Arctic Ice Discussion. 2013 Melt Season

[Cheshire Freeze]

Well I'm just playing devil's advocate really with my last post. I'm not dismissing an ice free Arctic in the future but I'm certainly not dismissing a recovery either as BFTV seems to do. To me, CO2 is far too simple and explanation. As we know, climatic drivers are rarely that black and white.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I wouldn't know as I rarely read them or any of the propaganda sites on either side, I was merely stating the obvious as there would be no need for obscene amounts of money to continue being wasted.

 

The Antarctic is only melting around the edges and even then it's nothing  unusual.

 

Obscene amounts of money, being wasted on better understanding our world and how the climate will change, in order to plan a better future for humanity... right.

I've shown time and time again that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole, and the melt is accelerating, and it's unusual as we're supposed to be cooling toward the next glacial period, as we had been during the last 8 thousand years or so!

 

 

Do you actually know this?   On the basis that the upward tick in temperatures that was predicted with such high confidence in line with AGW theory has not materialised over the last 10 years or so, then it is surely unwise to make absolute predictions about sea ice amounts/concentrations and patterns for double that future period!!

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that it is far too early to call any meaningful recovery, and also most would agree that year to year fluctuations are almost certain. However, on the basis that (at the very least) AGW effects could well have been overstated, at the same time that natural cyclical (and most especially solar) drivers could well have been understated, we should all be avoiding making cast iron decadal and most especially multi decadal predictions about sea ice, global temperatures or anything else related for that matter

 

About as well as we know the Earth will continue to orbit the sun.

CO2 is currently driving our climate, short term ups and downs are due to natural variability and say little about the trend. The physical reality is, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and pumping ever more of it into the atmosphere will cause warming.

 

Of course natural drivers and their cycles/oscillations influence climate, but it's down to which is exerting the greatest forcing. As it is, the lowest solar activity in over 100 years appears to be having little impact. If someone can demonstrate, that natural drivers have been so severely understated to the point that we could see 1800s temperatures in 20 years, I love to see it

 

 

Well I'm just playing devil's advocate really with my last post. I'm not dismissing an ice free Arctic in the future but I'm certainly not dismissing a recovery either as BFTV seems to do. To me, CO2 is far too simple and explanation. As we know, climatic drivers are rarely that black and white.

 

Indeed CC, the climate is complicated. Ocean warming, wind patterns, particulate pollution and what not will influence the sea ice too. 

[Tamara]

Obscene amounts of money, being wasted on better understanding our world and how the climate will change, in order to plan a better future for humanity... right.

I've shown time and time again that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole, and the melt is accelerating, and it's unusual as we're supposed to be cooling toward the next glacial period, as we had been during the last 8 thousand years or so!

 

 

 

About as well as we know the Earth will continue to orbit the sun.

CO2 is currently driving our climate, short term ups and downs are due to natural variability and say little about the trend. The physical reality is, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and pumping ever more of it into the atmosphere will cause warming.

 

Of course natural drivers and their cycles/oscillations influence climate, but it's down to which is exerting the greatest forcing. As it is, the lowest solar activity in over 100 years appears to be having little impact. If someone can demonstrate, that natural drivers have been so severely understated to the point that we could see 1800s temperatures in 20 years, I love to see it

 

 

 

Indeed CC, the climate is complicated. Ocean warming, wind patterns, particulate pollution and what not will influence the sea ice too. 

The amount of warming and its longevity as determined by CO2 on its own, without presence of positive amplification feedbacks that exceed natural cyclical mitigation, is not sustainable on its own - as climate history has shown us in the past. It is the presence of such assumed artificially created positive feedbacks that determines this, and also to what extent, if they are present in whatever greater or lesser capacity, they are mitigated or even (possibly) overidden by natural and most especially solar feedbacks. Such (negative) feedbacks provide a great test in the decades to come.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tamara Road

[Methuselah]

But what's the difference from political motivated organisations such as Greenpeace and the WWF being involved in policy making by the IPCC, surely that is of far greater concern to the tax payers  of the world.

 

If tax-payers' money wasn't being spent on gathering real data (Arctic ice among other things) we'd be entirely at the mercy of money-driven 'private' propaganda machines?

[UV-RAY]

Obscene amounts of money, being wasted on better understanding our world and how the climate will change, in order to plan a better future for humanity... right.

I've shown time and time again that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole, and the melt is accelerating, and it's unusual as we're supposed to be cooling toward the next glacial period, as we had been during the last 8 thousand years or so!

 

 

 

About as well as we know the Earth will continue to orbit the sun.

CO2 is currently driving our climate, short term ups and downs are due to natural variability and say little about the trend. The physical reality is, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and pumping ever more of it into the atmosphere will cause warming.

 

Of course natural drivers and their cycles/oscillations influence climate, but it's down to which is exerting the greatest forcing. As it is, the lowest solar activity in over 100 years appears to be having little impact. If someone can demonstrate, that natural drivers have been so severely understated to the point that we could see 1800s temperatures in 20 years, I love to see it

 

 

 

Indeed CC, the climate is complicated. Ocean warming, wind patterns, particulate pollution and what not will influence the sea ice too. 

Bur far too much as been spent looking into one area of climate science whilst barely acknowledging other natural climate drivers up until very recently. We are all are of the physical properties of CO2 what we aren't aware of is the other feedbacks and what cancels what out if at all. 

 

Also something is different this year, with very low minima's being recored over the high arctic unlike anything we've seen recently. It may well be a blip and the "new" normal melt season resumes next year, but what if BFTV it doesn't?

If tax-payers' money wasn't being spent on gathering real data (Arctic ice among other things) we'd be entirely at the mercy of money-driven 'private' propaganda machines?

 

 

If tax-payers' money wasn't being spent on gathering real data (Arctic ice among other things) we'd be entirely at the mercy of money-driven 'private' propaganda machines?

Bu that shouldn't excuse the other Pete, political activist should have no place in science, should they?

[BornFromTheVoid]

The amount of warming and its longevity as determined by CO2 alone without amplification feedbacks is not sustainable on its own - as climate history has shown us in the past. It is the presence of assumed positive feedbacks that determines this, and also to what extent, if they are present in whatever greater or lesser capacity, they are mitigated or even (possibly) overidden by natural and most especially solar feedbacks. Such (negative) feedbacks provide a great test in the decades to come.

 

If we continue to put CO2 into the atmosphere, it will keep warming, about 1.2C or so for each doubling of CO2, from the CO2 alone.

But there will, inevitably, be feedbacks.

You cannot increase the air temperature without making it capable of holding more water vapour, which itself, is a greenhouse gas.

You cannot warm the air without melting of high albedo ice and snow, which causes additional warming.

You cannot warm the air without thawing of permafrost, which releases more CO2 and CH4, producing more warming.

And so on.

 

These +ve feedbacks are already occurring and will continue to occur.

 

Where the main uncertainty remains is with cloud cover, but so far, there isn't much evidence to suggest that the feedback will be -ve, and there is slightly more evidence to suggest it will be positive. There is enough uncertainty, mainly with clouds, to warrant the IPCC prediction of the 2 to 4.5C range for climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2.

 

Most studies that predicted a rapid fall in temperature with decreased solar activity have either horribly failed, or are on the verge of failing. Many studies suggest that a grand minimum over the next century, would only slightly offset the human induced warming, but I guess we'll have to wait and see!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Bur far too much as been spent looking into one area of climate science whilst barely acknowledging other natural climate drivers up until very recently. We are all are of the physical properties of CO2 what we aren't aware of is the other feedbacks and what cancels what out if at all. 

 

Also something is different this year, with very low minima's being recored over the high arctic unlike anything we've seen recently. It may well be a blip and the "new" normal melt season resumes next year, but what if BFTV it doesn't?

 

I'm afraid it's the same organisations and scientists working out the natural drivers that are looking at the human influence too. There is no separation there.

 

The minima has not been reached yet, and it's still very much in line with recent years!

[Stu_London]

A recovery over the next 20 years would require some explanations, but it's not going to happen. Just like the earth isn't going to go back to the 1800s temperatures in the next 20 years.

 

 

 

You are probably correct, but a respected poster on these forums once said that a sub 3C CET month wasn't achievable in his lifetime. Shortly afterwards we had 3 such months in the same year and another one in springtime since then. Or course, he may have been correct, he stopped posting before the first sub 3C month, so it's possible he died and didn't see a sub 3C month after all. More likely he was embarrassed and didn't want to eat large helpings of humble pie.

 

Although there is no definitive scientific link between solar minimums and lower temperatures, there is enough circumstantial and anecdotal evidence for me to buy into that the notion that deep solar minimums do effect temperatures (certainly in N Europe) even if the reasons for this are not fully understood.

 

I believe the trend of the last few winters could be a precursor, although just as compelling are the relatively early starts and late finishes to winter we have seen as well as the current short hot summer we are enjoying - which are all arguably features of Solar Minimum driven weather for our part of the world 

[UV-RAY]

I'm afraid it's the same organisations and scientists working out the natural drivers that are looking at the human influence too. There is no separation there.

 

The minima has not been reached yet, and it's still very much in line with recent years!

Sorry should have made myself clearer as I was referring to the low temps which have been recorded, as for those same scientists they are also the same scientist that dismissed natural drivers having any effect on rising global temps only a decade ago. The simple truth is no one knows what the future holds, we can but only assume one way or the other.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

You are probably correct, but a respected poster on these forums once said that a sub 3C CET month wasn't achievable in his lifetime. Shortly afterwards we had 3 such months in the same year and another one in springtime since then. Or course, he may have been correct, he stopped posting before the first sub 3C month, so it's possible he died and didn't see a sub 3C month after all. More likely he was embarrassed and didn't want to eat large helpings of humble pie.

 

Although there is no definitive scientific link between solar minimums and lower temperatures, there is enough circumstantial and anecdotal evidence for me to buy into that the notion that deep solar minimums do effect temperatures (certainly in N Europe) even if the reasons for this are not fully understood.

 

I believe the trend of the last few winters could be a precursor, although just as compelling are the relatively early starts and late finishes to winter we have seen as well as the current short hot summer we are enjoying - which are all arguably features of Solar Minimum driven weather for our part of the world 

 

I would have disagreed with that respected poster! Claiming that regional cooling cannot occur in a warming world is misguided.

 

I agree that solar activity can strongly influence regional weather pattern, and is likely contributing to the strange jet stream of the last few years and our bouts of cold weather. However, increased cold in Europe in usually associated with strong warming of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and often Greenland.

 

I think we could see several years of growing Arctic sea ice, depending on the weather conditions. Just like we could see several years with a downward trend in global temperatures, due to natural variability. But the long term trend, from what I've seen, show's little sign of reversing any time soon.

 

I hope I'll still be around in 20 years, I don't plan on disappearing like Stratos Ferric(I think that was his name?). Maybe we'll have the Arctic sea ice reminiscence thread then

 

 

Sorry should have made myself clearer as I was referring to the low temps which have been recorded, as for those same scientists they are also the same scientist that dismissed natural drivers having any effect on rising global temps only a decade ago. The simple truth is no one knows what the future holds, we can but only assume one way or the other.

 

I don't think any scientists have dismissed the notion that natural drivers can cause warming SI.

 

But it is true, we don't know what the future will hold. Whether the sun will rise tomorrow, whether gravity will disappear, or whether the Earth will freeze over next weekend. But, thankfully, science and experience has enabled us to have a pretty good idea!

[knocker]

Forecast midday chart

Edited August 8, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

I would have disagreed with that respected poster! Claiming that regional cooling cannot occur in a warming world is misguided.

 

I agree that solar activity can strongly influence regional weather pattern, and is likely contributing to the strange jet stream of the last few years and our bouts of cold weather. However, increased cold in Europe in usually associated with strong warming of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and often Greenland.

 

I think we could see several years of growing Arctic sea ice, depending on the weather conditions. Just like we could see several years with a downward trend in global temperatures, due to natural variability. But the long term trend, from what I've seen, show's little sign of reversing any time soon.

 

I hope I'll still be around in 20 years, I don't plan on disappearing like Stratos Ferric(I think that was his name?). Maybe we'll have the Arctic sea ice reminiscence thread then

 

 

 

I don't think any scientists have dismissed the notion that natural drivers can cause warming SI.

 

But it is true, we don't know what the future will hold. Whether the sun will rise tomorrow, whether gravity will disappear, or whether the Earth will freeze over next weekend. But, thankfully, science and experience has enabled us to have a pretty good idea!

I was stating that they felt that rising CO2 induced temps would carry on unabated and yet they haven't, due to those natural drivers.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I was stating that they felt that rising CO2 induced temps would carry on unabated and yet they haven't, due to those natural drivers.

 

I'd disagree there too.

Some may have claimed that the long term trend would show continued warming, and that those natural drivers would not be enough to overcome the CO2 induced warming (cause a long term cooling). So far, they have not been proved wrong.

The long term trend is still upward.

[4wd]

 political activist should have no place in science, should they?

"activist dogma is the absolute antithesis of the scientific method"

[UV-RAY]

I'd disagree there too.

Some may have claimed that the long term trend would show continued warming, and that those natural drivers would not be enough to overcome the CO2 induced warming (cause a long term cooling). So far, they have not been proved wrong.

The long term trend is still upward.

The projected long term trend BFTV, but that projection has already failed due to the last 16 years of no warming. I would much rather play a game of wait and see over the next 5 years and if  by then if we still haven't seen any further increase in temp or even a decline then we are in a all new game.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

The projected long term trend BFTV, but that projection has already failed due to the last 16 years of no warming. I would much rather play a game of wait and see over the next 5 years and if  by then if we still haven't seen any further increase in temp or even a decline then we are in a all new game.

 

The last 16 years is not a climatological time span, and does not represent the long term trend (although warming has continued in the last 16 years, just not at a statistically significant level).

Climate is based on a minimum of 30 years, and every temperature data set that I'm aware of shows a strong upward trend over the last 30 years.

 

After another 5 years, if we see a few warm years, perhaps the game will start again with "no warming since 2010" or some such?

If we see the 30 year trend turn downward, then there will be some serious questions about the projections based on the AGW theory.

[VillagePlank]

Not forgetting, of course, that the Earth appears to have a maximum temperature,

 

 

.. and then it's into a deep ice-age, and lots of people will die as (very) rapid cooling occurs. Looks to me as if it's somewhere between 2C and 3C; so, potentially, we're over half way there. Now that's a good reason to keep temp anomalies below +2C !

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

The last 16 years is not a climatological time span, and does not represent the long term trend (although warming has continued in the last 16 years, just not at a statistically significant level).

Climate is based on a minimum of 30 years, and every temperature data set that I'm aware of shows a strong upward trend over the last 30 years.

 

After another 5 years, if we see a few warm years, perhaps the game will start again with "no warming since 2010" or some such?

If we see the 30 year trend turn downward, then there will be some serious questions about the projections based on the AGW theory.

 

 

The last 16 years is not a climatological time span, and does not represent the long term trend (although warming has continued in the last 16 years, just not at a statistically significant level).

Climate is based on a minimum of 30 years, and every temperature data set that I'm aware of shows a strong upward trend over the last 30 years.

 

After another 5 years, if we see a few warm years, perhaps the game will start again with "no warming since 2010" or some such?

If we see the 30 year trend turn downward, then there will be some serious questions about the projections based on the AGW theory.

But those 16 years are the the same ones you disagreed with a few days ago. What I find amusing is the magical 30 year mark as if any other data is irrelevant until that mark is hit. So if in another 14 years and there continues to be no more warming will we have a consensus that the projected rises in  temp are way out then? Or will we then move the goalposts a little further.

 

Edit; Just re-read your posts and that's what your implying anyway so ignore the question on what if. 

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not forgetting, of course, that the Earth appears to have a maximum temperature,

 

tempplot5.gif

 

.. and then it's into a deep ice-age, and lots of people will die as (very) rapid cooling occurs. Looks to me as if it's somewhere between 2C and 3C; so, potentially, we're over half way there. Now that's a good reason to keep temp anomalies below +2C !

 

Over the last 900,000 years, when CO2 levels were kept below 300ppm and the Milankovitch cycles controlled the climate.

 

On the other hand, we can claim the climate has been cooling over the last 5 million years...

[Interitus]

 

 However, increased cold in Europe in usually associated with strong warming of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and often Greenland.

 

I think we could see several years of growing Arctic sea ice, depending on the weather conditions. Just like we could see several years with a downward trend in global temperatures, due to natural variability. But the long term trend, from what I've seen, show's little sign of reversing any time soon.

 

 

 

Yes as always local and regional trends and variations are being used as the rule ignoring accompanying compensatory circulations elsewhere, but the reality is that globally we have now had 340 consecutive months (July will make it 341) above the 20th century average monthly temperature and it's 37 years since an annual temperature was below the long term average.

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

But those 16 years are the the same ones you disagreed with a few days ago. What I find amusing is the magical 30 year mark as if any other data is irrelevant until that mark is hit. So if in another 14 years and there continues to be no more warming will we have a consensus that the projected rises in  temp are way out then? Or will we then move the goalposts a little further.

 

Edit; Just re-read your posts and that's what your implying anyway so ignore the question on what if. 

 

 

I'll continue to disagree. 16 years isn't long enough for measuring the climate, and the trend continues upward anyway. If after another 14 years, the trend of just the last 16 years continues, it will become a statistically significant warming trend!

Nobody is moving goalposts here (unless you consider constant changing the time period for measuring climate as moving the goalposts).

[UV-RAY]

Yes as always local and regional trends and variations are being used as the rule ignoring accompanying compensatory circulations elsewhere, but the reality is that globally we have now had 340 consecutive months (July will make it 341) above the 20th century average monthly temperature and it's 37 years since an annual temperature was below the long term average.

So we now have two member on here disagreeing with the MetO and numerous other scientists, interesting as it goes some way into explaining the mindsets of some proponets of AGW and just how much they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming in acknowledging the facts.

 

Seriously though there has been no measurable warming for 16 years this in itself is great news for anyone concerned at the higher end projections of the IPCC, or I would hope it was good news!

I'll continue to disagree. 16 years isn't long enough for measuring the climate, and the trend continues upward anyway. If after another 14 years, the trend of just the last 16 years continues, it will become a statistically significant warming trend!

Nobody is moving goalposts here (unless you consider constant changing the time period for measuring climate as moving the goalposts).

I agree, but it's statistically long enough for the pros to comment on it.

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

So we now have two member on here disagreeing with the MetO and numerous other scientists, interesting as it goes some way into explaining the mindsets of some proponets of AGW and just how much they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming in acknowledging the facts.

 

Seriously though there has been no measurable warming for 16 years this in itself is great news for anyone concerned at the higher end projections of the IPCC, or I would hope it was good news!

I agree, but it's statistically long enough for the pros to comment on it.

 

 

 

HadCRUT4, GISS and UAH show warming, while RSS shows cooling.

 

 

Three out of the four main global temperature data sets show continued warming, including HadCRUT4. Though statistically, it's not significant and so is a relative pause compared to the previous warming trend, as the Met Office have said

If you wish to continue with your over simplified and incorrect view of things, that's your choice. 

[UV-RAY]

HadCRUT4, GISS and UAH show warming, while RSS shows cooling.

 

 

Three out of the four main global temperature data sets show continued warming, including HadCRUT4. Though statistically, it's not significant and so is a relative pause compared to the previous warming trend, as the Met Office have said

If you wish to continue with your over simplified and incorrect view of things, that's your choice. 

Lol, I'm only quoting the MetO and other scientists. If you remember in the New Research thread you denied that any pause had even taken place until I presented evidence to the contrary. What it does look like to the vast amount of ordinary folk is that statistically there has been no further warming, now you can dress it up anyway you care too but facts are facts. We have another 14 years in which one of us will be eating humble pie, how big of a slice would you like sir.

[Radiating Dendrite]

I thought this thread was about the ice in the arctic?

 

Can your argument not be carried out on a specific Global Warming debate thread - I am sure there is one.

 

It is a shame that this thread is being cluttered with this.