Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year

According to their climate models the arctic should already be ice free. Their models were wrong.

 

Prove it

 

Al Gore has proven it - many times.

 

I note your complete lack of any support for that claim. That would be because it's a fictional claim.

If you disagree, point to the models that made such a prediction.

And no, pointing to a cherrypicked remark from one scientist, who everyone disagreed with, is not a model, so don't try that standard denier deception. You need to show it in the IPCC reports, which summarized the consensus science.

 

As we've discussed before, that's completely wrong. Half a doubling has already caused 1C warming. 2C is the current transient climate sensitivity, and the full sensitivity is much bigger than the transient. 3C is looking a little low.

Again, no. Most economists say 3C is going to ream us. Tol is the only one saying otherwise. You're cherrypicking economists.

 

Heres even a more recent one.

But is that broad prediction too complacent? This week, the Guardian claimed scientists working for the US Navy believe summer sea ice could disappear as soon as 2016, based on the results of a sophisticated new computer model.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/could-arctic-summers-be-sea-ice-free-in-three-years-time

 

And as I've pointed out before the IPCC in AR5 acknowledges that the climate sensitivity based on observation is ~ 1.5 deg C. There has been plenty of time for this "positive feedback" to occur and there is no sign of it. Indications are that water vapor increases in the atmosphere have a negative feedback effect.

Tol summarizes all the economic analyses (~ 20 papers) which consider both benefits and costs of global warming.

 

There has been plenty of time for this "positive feedback" to occur and there is no sign of it. [/QUOTE]

Again, the transient sensitivity, right now, is 2C, and the total sensitivity has to be significantly bigger. The real world data says you're completely wrong with your claim of 1C.

And the only summarized studies that showed a benefit for warming beyond 2.0C were by ... Tol himself.

 

Your link then criticizes The Guardian for making that false claim.

You left that part out, that the claim you just repeated was false.

 

I haven't read his book. However, from a 2009 paper by Tol one can conclude that he isn't as certain of his estimates as you would have us believe.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/Tol_impacts_JEP_2009.pdf
(my emphases)

From his conclusion...

In any case, his arguments only go to net economic effects.

 

Did you read the article? That 2016 claim is coming from Maslowski's original study and not from the newer more sophisticated computer model. This is the same scientist who Al Gore misstated and who is known for having unrealistically low estimates for the first ice free Arctic which do not agree with the rest of the consensus anyway. As I've said before don't expect an ice free Arctic until 2050+/-20 (so 2030 at the earliest) as that is consensus and has been the consensus for quite some time now.

 

I wasn't aware that he has written a book on the subject. It is Climate Economics - just ordered.

The studies are not exclusively his. Plus he is assuming a 3 deg C climate sensitivity from the model consensus. Real world data shows a climate sensitivity of ~ 1 deg C. And yes his analysis using others work is based on net economic effects which is what every policy decision should be based on.

Carbon taxes are the worst method for attempting to limit fossil fuel use. A tax which would actually significantly limit use would be politically impossible to implement.

 

Again, the transient sensitivity, right now, is 2C, and the total sensitivity has to be significantly bigger. The real world data says you're completely wrong with your claim of 1C.



And the only summarized studies that showed a benefit for warming beyond 2.0C were by ... Tol himself.[/QUOTE]

Then why did the IPCC lower the climate sensitivity to 1.5 deg C. And why is there an assumption of a positive feedback ??

 

When will the good cruise ship weather start in the Arctic?

Imagine, ships might actually get from East to West or vice versa if this happens.

I read that some guys in Norway are whining it is too warm. Funny but today I checked their temperatures and found that today it is -10 (ten below zero), tomorrow it will be -13 and Wednesday a balmy -17 below zero. This is south of the colder north pole ice areas. Svalbard Norway just in case you want to check me out.

 

Well I guess this proves there's no climate change. I would say arctic ice melt is an indicator of climate change. Everyday weather, hot or cold, is not. Long term weather trends are relative. But it's pretty typical of the climate change denier's argument.

 

Why do scientists claim that in Australia, for instance , there are many climates? Do you deny that?

How many climates do you teach there are in North America?

 

No, I don't know. Please enlighten me with your omniscient wisdom.

 

What about Antarctic ice melt ??

 

I am afraid you cannot be enlightened. Was it you who claimed that the 2nd law was “a simplistic view”? That science was obligated to follow consensus?

I will give it a shot.

What Robert refers to is the term climate. The term was introduced, I believe, in 1884 (?). It was introduced in the subject called geography. If you went to a school which had its main task education but not indoctrination, you could learn it when you were 14.

This term was introduced to serve certain practical purposes, including travel, navigation, agriculture, industrial development and many others, and later Robert learned it as a part of pilot training, - not like in your school where terms were used and interchanged with no other purpose but to instill certain beliefs, ideology.

Here you can learn what is climate, and how many climates are in the USA:

http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pics/KG_USA.jpg

As you can see none of the climates showed any signs of change when the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community gathered the International Panel on Climate Change .

Obviously, Global climate or International Climate are totally idiotic, illiterate terms serving only the purpose of indoctrination of masses in your ideology, when no enlightenment is allowed.

As you can see no climate has shown any signs of change since the first Panel.

Are you enlightened?

 

Couldn't agree more. The lever is the fallacy of a global temperature. As if. As if the fact that today, it's .01F warmer has any direct impact anywhere. And that's the crux of the scam. And it is a scam. The scam just wants folks to feel better about transferring their hard earned wealth to those who don't enjoy their own. Ask why the UN is so wedded to climate change. It isn't because it's harmful, it's because it guarantees trillions of dollars of wealth transfer that all of those greedy self serving politicians are banking on getting their personal piece of while they are 'approving' all of those new developments, energy blooms, etc.

 

One does not have to be a scientist to see that.

I don’t know how to tell you another thing.... The average T is as idiotic as the Global climate is. I just don’t know how to make it simple. Look at the Moon, - does the average T make any sense? The same is with the Earth. Global scientists are not informed that the Earth is spinning. They never heard about Galileo. He Earth can be warming up only during the day. The Earth is only cooling during the night. It radiates heat to the surroundings and the surroundings is the absolutely black body infinite in size at absolute zero T. If not to take in the consideration animate matter, all heat received during the day will be radiated out during the night. The same like with the Moon, with Venus, lwith Mercury or any other planet. There is nothing in the Climate science which is not idiotic.

 

That's a dangerously nonsensical position.
What are the net economic effects of trying to reduce incidents of genocide?
What are the net economic effects of trying to reduce starvation?
What are the net economic effects of trying to eliminate cancer?

 

Genocide, starvation, and cancer benefit no one.

 

So, you believe the concept of an "average" is a fallacy. Interesting.

Are you consistent in your belief that the concept of an average is a fallacy? For example, do you believe batting averages in baseball are a fallacy, and have no relation to how good a player is at hitting? Or do you only selectively hate the concept of averages for this one special case of average global temperature?

I understand why deniers depend on such bizarre conspiracy theories. It's not like deniers can argue science, logic, or morality, so they have to deflect from reality somehow. Their political cult has told them to parrot a certain conspiracy theory, and deniers are good parrots.

Occam's Razor (something most deniers will be unfamiliar with, as it has to do with science and logic), states that the simplest theory that correctly explains the observed data is most likely to be correct.

Which theory is simpler?

A. You screwed up.

B. Millions of people are pushing a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

 

Didn't say that. An average isn't itself a fallacy, but using the average to describe to entire global set of climate differences is. I know, nuance is tough...

An average doesn't point to future potential, or performance. It is an empirical average of past performance. Obviously, you don't do well in casinos. But, like a casino owner, I would invite you to play often.

We do argue the science. We do it all the time. We point out methodological error, we point to reproduction errors, we talk about poor assumptions in conclusions based on data, we talk about the poor quality of the data, and we talk about the purposeful manipulation of data to create outcomes. What folks like you aren't ever concerned with is the veracity of the "science" you purport to support. Which, frankly is laughable.

I'd say the simplest explanation is immaturity. Coinciding with an unmet emotional need to believe by those who push the agenda. So, perhaps the simple, elegant solution is that change occurs naturally. Unmet emotional desire suggests or infers associable causality driven by personal guilt. We see it all the time. The story is repetitive. "it didn't rain because god is punishing us".

This seem remarkably similar to AGW.