Declining Arctic Sea Ice

And you haven't looked at those sources. You have no idea if your propaganda piece was honest about them, and you don't care. That propaganda piece is your Bible. You BELIEVE.

Oh, AR5. Many thousands of sources. By your standards, you have to look at them all, or we win.

What's that? Your standard here is a flagrant double standard? Everyone has to accept your sources as gospel, but you don't have to accept anyone else's sources? Imagine that.

You haven't looked at those sources either, so why should we?

Is it too much to ask that you discuss the actual science instead of power-whining?

That's regarded as a classic of junk science by paid fossil fuel shills. Who were astrophysicists, not climate scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
---
Other scientists also criticized the study's methods and argued that the authors had misrepresented or misinterpreted their data. Some of those whose work was referenced by Soon and Baliunas were particularly critical. Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography commented that "the fact that [the paper] has received any attention at all is a result, again in my view, of its utility to those groups who want the global warming issue to just go away". Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, whose work on dendrochronology was discussed in the paper, said the paper was "so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all." Peter Stott, a climatologist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said "Their analysis doesn't consider whether the warm/cold periods occurred at the same time". The paper would count warm or wet conditions in one region from 800 to 850 and dry conditions in a separate region from 1200 to 1250 as both demonstrating the Medieval Warm period. He noted that regional periods of warmth or cooling do not always occur at the same time as the global average warms or cools.

...

The memorandum developed into a more general position paper jointly authored by 13 climate scientists, which was published on 8 July 2003 in the journal Eos as an article "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth". Most of the paper's authors had been cited in the Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper (SB03).[28] The Eos paper made three key points: the SB03 and Soon et al. papers had misused precipitation and drought proxies without assessing their sensitivity to temperature, they had taken regional temperature changes as global changes without any attempt to show that they had occurred at the same time across the world, and they had taken as their base period for comparison mean temperatures over the whole of the 20th century, reconstructing past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends, thus failing to show whether or not late 20th century warming was anomalous. The IPCC TAR had concluded that late 20th century northern hemisphere warmth was likely to have exceeded warmth of any time in the past 1,000 years on the basis of studies that compared temperatures for recent decades with reconstructions of earlier periods while allowing for uncertainties in the reconstructions. Soon, Baliunas and Legates published a response to this paper in the same journal.
---

 

There you go again. Nothing but personal attacks and insults and claims that all the research is paid for by the fossil fuel industry ?? All you have is Wikipedia ??? Who wrote the Wikipedia piece ???

 

Missed the long refutation of your crap, did you? After all, everyone else saw it, so now you look particularly craven and dishonest. Everyone gets it. You parrot cult propaganda. It gets debunked. You cry and run. Nothing ever changes.

Maybe you could have looked at all the sources.

Oh, that's right. You declare that only your own propaganda sources are sacred scripture, while everything else is heresy against the cult. That's typical of a religious zealot.

 

You refuted and debunked nothing.

And again you have nothing but personal attacks and insults.

 

I gave you a source.

By your rules, that settles it. I win. Case closed. Sucks for you that it's so trivial to beat you with you own rules. There are always a hundred good studies to refute whatever propaganda you peddle, so the rational side will always have more sources.

How's that "whining instead of debate" tactic working out for you? Has it gained any new converts to your religion?

 

You gave us Wikipedia. Who wrote the article ???

I gave you four books and I have ~ 30 more that I’ve read if you are interested.

 

Instead of doing your usual conspiracy mudslinging, why not read the article and tell us what you found to be inaccurate?

Oh, that's right. You don't do discussion. You just post propaganda links and run.

And I've got AR5, with thousands of references. Are you interested? If you won't read it and look at every source, then you can't expect anyone to do the same for you.

 

Having a hard time seeing it

 

Books vs Wikipedia ???

AR5 is a political document.

 

Some scientist have determined the artici ice is increasing not decreasing. Who is right? I don't know and neither do you because we didn't participate in any of these studies. We believe whAt we belueve.

 

Yes. I know about Lamb's work. He didn't say or even think that the MWP was a global phenomenon. In fact, he says the opposite. And his temperature profile is based largely on European datasets and the focus of his MWP claim is for the Atlantic side of the NH only where there is land. He even thinks other parts of the world cooled during the MWP. Regardless, his research was not a global scale temperature reconstruction like what we have today.

Easterbrook relies heavily on Richard Alley's ice core data from Greenland. Not only is this far from being a global proxy, but the ice core data from Greenland is not consistent with the hypothesis that the MWP was warmer than today anyway even for just Greenland. Remember, Alley's ice core data ends in 1850. So when you add in the last 170 years of warming you'll see that today is warmer than the MWP and that the rate of warming is unprecedented during the holocene...at least according to Alley's data.

Yeah...the infamous Soon and Baliunas paper. Not only was there no original research presented in the paper, but many of the authors cited in it came forward and said their work had been taken out of context or even misrepresented. This debacle resulted in several resignations from the journal editors. Soon and Baliunas, along with Easterbrook, are proponents that the Sun, and only the Sun, is responsible for global temperature trends. Except...the total solar irradiation has been steady and even declining since 1960 and the Earth continues to warm. Nevermind that the Earth has experience a secular decline in global temperatures over the last 500 million years even though solar output has increased by 5%.

 

As expected ^^^

 

Ahem. Unlike you, I have actually been in a position where people did offer me money to lie, and I turned them down at significant cost to my livelihood.

How true: my opinions are reasoned, informed, and honest.

Nope. They are faking data, and you would not even consider questioning their fraud because it would mean giving up your false beliefs.

"Conservative"??? You haven't read very many of my posts, that's obvious.

Their data sets are the default.

The other nations don't have the wherewithal to aggregate global data sets.

I've shown data being faked many times. Here's one expose:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/61-of-noaa-ushcn-adjusted-temperature-data-is-now-fake/

I'm living in the same reality as everyone else, I'm just perceiving it more accurately. It's not hot. The ocean is not inundating the land. Arctic sea ice has not disappeared. The last three winters in the USA have been the coldest on record, and that is certainly true where I live. That is reality.

No, it was not. That is just a bald falsehood on your part. It was only the second lowest since 1979.

Nope. It is the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria hypothesis that goes boom, because the claimed down-trend has been decisively broken, showing it is a cyclical variation, not an effect of rising CO2.

That's hilarious, coming from a fanboy of the fools whose predictions are more reliably false than those of government economists.

It indisputably does show what I claim.

But the trend for the 25-year period from 1968 to 1993 is clearly up, which is exactly what I said.

What makes you think readers are not going to notice you dishonestly moving the goalposts?

I invite all readers to examine the following graph, and confirm for themselves that the trend for the 25 years from 1968 to 1993 was UP, not DOWN, exactly as I stated:

You are falsely claiming that I said the trend for the whole graph was down. The whole point of citing this graph was to show that there was a cyclical up-trend for 25 years BEFORE the down-trend, EVEN AS CO2 WAS INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY.

Disgraceful. I invite all readers to confirm that my statement was objectively correct: the graph shows a 25-year up-trend from 1968 to 1993

That's rich, coming from a fanboy of the lying sacks of $#!+ who wrote the Climategate emails.

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

 

Yes, of course it has.

Don't be absurd. I don't need to make things up because I'm not a hysterical anti-CO2 dittohead.

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

Here's a map showing the results of more than 1200 research papers on the MWP:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...-3.81666561775622e-14,-116.64931299999989&z=1

Though less pronounced in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere for reasons already explained, the MWP was indisputably global. There's lots more, of course:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

https://climatism.blog/2018/12/03/p...riod-was-indeed-global-and-warmer-than-today/

https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/0...riod-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

https://www.academia.edu/36194017

Although the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign has explicitly stated that one of its most important goals is to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, it has not been able to do so.

I just did. Why do you do this to yourself?

My sources cite numerous peer-reviewed research papers.

 

Source ?? And why does the estimate stop at 2010 ??

What's the total volume of arctic sea ice in km**3 ??

 

Why are you disingenuously trying to pretend that any data set other than the unattainably good one you described is not even data at all?

 

Because the CO2-controls-temperature hypothesis makes no physical sense. Also, there is ample evidence of cyclical variations in Arctic sea ice, including the isolation of Iceland by sea ice during the LIA, which killed a large fraction of the population.

Double atmospheric CO2, and see if any of the hysterical prophecies of the anti-fossil fuel propaganda crowd come true.

How could that even be relevant, let alone falsify the hypothesis? I have a better test: direct a 15um flux at 16 different samples of atmospheric air with 5000, 10000, 20000 and 40000 ppm water vapor and 50, 100, 200 and 400 ppm CO2, and see how much difference the CO2 concentration makes to the IR absorption rate, relative to the difference the water vapor makes.

<yawn> One can't show that a dog with no tail has the same reproductive success as a dog with a tail: if they did, dogs would not have evolved tails. But that doesn't mean the tail wags the dog.

GET IT????

 

If you look for charts. You will find all sorts of data ranges. I understood my posting to be responsive to a claim about ice in the thirties. If you are unable to find information about the last twenty years and are interested. I can find that for you

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/1...-antarctic-stations-show-cooling-not-warming/

 

Truthfully i am trying to make some sense of your link

That said....
For a moment let us consider sea levels.... for which it is much easier to get an agreed measure

Hopefully you will not argue whether sea levels are rising?
I am curious to know how that is happening without ice melting?

 

The link shows arctic sea ice increasing. Sea level has been rising at a rate of ~ 1 foot per century for many decades.

 

Let me get this straight...you know that the MWP was global because the "CO2-controls-temperature hypothesis makes no physical sense" to you?

And that experiment has been repeated on a global scale multiple times already. It happened during the PETM, other ETMx events, etc. We've also had halving events like what has occurred over the last several hundred million years. And we've had everything in between. And today we've had 1.3x increase during a period in which all non-GHG climate forcing agents are producing a significant negative radiative forcing. This has created a 0.6 W/m^2 (or more) energy imbalance on the planet which is right in line with theoretical predictions.

Because if CO2 allows 100% IR radiation to pass through unimpeded then it can't be a GHG. If it doesn't allow 100% IR radiation to pass through then it has to be a GHG.

Already done. Tyndall began these gas tube experiments in the mid 1800's using thermopiles to measure the radiation flux. He experimented with many different gas species including CO2 and H2O and in various concentrations. Angstrom continued these experiments in the early 1900's. Today we use infrared spectroscopy in the laboratory and radiometers onboard satellites to get real-world measurements. In fact, the whole process of measuring water vapor in the atmosphere via satellites (for meteorological and other purposes) is entirely reliant upon the greenhouse gas effect. And the ABI onboard GOES-R satellites even has a CO2 channel that is exploited to assist with temperature other products the satellite produces.

So you can't identify a set of naturally modulated physical process you but you know, in your heart and without evidence, that CO2 simply cannot be a factor?

And you make this assertion even given the 150+ years of thermopile and spectroscopy experiments, observations, and theoretically understanding in a broad swath of scientific disciplines that definitely prove without a shadow of a doubt that CO2 does impede the flow of IR radiation and returns back to the source?

 

That deflection and a strawman. It's deflection because you are trying to avoid the question. It's a strawman because I don't think regional scale datasets are inferior in anyway and I don't want other people to think that. In fact, it is the aggregation of regional scale datasets by which we can construct global scale datasets. What I have a problem with is pretending that a single regional scale dataset is equivalent to a global scale dataset.

And besides we do have good global scale temperature reconstructions. I suspect this has more to do with you not liking what they say. Your method of science is to make the observations fit the theory you have already decided is true. You do this by cherry-picking observations and datasets that fit your theory and ignore observations and datasets that conflict with it. The rest of us use a method in which we fit the theory to match the observations...ALL observations. That way we necessarily tend towards a theory that best matches reality.

 

This isn't fake news or a SNL skit, it really happened.

And it's so funny.

Climate change warriors ship gets stuck in the Arctic ice.

 

Good global data sets do not exist.