another strawman from you.

Yes, and they don't say what you claim they say.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

?? This, from an anti-CO2-hysteria dittohead??

Oh? The reality that consistently proves your predictions and thus your theory flat wrong? That reality?

 

What's missing is any dependence in this claim

It's a cyclical variation, not a secular trend determined by atmospheric CO2.​

on CO2 not being a GHG.

 

It doesn't show Arctic sea ice increasing. It shows Antarctica ice volume increasing. An article in Nature magazine disagrees,it states:

• Analysis
• Published: 13 June 2018

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017

• The IMBIE team

Naturevolume 558, pages219–222 (201 | Download Citation

Article metrics

• 9518 Accesses
  
  
• 88 Citations
  
  
• 3393 Altmetric
  
  
• Metricsdetails
  

Abstract
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53 ± 29 billion to 159 ± 26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7 ± 13 billion to 33 ± 16 billion tonnes per year. We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.

 

Mass = Volume X Density. The density of ice is a constant for all practical purposes.

BTW the only way mass can be estimated is by first estimating volume.

 

If CO2 is 100% transparent to IR radiation then CO2 cannot be an influencing factor in the secular temperature trend via the GHG effect. Thus, constructing a repeatable experiment that shows that CO2 is always transparent to IR radiation falsifies that hypothesis.

 

No, you didn't get it straight. You didn't want to, so you used a non sequitur to imply I said something I didn't say. It's a pretty common cheap propaganda trick.

Nope. It hasn't. There have always been confounding factors involved, and/or cause-effect ambiguities.

And AGW scammers claim CO2 led temperature, but at that remove in time, the chronological resolution does not support such claims.

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. In the second two-thirds of the 20th century, solar activity was at a sustained, multi-millennium high, and emission of albedo-reducing soot compounds has soared.

Disproved above.

We already know it is a GHG, so you are beating up a strawman. The question is, how much effect does it have in the earth's atmosphere, especially the troposphere?

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you.

Nope. Flat false. Tyndall did not even attempt to measure the differences in IR absorption between gas mixtures similar to atmospheric air because his instruments weren't sensitive enough to measure such subtle differences.

But not subtly different mixtures based on tropospheric air.

Please provide a reference to results of real-world experiments similar to the one I proposed. Thank you.

Please provide a reference to results of real-world experiments similar to the one I proposed. Thank you.

I can identify the major ones. You demanded an exhaustive list and complete characterization of their contributions, which is of course not possible.

It cannot be the dominant factor, and the evidence is that its feedbacks don't have the right characteristics to produce the kind of variations that are known to predominate.

I never said it doesn't. To claim the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas proves that it controls temperature is an absurd non sequitur.

 

You seem to have lost your bearings, as such a finding would only support the quoted assertion, since it would expose the unique spectral properties of CO2 as irrelevant in the Earth/Sun thermodynamic system.

 

Remember, we are brainstorming experiments that would falsify the hypothesis that CO2 can influence the secular temperature trend via the GHG effect. This is but one type of experiment that would do so. There are other ways the hypothesis could be falsified.

Are you arguing that CO2 could still influence the secular temperature trend even if it is shown that CO2 is transparent to IR radiation?

 

Great. Then present a dataset that convincingly shows that the MWP was a global phenomenon?

No. They don't. It has been known all along that the glacial cycles should proceed with CO2 lagging the temperature trend. This is because the catalyzing agent that starts the cycle is from an agent other than CO2. Thus, CO2 plays the role of a feedback agent first and forcing agent second. In fact, it would be quite unexpected if CO2 led the temperature trend for the glacial cycles. But for other climatic change events like the PETM, ETMx, anthroprocene, etc. CO2 leads the temperature trend. It is the catalyzing agent for these events. It plays the role of the forcing agent first and feedback agent second. Remember, CO2 is in both a feedback and forcing relationship with the temperature so it is completely expected for it to lag in some events and lead in others depending on which agent catalyzed the event.

Not according to SORCE. But let's assume that TSI has been constant since peaking in the late 1950's (it hasn't). The warming rate has accelerated in recent decades. An acceleration of the warming is not consistent with a hypothesis that says the Sun is the primary driver under a scenario where TSI is constant nevermind declining. I do agree that black carbon decreases albedo. But keep in mind that aerosols increase it as well.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330399834_2018_Continues_Record_Global_Ocean_Warming

Then we agree that falsifying CO2's influence on the secular temperature trend cannot be accomplished via this experiment. I'm not understanding the strawman reference though. I'm just trying to help you out in falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

ABI on GOES-R satellites. If the GHG effect were nonexistent or existed in a weaker form then this instrument (along with all of the other radiometers in space) would be useless as a tool for meteorological observations.

Remember what we're trying to do here. The hypothesis is that anthroprogenic CO2 is a significant contributor to global temperate trends. The easiest way to falsify this hypothesis is to find a set of naturally modulated physical processes that can explain the warming. The list need not be exhaustive since all you need to do is find the minimal set (which could be a single agent) that explains the warming.

Great. Then we agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That just leaves us with figuring out what the magnitude of the effect is. The abundance of evidence via paleoclimate and instrumental observations and physical theory (MODTRAN) agree that the radiative forcing is approximated by 5.35*ln(Cn/Co). In addition paleoclimate and instrumental observations (including volcanic eruptions) and physical theory also show that the sensitivity is between 0.5 and 2.0C per W/m^2 with higher magnitudes of changes resulting in higher sensitivities for further changes.

 

That may be what you're doing, but what I'm doing is asking how the hell you figure this claim

It's a cyclical variation, not a secular trend determined by atmospheric CO2.​

would be falsified if CO2 were transparent to IR radiation.

 

That's nice. But as those papers show the MWP wasn't global, what's the point?

Ah, the standard paid denier shill big-lie claims.

They look at one paper. It will show one warm year in Y800, and 500 cold years.

They look at a different paper for a different spot. It will show one warm year in Y900, and the rest cold years.

They look at a different paper for a different spot. It will show one warm year in Y1000, and the rest cold years.

They will then proclaim "Ha! This proves the MWP was global!", even though it proves the exact opposite.

Fools the cult rubes, of course, but it obviously doesn't fool any normal people. That's why the science points out that the MWP wasn't global. It's not a socialist plot. You've just been hoodwinked by bad cult propaganda.

I thought you claimed you didn't make things up?

 

I don't think anyone here disputes that it has an effect. That science IS settled. The issue is how strong that effect is relative to natural (mostly cyclical) factors.

 

The papers show it was indisputably global, as all readers can confirm for themselves just by looking at the map. The red balloons outnumber the blue by an order of magnitude, and are distributed throughout the globe.

Fact.

That is simply made-up garbage with no basis in fact, accusations lacking any evidence whatever.

The map shows where research papers have established that the MWP was warmer and where it was colder. Please provide evidence that any of those papers cherry-picked data as you are claiming.

The research papers summarized on the map show the MWP was global.

Who's the climate change denier now, hmmmmmmm?

I'm not the one who said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

 

Then we can find common ground here because I agree. The question is what is the magnitude of the effect. There is still a large range of possibilities...frustratingly large.

 

No, they don't. Your map was made by people who lied about what the papers said.

Your confirmation bias is showing. You saw a propaganda piece that showed you what you wanted to see, so you BELIEVED without questioning it.

Remember, we are not like you. You fake everything. You have to, because all the data flatly contradicts you. You assume everyone else must be a fraud as well. Not the case. We can always back up what we say.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/
----
The most significant criticism is that Soon and Baliunas do not present their data quantitatively--instead they merely categorize the work of others primarily into one of two sets: either supporting or not supporting their particular definitions of a Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age. "I was stating outright that I'm not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results," Soon says.

Specifically, they define a "climatic anomaly" as a period of 50 or more years of wetness or dryness or sustained warmth (or, for the Little Ice Age, coolness). The problem is that under this broad definition a wet or dry spell would indicate a climatic anomaly even if the temperature remained perfectly constant. Soon and Baliunas are "mindful" that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age should be defined by temperature, but "we emphasize that great bias would result if those thermal anomalies were to be dissociated" from other climatic conditions. (Asked to define "wetness" and "dryness," Soon and Baliunas say only that they "referred to the standard usage in English.")

Moreover, their results were nonsynchronous: "Their analysis doesn't consider whether the warm/cold periods occurred at the same time," says Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Bracknell. For example, if a proxy record indicated that a drier condition existed in one part of the world from 800 to 850, it would be counted as equal evidence for a Medieval Warming Period as a different proxy record that showed wetter conditions in another part of the world from 1250 to 1300. Regional conditions do not necessarily mirror the global average, Stott notes: "Iceland and Greenland had their warmest periods in the 1930s, whereas the warmest for the globe was the 1990s."
---

Actually, you are. Even WUWT says that quote is a fake. You're one of the few paper on earth still pushing it. When you get hold of some fraud that you like, you don't let go.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12...-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

You need to examine why you were gullible enough to believe the fake story, and why you were just pushing a lie that had been debunked back in 2013. If what is say is that contrary to reality, why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

 

That claim is false. You make a lot of false claims.

False. You make a lot of false claims.

True. My views are reasoned, informed, and honest.

I have faked nothing. Readers are invited to confirm for themselves that your claim is objectively false.

That is another bald falsehood. You make a lot of false claims.

Another bald falsehood. You make a lot of false claims.

False. Watch:

SciAm is wholly in thrall to the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign. Your source is trash.

Nope. That is not a significant criticism. It is nothing but a methodological quibble designed to divert attention from the facts.

Irrelevant. That's not a problem because I did not mention climatic anomaly; I specifically talked ONLY about the WARMTH of the MWP. The map shows which data show wetness, which dryness, which coolness and which warmth. As the papers showing warmth outnumber the ones showing coolness by more than an order of magnitude in almost all latitudes, the MWP was global. QED. Nothing you have said, and nothing in the SciAm article, presents any challenge whatever to that fact. So you're just bloviating, faking a refutation that never occurred. As usual.

Because it's irrelevant. The MWP didn't have to occur everywhere at the same time to be real and global. In fact, it couldn't. There is too much random variation -- weather -- for it to be that way. Consider an analogous question: was the death rate higher in Europe during WW II? Well, in fact it wasn't higher everywhere in Europe or higher at the same time in all the places it was higher, but it was higher in various places at various times, so overall, statistically, it was higher. Like the temperature in the MWP.

GET IT???

No. Only the warming and cooling data show that the MWP was warmer and global. Anomaly is not the same as warmth. Why are you pretending it is?

Irrelevant. The massive preponderance of red balloons showing warmer conditions establish that the MWP was global. This "criticism" is therefore completely wrong-headed and disingenuous.

False. It's a paraphrase, not a fake, as YOUR OWN SOURCE states unequivocally:

"I thought it was worth spending some time setting the record straight on what the original quote actually was and point out that it has been paraphrased, but the meaning remains the same."

You make a lot of false claims.

Not a lie, and not debunked. You make a lot of false claims.

You're the one pretending that irrelevant quibbles are fatal refutations, son. Why do you feel you have to do that, hmmmmmmmm?

 

Yes, everyone is conspiring against you. But you're not a conspiracy theorist.

Your hero won't show the process by which he arrived at his peculiar results, and you're fine with that. After all, it agreed with your cult myths.

And your map fudged all that data about the warmth. And you're fine with that.

So, you're presenting the theory of the magical MWP that wanders the entire globe and occasionally sits down just about everywhere, but only for very very short times.

Our days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

Yep. You're mangling the data to match your political conspiracy theories. It's not fooling anyone, so you haz a sad. I suggest you get used to it.

A very dishonest paraphrase. And yet you kept trying to pass it off as a real quote.

And you're not at all sorry for that fraud. As usual, you're only sorry about getting busted for ignorance and dishonesty. I expect you'll repeat the fraud elsewhere, whenever you think you can get away with it.

 

I didn't say everyone, or even more than a relative handful of people, and I didn't say they were conspiring against me. So all you are doing is makin' $#!+ up again. Inevitably.

I'm pretty sure there are more conspiracies than we know about. And if you disagree, you are a fool.

How are the results "peculiar"? They just report what the source papers said.

Please explain how the warmth data were "fudged." So far, you have not provided any such explanations.

No, the observed one.

No, for varying amounts of time. That's what the data say. They probably show something close to a normal distribution of warmings and durations thereof.

You are the one makin' $#!+ up, son.

It looks pretty honest to me.

You're not at all sorry for defending the fraudsters who have been trying to get rid of the MWP.

Disgraceful.

 

No, I've mentioned it twice. If there's even one warm data point anywhere is a 500-year span, they mark it as "MWP positive", even if the rest of the data points were cold. Very dishonest. And it fools nobody, except the most hardcore cultists. That's why your "The MWP was global" kookery is globally laughed at.

 

What, that false and absurd garbage you spewed earlier? That's not evidence. It's just some nonsense you have fabricated out of whole cloth.

No, that's just baldly false. Where is your evidence for such an absurd and potentially actionable claim?

To make such outrageous accusations without any evidence -- which you have not provided to date and will not be providing -- certainly is.

It is known to be fact.

 

(From Carbonbrief.org)

https://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2019-is-joint-second-lowest-on-record

Arctic sea ice has reached its summer minimum extent for 2019, measuring in at 4.15m square kilometers (km2). This puts this year joint-second lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tied with 2007 and 2016.

The thirteen smallest summer lows for Arctic sea ice in the satellite record have all occurred in the last thirteen years.


What is particularly interesting this year is that “for part of the summer the ice was tracking below that in 2012”, says Prof Julienne Stroeve, professor of polar observation and modelling at University College London and senior research scientist at the NSIDC.

In fact, after the winter maximum in March – the seventh smallest on record – Arctic sea ice quickly began tracking at record low levels for the time of year.

Average Arctic sea ice for April and July set new low records for those months. “May and August in 2019 were the warmest on record for the Arctic,” Stroeve tells Carbon Brief.

And “yet we didn’t have a new record low”, she says. “This shows that extreme events – such as the 2012 cyclone – are important to whether or not a new record low is achieved,” she adds, referring to a storm that contributed to a “rapid pace of ice loss” in the summer of 2012. (Research has since suggested that 2012 would have been a record low even without the cyclone.)


Arctic sea ice extent on 18 September 2019 (white shading). The orange line shows the 1981-2010 average extent for that day. Credit: NSIDC






Animation shows daily Arctic sea ice extents for 2019 (red), 2018 (yellow), 2012 (white) and 2007 (brown), 2012. The decadal averages are also included for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Plot shows data up and including 23/09/2019. Credit: Zack Labe

 

Post #51.

Of course you ignored it. It debunks one of your cult myths. That means you're required to ignore it.

And your "actionable" threat is laughable, like everything else you post. You're getting steadily sleazier as more and more of your cult myths bite the dust.

 

Post #51 did not provide any evidence for your claim. Not even remotely close to it.

I stated that it did not support your claim, which it does not.

It does nothing of the sort. It's just some butt-hurt quibbles from the anti-CO2 hysteria gang which offer no support whatever for your absurd and outrageous claims about the Soon-Baliunas paper.

I didn't ignore it. I identified the fact that it offers not the slightest support for your absurd and outrageous claims.

You made a baldly false claim about their research, an outright fabrication with zero (0) basis in fact. If there was any danger that anyone could take it seriously, it would certainly be actionable.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

That paper is regarded as a joke.Some of the authors of all those papers have said S-B misrepresented their findings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

And you're also a joke, given your "Medieval wandering around the world tiny warm spot" theory.

Yet they've taken no legal action again all the very respectable people who said exactly the same things I did, meaning that your "actionable" conspiracy theory also does a faceplant.

Here's a thought. Why don't you dig up the individual papers, cite the data from each of them, and demonstrate yourself that the MWP was global? If they really do back you up, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

You mean like the authors of papers counted in the "97% consensus" did....?

That's another fabrication on your part.

Nope. The fact that they haven't taken action just means that unlike Michael Mann, they don't have a deep-pocketed, shadowy patron to pay their legal bills for them.

Don't be ridiculous. I have a life. So far, I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that the import of the papers was misrepresented.