And this is how the experts will back out of their "near term" dire prognostications

[LakeEffectKing]

http://www2.ucar.edu...en-resume-again

[WeatherRusty]

http://www2.ucar.edu...en-resume-again

Just like for any trend found in nature the pace and direction can not be expected to be strictly monotonic. There will be periods of variability due to the battle for equilibrium between competing forces....a dynamic equilibrium. When an overriding force is pushing in one direction while the others oscillate about a mean value, over time the average condition will move in the direction of the overriding force.

[LakeEffectKing]

Just like for any trend found in nature the pace and direction can not be expected to be strictly monotonic. There will be periods of variability due to the battle for equilibrium between competing forces....a dynamic equilibrium. When an overriding force is pushing in one direction while the others oscillate about a mean value, over time the average condition will move in the direction of the overriding force.

Oh, I understand that....but I do get a chuckle when we hear from a few "experts" (without other experts reigning them in a bit) talking "death" spirals, ice free by 2012, 2015, 2030....etc., and "faster than we thought" comments...and yet a model is run>>has surprising results>>and the alarming scenarios (ie hypotheses), are shed like a cocoons shell....with an adjusted hypothesis (goalpost).....and this is today's science???

[JoMo]

ARCTIC TO MELT...... SOMETIME IN FUTURE...... MAYBE..... OR MAYBE NOT.

PANIC... OR DON'T..... WE DON'T KNOW....

[BeastFromTheEast]

ARCTIC TO MELT...... SOMETIME IN FUTURE...... MAYBE..... OR MAYBE NOT.

PANIC... OR DON'T..... WE DON'T KNOW....

[WeatherRusty]

Oh, I understand that....but I do get a chuckle when we hear from a few "experts" (without other experts reigning them in a bit) talking "death" spirals, ice free by 2012, 2015, 2030....etc., and "faster than we thought" comments...and yet a model is run>>has surprising results>>and the alarming scenarios (ie hypotheses), are shed like a cocoons shell....with an adjusted hypothesis (goalpost).....and this is today's science???

One study. Why apply so much weight to any particular scientist or group or result. What does the general consensus science say?

[H2Otown_WX]

Did anyone see the show "2100" on the History Channel? It basically said we're screwed if a worse-case scenario plays out (it seemed ridiculous). For starters, they claimed the Earth will rise 4 degrees Celsius in temperature by the year 2070. It also said the sea-level would rise 6 feet and depicted a nor'easter with 15 foot storm surge in NYC. I'm just wondering if anyone thinks this is actually feasible.

[LakeEffectKing]

One study. Why apply so much weight to any particular scientist or group or result. What does the general consensus science say?

I don't know....you tell me......Can one even define a "general consensus" without interviewing each and every "expert" out there? This particular group would seem to fit the "expert" classification that the AGW side would put their stamp of approval on (at least for now).

My point is, that the message from the AGW side is wide ranging. Yet those that are still supposedly practicing "good objective science" (maybe your arbitrarily defined 'general consensus' folk) are rarely found to criticize the more extreme positions that fall on "their" side of the argument, yet, those who want to see more evidence, and gain more insight into how the climate system operates before spilling conclusions about the AGW hypothesis, are greeting with vitriol, and shoved WAY over to the "denier" side.....and that will be to the demise of not only the AGW position/hypothesis, but to science in general.

So, is the ice in a steady decline due to man-made processes or not? Will it take decadal long "breaks"? Are we going to continue to warm steadily, or hang out, but worried about "pipeline heat"?? Does the Solar cycle, and it's more pronounced diminishment in recent activity, have a measurable effect or not? (You say no, wrt TSI...yet many of AGW experts are using the solar minimum as a scapegoat for our current "plateau". Do aerosols play a bit part or not? (another often contradictory message from the AGW side).....If the AGW movement REALLY wants to move the general public to alternative energy via the "FF use is bad" route, the message from that side must be more focused, accurate, and objective, IMO.

[Mencken_Fan]

As a market technician, I don't care what Joe Blow Mary Jane says; I simply watch (and analyze) the chart. If one has been "short" Polar Ice Inc. for the last century, one has done quite well. The technicals follow the fundamentals; and as they say in the market; "the trend is your friend."

I've seen more than one person ride a stock to zero. Why do they do it? Because no matter how obvious the trend, some people simply cannot admit they were wrong. They keep deluding themselves with excuses....they believe that given enough time, the trend will eventually go their way; but more often than not....it ends in crushing defeat.

I'm familiar with the arguments; I read this website and others (been reading 'em for a long time.) Oh how complicated it gets! But I've been "short" Polar Ice Inc. since I first learned of and about man-made warming back in junior high... Western Junior High in Bethesda, Maryland during the mid 1960s.

[LakeEffectKing]

As a market technician, I don't care what Joe Blow Mary Jane says; I simply watch (and analyze) the chart. If one has been "short" Polar Ice Inc. for the last century, one has done quite well. The technicals follow the fundamentals; and as they say in the market; "the trend is your friend."

I've seen more than one person ride a stock to zero. Why do they do it? Because no matter how obvious the trend, some people simply cannot admit they were wrong. They keep deluding themselves with excuses....they believe that given enough time, the trend will eventually go their way; but more often than not....it ends in crushing defeat.

I'm familiar with the arguments; I read this website and others (been reading 'em for a long time.) Oh how complicated it gets! But I've been "short" Polar Ice Inc. since I first learned of and about man-made warming back in junior high... Western Junior High in Bethesda, Maryland during the mid 1960s.

Well, it looks like you missed the time to bail on it by 4 years...don't ignore the trend, or you may "ride" the ice all the way back to normal...

[WeatherRusty]

I don't know....you tell me......Can one even define a "general consensus" without interviewing each and every "expert" out there? This particular group would seem to fit the "expert" classification that the AGW side would put their stamp of approval on (at least for now).

My point is, that the message from the AGW side is wide ranging. Yet those that are still supposedly practicing "good objective science" (maybe your arbitrarily defined 'general consensus' folk) are rarely found to criticize the more extreme positions that fall on "their" side of the argument, yet, those who want to see more evidence, and gain more insight into how the climate system operates before spilling conclusions about the AGW hypothesis, are greeting with vitriol, and shoved WAY over to the "denier" side.....and that will be to the demise of not only the AGW position/hypothesis, but to science in general.

So, is the ice in a steady decline due to man-made processes or not? Will it take decadal long "breaks"? Are we going to continue to warm steadily, or hang out, but worried about "pipeline heat"?? Does the Solar cycle, and it's more pronounced diminishment in recent activity, have a measurable effect or not? (You say no, wrt TSI...yet many of AGW experts are using the solar minimum as a scapegoat for our current "plateau". Do aerosols play a bit part or not? (another often contradictory message from the AGW side).....If the AGW movement REALLY wants to move the general public to alternative energy via the "FF use is bad" route, the message from that side must be more focused, accurate, and objective, IMO.

Excellent position clarifying post!

It is difficult to criticize seemingly extreme potential outcomes when the science allows for a wide range of possibilities. We all would like for the science to be able to pin down an exact outcome, but it can't. To many unknowns. What if climate sensitivity becomes equal to 2C? How about 4.5C? Or more likely 3C? What if the arctic sea ice does suddenly "go" during the summer months after reaching some unknown threshold? What if China cleans up it's polluted, aerosol laden air? At this point of our knowledge we are taking a gamble and can only hope the worst is not in the cards. If you grant the science any credibility at all yet still decide we should do nothing, then you are willing to take that gamble.

Yes the solar cycle matters. About 7 years of greenhouse warming can be negated by the reduced radiative forcing at solar minimum. A wobble due to solar variability has been statistically teased out of the overall trend producing a total variation of about 0.1C.

We can not and should not expect a strictly linear progression in any climate changing trend. The models smooth out natural variability to zero. The real world does not operate that way, so in the real world we get the ever present effects of natural variability superimposed upon the linear upward trend induced by the radiative forcing of increasing greenhouse gases.

[skierinvermont]

Well, it looks like you missed the time to bail on it by 4 years...don't ignore the trend, or you may "ride" the ice all the way back to normal...

The ice isn't going back to normal... amazing that people can completely ignore all of the evidence and science to the contrary. There is literally absolutely nothing to back up this assertion.

Also, the trend the last 4 years, assuming that this year comes in at 4.7, is quite negative.

The 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 6 year, 7 year, etc. trends are all negative. The only trend which will be positive is the 5 year trend starting in the highly anomalous 2007.

[LakeEffectKing]

The ice isn't going back to normal... amazing that people can completely ignore all of the evidence and science to the contrary. There is literally absolutely nothing to back up this assertion.

Also, the trend the last 4 years, assuming that this year comes in at 4.7, is quite negative.

The 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 6 year, 7 year, etc. trends are all negative. The only trend which will be positive is the 5 year trend starting in the highly anomalous 2007.

Well....not quite "all" the evidence!

So you disagree with the possibilities the authors of the study suggest ??.... (From above article):

But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.

“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”

[hckyplayer8]

The ice isn't going back to normal... amazing that people can completely ignore all of the evidence and science to the contrary. There is literally absolutely nothing to back up this assertion.

Also, the trend the last 4 years, assuming that this year comes in at 4.7, is quite negative.

The 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 6 year, 7 year, etc. trends are all negative. The only trend which will be positive is the 5 year trend starting in the highly anomalous 2007.

You have come from the future to tell us this?

[skierinvermont]

Well....not quite "all" the evidence!

So you disagree with the possibilities the authors of the study suggest ??.... (From above article):

But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.

“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”

No I agree with it. But nowhere does it say that ice will return to anything remotely resembling normal. How did you manage to interpret "flat to slight increase" as a "return to normal?"

[skierinvermont]

You have come from the future to tell us this?

Do I need to be from the future to know it's not going to snow tomorrow?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am glad you had the courage to post this.

basing this on computer models?

talk bout hypocrisy.

[WeatherRusty]

Do I need to be from the future to know it's not going to snow tomorrow?

No, because the available evidence strongly suggests that is very unlikely to snow tomorrow where you are situated. Likewise, the available evidence suggests that arctic sea ice will continue it's general decline, following in the footsteps of a generally warming world. Could it snow tomorrow? Of course, but it is according to the evidence very, very unlikely.

[LakeEffectKing]

I am glad you had the courage to post this.

basing this on computer models?

talk bout hypocrisy.

LOL! I haven't claimed at all that I subscribe to such "backtracking"....I'm pointing out the wide ranging interpretations of such modeling by those "experts", which goes against the even wider range of "ice free by 20xx" claims!!! Read the thread Friv!

And Skier, I interpreted their conclusion that unchanging or slight increase to include a cone of uncertainty that would certainly place your strong proclaimation in serious doubt....but hey, you sound confident....go for it!!! >>>>>bookmarked

[WeatherRusty]

I am glad you had the courage to post this.

basing this on computer models?

talk bout hypocrisy.

Why is it that the skeptics seem surprised that natural variability still exists working in concert with AGW. Temperature rise is not linear and neither should we expect arctic sea ice decline to follow a linear path.

Everyone is going to have to face facts. Computer modeling of nature is a modern part of how science is done. There simply is no choice. The questions modern science asks are so complex and the solutions so long drawn out that working equations on the blackboard would literally take thousands and millions of years to complete one iteration.

[LakeEffectKing]

Why is it that the skeptics seem surprised that natural variability still exists working in concert with AGW. Temperature rise is not linear and neither should we expect arctic sea ice decline to follow a linear path.

Everyone is going to have to face facts. Computer modeling of nature is a modern part of how science is done. There simply is no choice. The questions modern science asks are so complex and the solutions so long drawn out that working equations on the blackboard would literally take thousands and millions of years to complete one iteration.

Because SOME EXPERTS (which are allowed to babble on, without interruption from the "moderate" experts) teach us skeptics to forget about natural variability when claiming "ice free by 20xx".....You guys have waffled back and forth about CO2 overcoming natural variation, but then also including it as a sometimes stronger forcing when a plateau or cooling comes about. And (if I can predict your response) if "we are looking at longer term trends" is the case, then please start telling that to the geniuses making "ice free by...." claims!

[hckyplayer8]

Do I need to be from the future to know it's not going to snow tomorrow?

It will be snowing somewhere....

Anyways, I simply wonder what makes you so certain that the ice will never return to "normal".

Yeah, yeah I know what the "experts" say and the "data" shows but there are always unknown variables that can never be accounted for.

I don't know what to believe on this subject. This field of science sure has clouded its image with political agendas and waffle house, flip flops.

[BethesdaWX]

Expect to see more of these "revelations". Knowing much of the issue is related to the flushing of M.Y. ice via a weakened Beaufort wind current, a +AMO, and Warming temperatures (Both Natural and Anthropogenic), there is no doubt that as the tides turn the Ice will Likely rebound to 1970's levels by 2045.

If I'm wrong so be it, but if I'm not, I want an automatic PHD for schooling NOAA/NASA.