Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2015: The Melt Season

[Midlands Ice Age]

Just to put it into perspective how absurd yourself KL and 4's viewpoint is. This thread was brought up in the Sheffield seminar of climatologists today and you guys were the laughing stock for half an hour. In fact the quote was that you would still call an apple a banana when to everyone else they could see it was an apple. Stop trying to disprove what is happening in the Arctic. Its already been scientifically proven by scientists with 10,000 times the brain cells of yourselves

 

Ingham,

 

So we are famous - must carry on!! I need to contact soemone to get my share of the profits from the event!

 

Whats wrong???

 

We do not and haven't denied there has been a reduction in the ice over the Artcic for the last 20 years. How do you know (or all your so called scientists) that it is caused by AnthroCO2 and not a natural warming phase?

 

 If the world is getting so warm, why is it that the total amount of world ice extent has grown to a 50 year maximum when all your so clever scientists have predicted a huge reduction.

 

Answers on a postcard, send to Nick Clegg so he can include it in his next manifesto!!

 

The Report by Keith (if you bother to check) is an absolute figure as calculated by a satellite for each and every day and area in the Arctic. It is not his own data but comes directly from the MAISIE satellite  via a simple calculation..

 

It is fact.. I posted the data to show that Knockers, BFTV, GW  and all the all the others rapid warming 'forecast'  over the next week has got off to a very shaky start!

 

The rapid warming forecast is exactly that - a weather forecast. Yet you obviously take it as gospel, obviously it must be right if the CO2 people say it is going to happen!.

 

I would not dare to question the combined brains of the town of Sheffield (after all you voted Clegg back in again!).

 

Did they explain what was causing the 'pause' to you in all the hilarity of the event!  Did you have Russell Brand to get you all going as a warmup act?

 

MIA.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Knocker...

Please see the detailed MAISIE figures produced by KeithL (post number 159, I think ) on the Arctic Ice data and facts thread. 

I suppose that actual satellite data isn't good enough for you.!!

 

MIA

 

MASIE isn't meant for comparing with other years, nor does it have a long record, that's what the data here is for. Anyway, most of the large daily ups and downs are due to noise and errors, as has been explained to you before. So picking out a 2 day jump, in a single data set with much less relevance than many other, when all others are showing the opposite 2 day movements but similar 3 week trends... well, I'm sure you've got a phrase that adequately describes people that do that kind of thing.

 

Meanwhile, IJIS extent now lowest on record by 142k, 

[inghams85]

"We do not and haven't denied there has been a reduction in the ice over the Artcic for the last 20 years. How do you know (or all your so called scientists) that it is caused by AnthroCO2 and not a natural warming phase?"

 

I know because this has been proven as has global warming many years ago! It's an argument closed for debate, ratified by all the top climatologists on the planet. End of conversation. The fact you still feel you need to argue its not is comedy in itself. Again....... calling an apple a banana...... This argument has no place for this thread. The thing that now needs discussing is how quickly the ice in the north pole will melt to give us an ice free summer.

 

 

 

 

Ingham,

 

So we are famous - must carry on!! I need to contact soemone to get my share of the profits from the event!

 

Whats wrong???

 

We do not and haven't denied there has been a reduction in the ice over the Artcic for the last 20 years. How do you know (or all your so called scientists) that it is caused by AnthroCO2 and not a natural warming phase?

 

 If the world is getting so warm, why is it that the total amount of world ice extent has grown to a 50 year maximum when all your so clever scientists have predicted a huge reduction.

 

Answers on a postcard, send to Nick Clegg so he can include it in his next manifesto!!

 

The Report by Keith (if you bother to check) is an absolute figure as calculated by a satellite for each and every day and area in the Arctic. It is not his own data but comes directly from the MAISIE satellite  via a simple calculation..

 

It is fact.. I posted the data to show that Knockers, BFTV, GW  and all the all the others rapid warming 'forecast'  over the next week has got off to a very shaky start!

 

The rapid warming forecast is exactly that - a weather forecast. Yet you obviously take it as gospel, obviously it must be right if the CO2 people say it is going to happen!.

 

I would not dare to question the combined brains of the town of Sheffield (after all you voted Clegg back in again!).

 

Did they explain what was causing the 'pause' to you in all the hilarity of the event!  Did you have Russell Brand to get you all going as a warmup act?

 

MIA.

[jonboy]

"We do not and haven't denied there has been a reduction in the ice over the Artcic for the last 20 years. How do you know (or all your so called scientists) that it is caused by AnthroCO2 and not a natural warming phase?"

 

I know because this has been proven as has global warming many years ago! It's an argument closed for debate, ratified by all the top climatologists on the planet. End of conversation. The fact you still feel you need to argue its not is comedy in itself. Again....... calling an apple a banana...... This argument has no place for this thread. The thing that now needs discussing is how quickly the ice in the north pole will melt to give us an ice free summer.

 

And why do you think the estimates the questimates of the so called top climatologists on the planet have got so woefully wrong over the last 20 years the time in which the artic will be ice free. When you can answer that then you can strat name calling but not before 

[Methuselah]

And why do you think the estimates the questimates of the so called top climatologists on the planet have got so woefully wrong over the last 20 years the time in which the artic will be ice free. When you can answer that then you can strat name calling but not before 

So what have they, collectively, got so 'woefully wrong'? For one thing, the world is still getting warmer...

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

I find it hard to understand why some are so fixated by apparent inaccuracies regarding predictions about future events which have in hindsight not always turned out to be 100% correct, which somehow also proves that current data backed evidence is also incorrect ??? Just because a predicition made 5/10/20 years ago hasn't turned out to be spot on does not mean that fact based evidence collected, analysed and published is also fair game to be ignored, does it ? It's like someone predicting your house will burn down in one hour, and you then feeling smug because in the end it took two hours to burn down - your house is still ashes but hey, never mind that, you have the moral/intellectual high ground regarding the accuracy of the prediction, and that's what matters...................

[stewfox]

Just to put it into perspective how absurd yourself KL and 4's viewpoint is. This thread was brought up in the Sheffield seminar of climatologists today and you guys were the laughing stock for half an hour. In fact the quote was that you would still call an apple a banana when to everyone else they could see it was an apple. Stop trying to disprove what is happening in the Arctic. Its already been scientifically proven by scientists with 10,000 times the brain cells of yourselves

I get confused when is the Artic going to be ice free 2007 2013 2030 2100 ?

Given ALL previous predictions have been wrong can't understand what's been proved ??? Average ice thickness is well up on a few years ago. We also need to look at temps on the ground that can melt the ice not 8000ft in the air

Edited May 21, 2015 by stewfox

[inghams85]

Exactly Pennine.

 

I for one am not getting into a debate over proven data backed evidence. It's a shame this thread gets drawn into this argument when more important issues i.e the state of the ice needs to be discussed. I guess its a case of putting certain postees on block and listening to data from the likes of BFTV.

 

Its like someone 20 years down the line arguing antibiotics dont kill infection.........I think this thread is going off on a tangent now so will be the last of my input

I find it hard to understand why some are so fixated by apparent inaccuracies regarding predictions about future events which have in hindsight not always turned out to be 100% correct, which somehow also proves that current data backed evidence is also incorrect ??? Just because a predicition made 5/10/20 years ago hasn't turned out to be spot on does not mean that fact based evidence collected, analysed and published is also fair game to be ignored, does it ? It's like someone predicting your house will burn down in one hour, and you then feeling smug because in the end it took two hours to burn down - your house is still ashes but hey, never mind that, you have the moral/intellectual high ground regarding the accuracy of the prediction, and that's what matters...................

A date is not necessary. The science behind a warming arctic is proven and the decline decade upon decade is there for all to see.

 

I get confused when is the Artic going to be ice free 2007 2013 2030 2100 ?

Given ALL previous predictions have been wrong can't understand what's been proved ???

Edited May 21, 2015 by inghams85

[Methuselah]

How many of the 'sceptics'' forecasts have turned out to be true, then? Unless the arithmetic learned in school is somehow all wrong, that'll be none so far...

[4wd]

 

none so far...

Apart from the ones saying ice won't be all gone in 2007 2013 2030 2100

The basic problem is that undeniably reduced ice is being tied almost 100% to CO2 which is unscientific, untrue, and leads to inaccurate predictions by those who insist on being foolish enough to make them.

The sceptics mainly sit at the back and titter at the excuses.

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

MASIE isn't meant for comparing with other years, nor does it have a long record, that's what the data here is for. Anyway, most of the large daily ups and downs are due to noise and errors, as has been explained to you before. So picking out a 2 day jump, in a single data set with much less relevance than many other, when all others are showing the opposite 2 day movements but similar 3 week trends... well, I'm sure you've got a phrase that adequately describes people that do that kind of thing.

 

Meanwhile, IJIS extent now lowest on record by 142k, 

 

Ok BFTV and thanks for a civil reply 

 

Can I say I was only comparing this years data not previous years data. It will be interesting to see what the average rates turn out to be. 

 

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

Exactly Pennine.

 

I for one am not getting into a debate over proven data backed evidence. It's a shame this thread gets drawn into this argument when more important issues i.e the state of the ice needs to be discussed. I guess its a case of putting certain postees on block and listening to data from the likes of BFTV.

 

Its like someone 20 years down the line arguing antibiotics dont kill infection.........I think this thread is going off on a tangent now so will be the last of my input

A date is not necessary. The science behind a warming arctic is proven and the decline decade upon decade is there for all to see.

 

So Ingham...

 

You, ( like most of your discussion on gw meeting  apparently) are convinced of AnthroCO2 warming has controlled everything in the last 50 years.?

 

1) Please explain how we can have a pause in the rate of warming (on a 30 year comparison basis (used by global warmers)) lasting nearly 20 years now -  according to all the official datasets, but particulaly the satellite ones. 

 

2) Please explain why total worldwide ice has increased, if as you believe that worldwide temperatures have continued to warm at record levels.

 

3) Explain why the rate of warming increase has decreased over the last 15 years. Each year that passes is seeing the 30 year average rate of warming dropping still further. Another 5 years and the temperature charts will be turning downwards!

 

4) Explain why only 2 of your so-reverred scientists models got anywhere near predicting the pause (out of 3-4 hundreds).  Several, I understand, have been revised downwards in the last couple of years to reflect the pause - virtually none predicted in advance.

 

5) Please explain why the Anthro CO2 models originally produced which followed your assumptions where out by a factor of 4 - 6 times. Actual warming has been 0.06C the last 20 years, predicted actual warming was 0.2 - 0.3C according to Hansen's original 'CO2 controls' everything reports and graphs.

 

You are correct on one thing - that CO2 does have a warming effect - it is the amount of warming it causes which is totally unknown.            You see I agree with you!!           It is the magnitude of the effect  which we are discussing.

 

How can you possibly attribute all the warming of the last 30 - 40 years to CO2 and its effects, when certainly up to 2000 all the natural factors were positive?.   Oh I understand, thats because all the models do!!   

 

So back to this thread  .....

 

The downward progression of arctic ice extent (which we acknowledge) has been arrested in the last 2 years. The ice has also now beome much thicker (about 0.5 meters), Will this trend be reversed in the next year?   - no-one not even your favourites know what the Arctic weather has in store for us this year. And note this is what controls the Arctic ice content - not CO2.

 

MIA

Edited May 21, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

MIA, for all the points you wish to have explained from 1 to 4, perhaps you could start by providing evidence for each of those statements first. Anyone can make statements without evidence for everything and anything but, especially as a self proclaimed numbers guy, it might be more beneficial to the debate to provide some evidence or numbers.

 

 

Anywho, NSIDC daily extent still lowest on record, while the 5 day mean is 2nd lowest and just 11k off lowest. A drop in the daily data tomorrow of any amount will be enough to take the 5 day mean to the lowest value for the date.

[stewfox]

 

 

The downward progression of arctic ice extent (which we acknowledge) has been arrested in the last 2 years. The ice has also now beome much thicker (about 0.5 meters), Will this trend be reversed in the next year?   - no-one not even your favourites know what the Arctic weather has in store for us this year. And note this is what controls the Arctic ice content - not CO2.

 

MIA

 

Unfortunately its buried 3/4 of the way down in the NSIDC annual report re the state of the Arctic but you are correct, I don't know why good news is ignored or forgotten but there you go, I wonder where it would go if it had been 10 inches thinner ?

 

""""The data indicate that Arctic sea ice thickness in the spring of 2015 is about 25 centimeters (10 inches) thicker than in 2013""

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Unfortunately its buried 3/4 of the way down in the NSIDC annual report re the state of the Arctic but you are correct, I don't know why good news is ignored or forgotten but there you go, I wonder where it would go if it had been 10 inches thinner ?

 

""""The data indicate that Arctic sea ice thickness in the spring of 2015 is about 25 centimeters (10 inches) thicker than in 2013""

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

The NSIDC updates have followed the same format for years: Intro â†’ Overview of conditions â†’ Conditions in context â†’ Additional Data and Discussion.

 

So the thickness data is "buried" exactly where you'd expect it to be, under the big heading "New data on sea ice thickness" next to the colourful thickness image with the even bigger caption "Arctic Sea Ice Thickness".

 

Jaysus, those scientists sure are doing a terrible job of burying info they don't like, eh!?

[stewfox]

The NSIDC updates have followed the same format for years: Intro â†’ Overview of conditions â†’ Conditions in context â†’ Additional Data and Discussion.

 

So the thickness data is "buried" exactly where you'd expect it to be, under the big heading "New data on sea ice thickness" next to the colourful thickness image with the even bigger caption "Arctic Sea Ice Thickness".

 

Jaysus, those scientists sure are doing a terrible job of burying info they don't like, eh!?

 

Its a observation nothing more any reduction in thickness is given more prominence and at the top of the report 2007,8,9 10 etc 

 

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007/10/589/

[Midlands Ice Age]

MIA, for all the points you wish to have explained from 1 to 4, perhaps you could start by providing evidence for each of those statements first. Anyone can make statements without evidence for everything and anything but, especially as a self proclaimed numbers guy, it might be more beneficial to the debate to provide some evidence or numbers.

 

 

Anywho, NSIDC daily extent still lowest on record, while the 5 day mean is 2nd lowest and just 11k off lowest. A drop in the daily data tomorrow of any amount will be enough to take the 5 day mean to the lowest value for the date.

 

BFTV...

 

I am surprised that you as a very learned and active proponent of global warming are not aware of points 1 to 4.

 

It explains why we have so many discussions at cross-purposes. 

 

Have your 'bosses' not been giving you all the information!!.

 

At the very least you must be aware that the chances of the pause lasting 18 years are 2.7% and the chances of it reaching 20years are 0.4% (effectively zero) and this is from the modellers themselves. You had better hope that the temperature rise in the next 2 years and stay at those levels, otherwise even you own model disciples will begin to get very sceptic of the effect of AnthroCO2..

We are already at nearly 3 sigma deviation from the models. How much more time will it take for you to develop a more questioning position on the impact of the warming by CO2? 

 

It is normally accepted in most scientific work that a result outside of 2 sigma invalidates the principle being tested by the experimenter.

 

It seems as though  climate science is not regarded as an actual 'pure' science by the people making these proposals..

 

MIA

[BornFromTheVoid]

Its a observation nothing more any reduction in thickness is given more prominence and at the top of the report 2007,8,9 10 etc 

 

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007/10/589/

 

The data is in no way hidden, or "buried" as you claimed, it was highlighted well, clear to see, with images and big headings and placed exactly where it would be expected. I think you're spending too much time on WUWT.

 

BFTV...

 

I am surprised that you as a very learned and active proponent of global warming are not aware of points 1 to 4.

 

It explains why we have so many discussions at cross-purposes. 

 

Have your 'bosses' not been giving you all the information!!.

 

At the very least you must be aware that the chances of the pause lasting 18 years are 2.7% and the chances of it reaching 20years are 0.4% (effectively zero) and this is from the modellers themselves. You had better hope that the temperature rise in the next 2 years and stay at those levels, otherwise even you own model disciples will begin to get very sceptic of the effect of AnthroCO2..

We are already at nearly 3 sigma deviation from the models. How much more time will it take for you to develop a more questioning position on the impact of the warming by CO2? 

 

It is normally accepted in most scientific work that a result outside of 2 sigma invalidates the principle being tested by the experimenter.

 

It seems as though  climate science is not regarded as an actual 'pure' science by the people making these proposals..

 

MIA

 

I was just looking for you to back up your assertions. It's clear you cannot do that.

 

 

------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------- 

 

Anywho, IJIS extent now lowest on record by over 215k. I also can't help but notice a lack of reposts here from Goddard showing the DMI 30% extent graphs... I wonder why that might be? Getting tougher to find those cherries.

[be cause]

an advisory for anyone following the arctic 2m temps on GFS .. last year they were way out all summer .. looks like the same fault is coming to the fore again . Compare GFS with ECM .. currently quite a difference .. melting or freezing

[Midlands Ice Age]

The data is in no way hidden, or "buried" as you claimed, it was highlighted well, clear to see, with images and big headings and placed exactly where it would be expected. I think you're spending too much time on WUWT.

 

 

I was just looking for you to back up your assertions. It's clear you cannot do that.

 

 

------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------- 

 

Anywho, IJIS extent now lowest on record by over 215k. I also can't help but notice a lack of reposts here from Goddard showing the DMI 30% extent graphs... I wonder why that might be? Getting tougher to find those cherries.

 

Still in denial mode I see re points 1 -4......

 

Could you PLEASE also give me the data which prooves that CO2 is the major element in  your theory that CO2 enhanced morning will cause major disruption to the world by 2100?  There is no proof, only the projections from models which are programmed to show enhanced CO2 warmings and this by ignoring  most natural components and putting most things down to 'it must be CO2'  dictats. Particularly ignoring any new information gleaned in the last 20 years by accepting and learning the lessons that the pause is showing us 

 

The information I posted is all based on actual historical data, - most of it from HADRUT4 (going back to 1869) or from actual satellite data for the last 50 years..  It does not include any proxies, nor any badly coded and specified assumptions used by climate models. These figures are produced by taking the actual data(even adjusted!) and removing all known natural variations, except for the AMO as this has not yet been properlu understood so I would not include it.

 

If a believed correct  proxy for the AMO is included then, the remaining warming (probably CO2 induced including the feedbacks!) is about 1.2C per century on an almost continuous straightline graph.

 

I could give you a clue as to where to look, but Ill let you find it for yourself as it is located on another thread.! Perhaps you dismissed it.

 

MIA

 

Back to here and now. Does the latest sea ice figures mean that the heat is now on as per your forecasts? Does it show which areas are melting and which are freezing?. 

 

.

[Interitus]

 

Could you PLEASE also give me the data which prooves that CO2 is the major element in  your theory that CO2 enhanced morning will cause major disruption to the world by 2100?  There is no proof, only the projections from models which are programmed to show enhanced CO2 warmings and this by ignoring  most natural components and putting most things down to 'it must be CO2'  dictats. Particularly ignoring any new information gleaned in the last 20 years by accepting and learning the lessons that the pause is showing us 

 

.

 

Prove otherwise. If it can be disproved then the argument is over, otherwise CO2 warming is a probable likelihood based on the balance of scientific theory and evidence.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Still in denial mode I see re points 1 -4......

 

Could you PLEASE also give me the data which prooves that CO2 is the major element in  your theory that CO2 enhanced morning will cause major disruption to the world by 2100?  There is no proof, only the projections from models which are programmed to show enhanced CO2 warmings and this by ignoring  most natural components and putting most things down to 'it must be CO2'  dictats. Particularly ignoring any new information gleaned in the last 20 years by accepting and learning the lessons that the pause is showing us 

 

The information I posted is all based on actual historical data, - most of it from HADRUT4 (going back to 1869) or from actual satellite data for the last 50 years..  It does not include any proxies, nor any badly coded and specified assumptions used by climate models. These figures are produced by taking the actual data(even adjusted!) and removing all known natural variations, except for the AMO as this has not yet been properlu understood so I would not include it.

 

If a believed correct  proxy for the AMO is included then, the remaining warming (probably CO2 induced including the feedbacks!) is about 1.2C per century on an almost continuous straightline graph.

 

I could give you a clue as to where to look, but Ill let you find it for yourself as it is located on another thread.! Perhaps you dismissed it.

 

MIA

 

Back to here and now. Does the latest sea ice figures mean that the heat is now on as per your forecasts? Does it show which areas are melting and which are freezing?. 

 

.

 

MIA, I'm not trying to debate anything with you. I'm just asking you to substantiate the assertions you made in this post. All the hand waving, agitation and opinions don't count as evidence.

So, can you provide evidence to back up your assertions or not? Links, papers, numbers, etc

 

As for the ice, it's currently behaving as expected in the given conditions, above average losses, but not substantially so. Still, it's enough that many of the cover measures, including now the 5 day NSIDC average, are lowest on record.

[Midlands Ice Age]

MIA, I'm not trying to debate anything with you. I'm just asking you to substantiate the assertions you made in this post. All the hand waving, agitation and opinions don't count as evidence.

So, can you provide evidence to back up your assertions or not? Links, papers, numbers, etc

 

As for the ice, it's currently behaving as expected in the given conditions, above average losses, but not substantially so. Still, it's enough that many of the cover measures, including now the 5 day NSIDC average, are lowest on record.

 

BFTV...

 

So you are  refusing to answer my genuine question?

 

Come on now you must have some definate numbers which show the actual warming effect of CO2.

 

Come on millions of people around the world are waiting for this proof.

 

They are not interested in my data, and yes I can give you that data, but if you have definate proof of the warming being caused by CO2, then I will be wasting my time.

 

So come on, cut the garbage, I invite you to provide us all with the actual data, showing the absolute warming effect of CO2 in any historical dataset..  

 

MIA

Edited May 22, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

I told you, I'm not debating with you, I'm not arguing with you, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

 

 

You made a number of claims. Just incase you forgot them, here they are, again.

 

 

1) Please explain how we can have a pause in the rate of warming (on a 30 year comparison basis (used by global warmers)) lasting nearly 20 years now -  according to all the official datasets, but particulaly the satellite ones. 

 

2) Please explain why total worldwide ice has increased, if as you believe that worldwide temperatures have continued to warm at record levels.

 

3) Explain why the rate of warming increase has decreased over the last 15 years. Each year that passes is seeing the 30 year average rate of warming dropping still further. Another 5 years and the temperature charts will be turning downwards!

 

4) Explain why only 2 of your so-reverred scientists models got anywhere near predicting the pause (out of 3-4 hundreds).  Several, I understand, have been revised downwards in the last couple of years to reflect the pause - virtually none predicted in advance.

 

5) Please explain why the Anthro CO2 models originally produced which followed your assumptions where out by a factor of 4 - 6 times. Actual warming has been 0.06C the last 20 years, predicted actual warming was 0.2 - 0.3C according to Hansen's original 'CO2 controls' everything reports and graphs.

 

 

 

That's 5 different statements. I'm just asking you to back them up with a little evidence. I don't know if I can make my request in a more simple, straight forward and polite manner than I already have.

 

Hell, I'll even help you out! You claim that on a 30 year comparison basis that all official temp data sets show a 20 year pause. Can you post the evidence for this, from a journal article, or create the graphs yourself, or maybe use the website woodfortrees.org? Just provide some evidence. 

 

[Thundery wintry showers]

Although I don't like Midlands Ice Age's attitude, I think the questions raised are entirely reasonable, so I will attempt to address them all here.  My answers are in blue.

 

You, ( like most of your discussion on gw meeting  apparently) are convinced of AnthroCO2 warming has controlled everything in the last 50 years.?

It certainly hasn't controlled everything in the last 50 years.  What it has done is added another variable into the climate system which interacts with the "natural" variables that have always existed and always will.  Adding an extra "warming" forcing is going to push the overall climate system towards a warmer climate.

 

1) Please explain how we can have a pause in the rate of warming (on a 30 year comparison basis (used by global warmers)) lasting nearly 20 years now -  according to all the official datasets, but particulaly the satellite ones. 

Various "natural" forcings were often in positive states during the 1980s and 1990s, e.g. El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar activity, and have changed to mostly neutral to negative states since.  In addition, some of the extra heat in the climate system may be being stored in the deep oceans.  If there was no anthropogenic warming then I would expect to have seen a modest warming up until 1998, and then a modest cooling since.  Instead, we've seen a dramatic warming up until 1998 and then a "pause" since, which suggests that there are other background variables introducing a long-term warming trend.  

 

2) Please explain why total worldwide ice has increased, if as you believe that worldwide temperatures have continued to warm at record levels.

Because ice coverage in the Antarctic has been increasing, in contrast to the Arctic where it has been dwindling.  Up to a point, as temperatures increase, associated increases in precipitation could result in more snowfall (remember, the heaviest snowfalls typically occur with temperatures around freezing).  If the precipitation increase outweighs the temperature increase, we could paradoxically see an increase in sea ice extent.  This has probably been happening around the Antarctic Peninsula, where temperature increases have been modest, especially compared with the Arctic.

 

3) Explain why the rate of warming increase has decreased over the last 15 years. Each year that passes is seeing the 30 year average rate of warming dropping still further. Another 5 years and the temperature charts will be turning downwards!

See the answer to question 1.

 

4) Explain why only 2 of your so-reverred scientists models got anywhere near predicting the pause (out of 3-4 hundreds).  Several, I understand, have been revised downwards in the last couple of years to reflect the pause - virtually none predicted in advance.

Because they did not expect the natural forcings to "flip" as abruptly as they did at the end of the 1990s, producing a cooling effect which has offset the warming contribution from human activity.  There is also evidence that climate models have overestimated the short-term contribution from human activity, but underestimated the long-term contribution (i.e. we can expect less warming in the 21st century than originally expected, but the 22nd and 23rd centuries may see more warming, leaving the net warming about the same). 

 

5) Please explain why the Anthro CO2 models originally produced which followed your assumptions where out by a factor of 4 - 6 times. Actual warming has been 0.06C the last 20 years, predicted actual warming was 0.2 - 0.3C according to Hansen's original 'CO2 controls' everything reports and graphs.

I suggest that using the last 20 years is too short a time span and is conveniently chosen to start just before the point that the "naturals" flipped.  Over the last 40 years, it has been more like 0.15C.  Not as high as Hansen's prediction, but see the answer to question 4.

 

You are correct on one thing - that CO2 does have a warming effect - it is the amount of warming it causes which is totally unknown.            You see I agree with you!!           It is the magnitude of the effect  which we are discussing.  How can you possibly attribute all the warming of the last 30 - 40 years to CO2 and its effects, when certainly up to 2000 all the natural factors were positive?.   Oh I understand, thats because all the models do!!   

I suggest that the warming up until 1998 was partly "natural" and partly down to human activity, and that the recent "pause" has essentially seen our long-term temperature trend "corrected" to roughly where we'd expect it to be given the underlying anthropogenic warming trend.  Thus, I think the evidence for the warming from 1975 through to 2015 being mainly due to human activity is actually a lot stronger than it was in, say, 1995, when the "naturals" were still mainly in positive states as you say.

CO2 is certainly not the cause of all of the warming but the scientific consensus is that it is highly likely to be the biggest individual contributor.

 

So back to this thread  .....

The downward progression of arctic ice extent (which we acknowledge) has been arrested in the last 2 years. The ice has also now beome much thicker (about 0.5 meters), Will this trend be reversed in the next year?   - no-one not even your favourites know what the Arctic weather has in store for us this year. And note this is what controls the Arctic ice content - not CO2.

The problem is that we have had a significant rise in the global mean temperature since around 1975, and while there has been a "pause" averaged globally, there certainly hasn't been in the Arctic.  Indeed, the Arctic temperatures show a delayed response with relatively little warming up until 2001, and then a rapid warming since then.  I think that if global temperatures stay the same, then the Arctic should re-adjust to a new equilibrium state rather than runaway amplification, but I think that's an enormous "IF".  Indeed, I think if we were to get a major El Nino, similar to that of 1998, we'd probably beat the 1998 record by about 0.2C.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Thundery wintry showers