Northwest Passage

[Exile]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Yesterday July 27, 2019 the Arctic ice extent reached a record low for this date of 6.684 million sq. km . The date for the median extent to reach this level is Sep 2 and an extent of 6.689 million sq. km. Ice melt is now more than one month ahead of the median rate.

I'm assuming the "record" you're referring to is the one that only goes back to 1979 when reliable measurements were first introduced via satellites. So the Sept. 2nd "median" you're comparing the current data to was arrived at based on the past 40 years (often averaged to 30 in graphs). I'm sure you're aware of this, but it's all too often ignored or neglected. As posted several times in prior threads, Judith Curry often points to a graph showing that the Arctic ice extent peaked in the middle of the 20th century, and it's all been more or less a downhill trend from there.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just answer this, if it's off-script enough:

I already did. Post #643.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm assuming the "record" you're referring to is the one that only goes back to 1979 when reliable measurements were first introduced via satellites. So the Sept. 2nd "median" you're comparing the current data to was arrived at based on the past 40 years (often averaged to 30 in graphs). I'm sure you're aware of this, but it's all too often ignored or neglected. As posted several times in prior threads, Judith Curry often points to a graph showing that the Arctic ice extent peaked in the middle of the 20th century, and it's all been more or less a downhill trend from there.

It's supposed to be solar minimum so why might that be so? While waiting for other plausible explanations I stick with CO2..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

It's supposed to be solar minimum so why might that be so? While waiting for other plausible explanations I stick with CO2..

I might too if the science could credibly show that overall Arctic warming since the 1950s was aberrant from warming & cooling cycles prior to the fossil fuel era.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I already did. Post #643.

The only part worth discussing:

Warming is a result of both (human & non-human) forces (according to many) which can itself be measured. But measuring warming doesn't on its own prove how much of one force or the other is causing it. Only Reef's experiment, if viable, would theoretically demonstrate how much of the warming is caused by CO2. What are you not understanding here?

We're humouring Reefie, but I'm pretty sure that the requisite work has been done. Course we'll never know, because the "necessary" experiment currently only exists in his mind; he won't spell it out what he'd consider satisfactory. So we can't do more specific searching.

If you have a balance scale and it's more or less in balance, and then you add a couple of pounds (let's label that "CO2 from human activity") and the scale goes out of balance, well you don't need to know where the other weight came from, do you? The CO2 knocked it out of balance.

Claiming that there was something else besides CO2 to tip the balance is useless if you can't identify or quantify that something else. And it's besides the point if it can be shown that you can (eventually) get back to balance by removing (or at least not ADDING to) that "CO2 from human activity" weight.

(Yes I know stuff always changes, there's no 'forever' balance. But there's natural change and unnatural change)

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I might too if the science could credibly show that overall Arctic warming since the 1950s was aberrant from warming & cooling cycles prior to the fossil fuel era.

I suspect that "might" is the operative word in your statement. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years

....Now, a new study aims to fill the knowledge gap by concluding that recent summer warming in the eastern Canadian Arctic is unprecedented in more than 44,000 years. Prior research documented melt and temperature dynamics going back about 2,000 to 4,000 years in comparison....

The findings, published online in Geophysical Research Letters this week, counter the conclusions of some prior studies suggesting that natural forces -- along with greenhouse gases -- may be contributing to some of the extensive Arctic warming. The study also suggests that climate models are underestimating Arctic changes, as their past predictions were off by more than 2 degrees Celsius....

The scientists concluded that the level of warming now matches or goes beyond what occurred during a natural warm period about 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum. The study provides the first "direct" evidence that Canadian Arctic temperatures in the last century exceeded the peak warmth of that earlier thermal maximum, the scientists said....

The fact that certain ice caps did not melt during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, despite the extreme warmth at the time, suggests that today's unusual warming period can only be caused by greenhouse gases, Miller said.

"Nothing else out there can explain it," Miller said. Based on the Earth's current position in relation to the sun, the region should be cooling in the summer, not warming, he said....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I suspect that "might" is the operative word in your statement. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years

how many times must I debunk this unprecedented warming arctic bs .
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that doesn't explain the changes in the two graphs that are both from NASA just from different reporting dates for the same data.

In fact it proves my point .

If you don't get the result you want change the data to get the model result you want. To make the boss happy .

But you believe what you want I prefer the truth and the facts from before the ministry of truth ( the intergovernmental panel on climate change )
wonder what the problem is that will need to be changed in the next 14 months to save the planet.

You still have provided no sources for your graphs. Where did these screenshots come from?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You still have provided no sources for your graphs. Where did these screenshots come from?

you really need to read what I post. Your statement here proves you don't actually read my posts .

Go back again to post 632 where I posted the graphs as well as the links to each .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The only part worth discussing:
We're humouring Reefie, but I'm pretty sure that the requisite work has been done. Course we'll never know, because the "necessary" experiment currently only exists in his mind; he won't spell it out what he'd consider satisfactory. So we can't do more specific searching.

If you have a balance scale and it's more or less in balance, and then you add a couple of pounds (let's label that "CO2 from human activity") and the scale goes out of balance, well you don't need to know where the other weight came from, do you? The CO2 knocked it out of balance.

Claiming that there was something else besides CO2 to tip the balance is useless if you can't identify or quantify that something else. And it's besides the point if it can be shown that you can (eventually) get back to balance by removing (or at least not ADDING to) that "CO2 from human activity" weight.

(Yes I know stuff always changes, there's no 'forever' balance. But there's natural change and unnatural change)

My answer lies with questioning the scientific validity of the assumptions you're making, namely all of those "unprecedented" ones I already responded to that you now don't think are worth discussing. I can give you the 40% increase in overall CO2, but assuming that's all from emissions also may be wrong because, for starters, the science also knows that warming itself increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But the big assumption you're making is that the temp increases over the past 30/50/100 years (.2C, .85C, 1.0C, 2.0F, ?? citing some we've recently read) are aberrant as compared to pre-industrial times. There are modeled projections of higher rates of warming in the future (in part from add'l CO2 plus lag times presumably), but how science has been recording the Earth's temperature the past few decades, let alone prior to the late 19th century (when thermometers were invented I think), is itself controversial.

Besides, if your assumptions about these core issues were in fact long-established scientific truths, how do you explain the minority skeptic views? Or have all those climate scientists, astrophysicists, geographers, meteorologists, and others who hold such views also signed the Cornwall Declaration? If it was as simple as CO2 being the only added ingredient that could possibly tip the scales, then Allen's test results from 50 years ago could in fact resolve these issues definitively, and there'd be no need for Reef's logically suggested testing now. Despite Allen's best efforts, I don't think this is the case or these issues would in fact be "settled" and we wouldn't be here arguing (about this anyway ).

I honestly don't understand what is so hard about adhering to your own opinions while at the same time trying to understand if not reconcile legitimate opinions of others, especially when they come from experts undoubtedly more qualified than you are (or me). I thought this was the defn. of the scientific method, not something to be dissing. For example, you can certainly point out the many experts who have ruled out solar activity and why, but I don't know how you can so presumptively assert that such theories are mere "superstition" (along with a variety of other things ) when there are qualified experts who also assert it. Your arguments only make rational sense when/if climate science does in fact reach a similar level of certainty as the connection between smoking & lung cancer (or whatever other bogus & misleading analogies you guys have been taught to believe).

This is all pretty ironic if not hypocritical since you're the same guy always bemoaning the lack of respect for scientists. Oh but I forgot, it's only the ones who agree with you that are worthy of respect, right?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I suspect that "might" is the operative word in your statement. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years

I can't tell you you're wrong, or more importantly whether this recent study is wrong either. But that's the problem, nobody seems to be able to say it's right either. That's why the article uses the term "suggest" a lot in announcing its findings. I also wouldn't presume to diss these new findings, but do hope the peer review process was a bit more diligent in this case.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

I can't tell you you're wrong, or more importantly whether this recent study is wrong either. But that's the problem, nobody seems to be able to say it's right either. That's why the article uses the term "suggest" a lot in announcing its findings. I also wouldn't presume to diss these new findings, but do hope the peer review process was a bit more diligent in this case.

That's true IMHO but becouse of the possible consequences of the warming I'd like to be on the safe side and do something about it. Untill we find new hard evidence, not just speculation that is. Just to continue as we have done so far and trusting nothing happens is like sailing without watch keeping counting others will get out of our way..

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I can't tell you you're wrong, or more importantly whether this recent study is wrong either. But that's the problem, nobody seems to be able to say it's right either. That's why the article uses the term "suggest" a lot in announcing its findings. I also wouldn't presume to diss these new findings, but do hope the peer review process was a bit more diligent in this case.

Day, after day, after day I (and others) present new scientific studies each independently corroborating AGW in one way or another, and all you can say is "maybe", and can't "say it's right either", "hope the peer review process was a bit more diligent", etc.

Do you have any doubt why it is more accurate to describe you as a denier, rather than a skeptic?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

The CO2 has been heated up which is how the Ir spectra for CO2 was deduced. The math and science to go to the next step is also well known but you don’t accept.

I have given some more thought to your “experiment”. Let see if we can agree on some assumptions.

1. The original soda bottle experiment was successful. Which showed 4C rise with the bottle that had 100% CO2 as compared to the bottle with room air.

2. Let’s agree the bottle is 12 inches by 4 inches.

3. You will accept the answer if a bottle has 4% concentration of CO2 as compared to the base case of .03%.

4. If such an experiment yielded a temperature rise as compared to base case, that basis alone would convert you into a card carrying member of warmists society.

Did I misstate anything or miss anything?

What the Sam Hill are you on about? Did you forget to take your meds today?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Day, after day, after day I (and others) present new scientific studies each independently corroborating AGW in one way or another, and all you can say is "maybe", and can't "say it's right either", "hope the peer review process was a bit more diligent", etc.

Do you have any doubt why it is more accurate to describe you as a denier, rather than a skeptic?

and yet you can't explain adequately my question and graphs in post 632