The harder the Alarmists try ...

[PhillipS]

I think once you make a claim like you did about bots and computers making posts against AGW you are in conspiracy land. I do understand you have folks on both sides spreading misinformation but computer programs with personas? That is too much...

Yeah, I think you went too far and it's a conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard to believe that there are skeptics and for valid reasons about AGW. There is data and facts that don't match up with AGW. Imo could AGW be a reality, sure but do I think that it is a fact and things are settled. No I don't. I don't feel like we know enough about climate change to make an assumption that AGW is the cause of our warming. It could be normal oscillations in weather patterns for all we know We need more data, we don't have enough years of data to say science is settled.

What is wrong with wanting more data before making a claim that something is settled? I say we slowly cut back on Greenhouse gasses in the mean time but don't panic and collect more and more data along the way.

I know for a fact that there are a large number of honest climate skeptics. I'm not disputing that in any way. But I also know that there are a large number of pseudo-skeptics, and flat out denialists, too. And I know that there are a number of corporate and foundation funded 'Astroturf' groups that purport to be grassroots organizations when in reality they are just misinformation outlets.

As for the denier-bots - I wish they were just a myth. But, sadly, they exist as another example of high technology being misused. The good news is that tools are becoming available to detect and block them, much like IP address analysis is used to detect and block sock-puppets.

[Sunny and Warm]

AGW is not based on historical data. It is based in physics. Warming is what we expect based on physics, not by how many years it warms or cools.

AGW is NOT based on physics in the way you describe. CO2 caused warming is based on physics, but the AGW crowd doesn't seem to want to learn about negative feedbacks, so equates CO2=AGW=physics. The science is settled on CO2 leading to increased warming all other things being equal. That's where we differ. I don't believe all other things are equal.

[LakeEffectKing]

What is the cause? My goal is simply to enjoy the give and take on this forum and share what I have learned with the greater audience. I speak mostly to the fundamental scientific basis for AGW.

I am not under any illusion that I am going to change the world or even change minds. I do hope to enlighten those with an honest desire to learn the fundamental physical basis for the science. It is up to them to corroborate what I have to say through official sources.

There does exist a conspiracy. The science is up against a vast effort to denounce it's findings. I leave it to you to decide which side of the fence the conspiracy resides.

The fact that some believe the participants of science are somehow immune from embellishment, corruption, maliciousness and choosing ideological forces over objective scientific ones, demonstrates some are viewing the entire AGW landscape through polarized lenses....it's what has mucked up the whole argument since Algore had hair!

[Sunny and Warm]

Since when is the validity of science decided by public debate? If you were to debate why would you ask Gore who is not a scientist?

If Gore is not a scientist, why is he the face of AGW? Why has he refused to debate the issues if they are so important to humanity? Is he afraid people will bring up his hypocrisy of owning huge homes and private jets with the humongous carbon footprint?

[LakeEffectKing]

The first sentence is totally irrational. The second is hyperbole. The third is your your myopic opinion.

I just lost a lot of respect for you. Sorry.

In a fire should we panic and flip out...running around going nuts, thus creating irrational decisions, which can lead to potentially harmful consequences to those in harms way?? Or are we advised to stay "as calm as possible"?? Even if the worst doom and gloom were to befall us all, the way in which the message has been conveyed has been atrocious....sorry, it's the way it is.

Unfortunately for you....a myopic view characterization has no meaning from one who can't see their own flaws in perception, and the inability to expand beyond that in which that can see.....

My goal on this board is not to earn your respect, it's to try and keep the insanity of doomsdayers at bay.....

You're a smart gentleman, but rigid in your views....

[LithiaWx]

AGW is not based on historical data. It is based in physics. Warming is what we expect based on physics, not by how many years it warms or cools.

AGW is NOT based on physics in the way you describe. CO2 caused warming is based on physics, but the AGW crowd doesn't seem to want to learn about negative feedbacks, so equates CO2=AGW=physics. The science is settled on CO2 leading to increased warming all other things being equal. That's where we differ. I don't believe all other things are equal.

times a million. You have to look at the whole picture, historical record included. If things are as simple as you make them then historical records would be no problem and would match up with the physics of your argument. Oh wait but that's not the case is it..... The reason is because there are more factors at play than CO2 levels are rising and so is the temperature.

[Vergent]

Since when is the validity of science decided by public debate? If you were to debate why would you ask Gore who is not a scientist?

Republicans opinions should be respected because 96% of them believe what they are told to believe. Democrat and independents opinions should not be respected, they are more random.

It is nice to know the ice age never happened, so it can't happen again.

Propaganda doesn't seem to work on everyone.

[PhillipS]

[/size][/size][/color]

not only does Gore refuse to debate the science, he refuses to even talk about putting this into perspective vs. other issues

[/font]

An honest debate can omly take place when BOTH sides stick to the facts. When one side feel free to make stuff up, it's not a debate - it's a sideshow. What do you feel a sideshow between Gore and Lomborg would accomplish? Al Gore certainly isn't a scientist, and (judging from his recent work) Lomborg certainly isn't a credible scientist. So what would be the point of a 'debate' between them? Entertainment only, I suppose.

There is an arena available for debating the real science behind climate change - it's called peer-reviewed publication. And it's an open arena. Any scientist, or group of scientists, can write a paper on their research and submit it for publication. If it passes muster with the reviewers (and we've seen recently that that bar is set pretty low) then their paper is published for all to read and study. That is the sort of debate that moves science forward.

So why are there so few skeptical papers being published? Could it be a conspiracy by editors and reviewers? No, that explanation doesn't hold much water because there are journals specifically established for skeptical papers. Energy & Environment for example. A paper putting forward a solid alternative to mainstream AGW would be a breeze to get published.

And why are so many of the ones that are published quickly debunked and refuted? Well, bad scientific analysis doesn't survive scrutiny. Tha't how science is supposed to work, isn't it?

[WeatherRusty]

The fact that some believe the participants of science are somehow immune from embellishment, corruption, maliciousness and choosing ideological forces over objective scientific ones, demonstrates some are viewing the entire AGW landscape through polarized lenses....it's what has mucked up the whole argument since Algore had hair!

Just because something is possible doesn't make it probable.

[WeatherRusty]

AGW is NOT based on physics in the way you describe. CO2 caused warming is based on physics, but the AGW crowd doesn't seem to want to learn about negative feedbacks, so equates CO2=AGW=physics. The science is settled on CO2 leading to increased warming all other things being equal. That's where we differ. I don't believe all other things are equal.

So we should never again hear that CO2 represents to small a fraction of the atmosphere to make a difference?

We should never again hear that the greenhouse effect is a flawed concept?

The same scientific community which you claim do not want to hear about negative feedbacks (ridiculous on it's face) are the very same folks who understand that there is a feedback to an initial 1.2C warming from a doubling of CO2. They refer to this feedback process as climate sensitivity. Where do you think the concept of negative feedback originated?

The history of climate change on Earth demonstrates climate sensitivity to be a net positive to radiative perturbation. The balance between positive feedback and negative feedback is a net positive as evidenced by things like the temperature response to volcanic forcing and the understood forcing given from Milankovitch cycles. Initial forcing can not account for the over 6C of temperature change evident over the past 3 million years of ice age climate.

Climate sensitivity is best known to reside between 2C and 4.5C for a forcing the equal of that given from a doubling of CO2.

[WeatherRusty]

times a million. You have to look at the whole picture, historical record included. If things are as simple as you make them then historical records would be no problem and would match up with the physics of your argument. Oh wait but that's not the case is it..... The reason is because there are more factors at play than CO2 levels are rising and so is the temperature.

Do you really believe the science has not assessed the other variables you allude to?

[LithiaWx]

Do you really believe the science has not assessed the other variables you allude to?

That is why I want more data, I don't think anyone can completely assess those variables yet. We need more data and that is exactly the data I was referring to in my OP.

[skierinvermont]

That is why I want more data, I don't think anyone can completely assess those variables yet. We need more data and that is exactly the data I was referring to in my OP.

The data is there and it is unambiguous. Net climate feedbacks are positive. CO2 doubling causes 1.2C of warming per basic century old physics. The feedback to this will be positive, most likely resulting in 2-4.5C of warming.

[LithiaWx]

The data is there and it is unambiguous. Net climate feedbacks are positive. CO2 doubling causes 1.2C of warming per basic century old physics. The feedback to this will be positive, most likely resulting in 2-4.5C of warming.

It is open to interpretation. There you guys go again with the "science is settled" garbage. It's not settled, there are other factors that go into this other than CO2 causes warming, Those factors are not completely understood. For anyone to think they understand the system fully and perfectly is ignorant.

[PhillipS]

It is open to interpretation. There you guys go again with the "science is settled" garbage. It's not settled, there are other factors that go into this other than CO2 causes warming, Those factors are not completely understood. For anyone to think they understand the system fully and perfectly is ignorant.

Given that there is always uncertainty in science, what level of confidence in our understanding of the Earth's climate would you consider enough? 95%? 99%?

And does it make any difference to you that there is a cost associated with waiting for more data? That if the AGW theories are substantially correct then the consequences of climate change, and the costs to deal with climate change, become more severe the longer we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

[LithiaWx]

Given that there is always uncertainty in science, what level of confidence in our understanding of the Earth's climate would you consider enough? 95%? 99%?

And does it make any difference to you that there is a cost associated with waiting for more data? That if the AGW theories are substantially correct then the consequences of climate change, and the costs to deal with climate change, become more severe the longer we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

I'm not sure what number I would put on it. Before I hit the panic button I think we need more data. If we hit the panic button now and are wrong then we destroy economies around the world and find ourselves having to police other countries about their CO2 emissions. I think the cost of hitting the button now and being wrong is very steep. Also to note how bad is a slightly warmer world anyways? Is it really that bad?

[WeatherRusty]

It is open to interpretation. There you guys go again with the "science is settled" garbage. It's not settled, there are other factors that go into this other than CO2 causes warming, Those factors are not completely understood. For anyone to think they understand the system fully and perfectly is ignorant.

Yes it would be ignorant. We will never understand the system perfectly and completely.

[The_Global_Warmer]

LEK-

Don't be absurd you are definitely some bot or a sock-puppet. But those people support your view so of course you will feel attacked.

You really need to open your eyes to it. I don't see multiple posters here on "this" side of the arguement selling complete rubbish on a daily basis. You talk about conspiracies. Your a scientist you know this crap is laughed out of science circles because it's crap.

You once said it's like low carb eating.

Except that the peer reviewed process there supports low carb diets. In fact in the short term the evidence is overwhelming and now nutritionists and dietitioners put there clients on a low carb or near total no carb diet especially in the short term.

But more so then that the actual peer reviewed published papers support short term no to low carb diets. And now some papers support long term low carb dieting.

The Food and Drug industry is nearly as powerful as the oil industry and they as we both agree have tried to ruin low carb dieting or low carb lifestyle for decades.

But they have failed. public for different reasons... In the industry low carb is the accepted and most commonly used practice among fitness people.

The General public falls into the trap because of ADDICTION.

You can't deny that. We have proven without a doubt that carbohydrates are addicting on the neurochemical level. As well as the physical level with insulin which also causes a nuerochemical response similar to opiates.

Not to mention the emotional addiction(psychological)

The powers in the food industry didn't even try to fight low carb lifestyles man. they made low carb alternatives for there own products in hopes for a new market share. They already knew there products were addicting and knew that many people would stay on. I have read internal studies from companies that expected about 60 percent of US consumers by 2010 would not eat Carbohydrates, these were from the 1970s and 1980s. so instead of putting out complete denial campaigners to get the general public to reject or question low carb eating. they tried to exploit it.

Remember low carb doritoes? Low Carb Pizza, Low Carb Pancakes?

It failed. they gave us these items as best as could be processed and it didn't work.

That is the reason low carb eating has never caught on. Humans are not addicted to fossil fuels they are dependent on them because they drive the technology that humans have grown accustomed to. If there were alternatives humans wouldn't give two bleeps about oil. In fact most people would gladly give it up. I bet the polls on AGW would change then.

If we had real evidence that GHGs don't have a positive feedback in terms of warming the Earth then AGW wouldn't exist.

Let me spell this out for you.

These Scientists all agree that GHG's trap heat and will warm the Earth overtime.

They do not agree how much of an impact and how fast this will take place based on the atmospheric concentration of these gas's.

They also do not agree or know exactly how other forcing measures direct or indirect will effect this in ether direction.

There are hundreds if not thousands of accepted peer reviewed papers on factors like the sun, El Nino, La Nina effecting how fast temperatures will rise in response to GHG forcing.

Do you understand there is a difference between that and someone saying the science is still out on GHGs causing feedback that will warm the Earth?

Arguing how much proven factors will effect this is normal scientific practice.

Arguing that GHG's won't warm the Earth if we keep dumping billions of tons of them into the atmosphere out of the ground on a yearly basis is KooKoo.

At that point you are defying chemistry, biology, and physics and saying everything we know is a lie. That is not real, that is why the scientific community "so called rejects that notion."

Tacoman, Yourself, ORH are not here debating any of that. Your called skeptics. You don't believe GHGs will overwhelm the system as fast as the majority of the scientific community does.

But your not in the Kookoo group. Your group has thousands of credible scientists in it. In fact many fall in the category of it, I think we are already seeing this play out.

Co2 is going to possibly pass 400ppm by next year or by 2013 for sure. We currently have been in a La Nina and Solar Min for years now and the warming has slowed. but cooling hasn't started. That pretty much gives us a nice snapshot of how this works. When El Nino comes back and the sun is at it's peak you will see warming and probably records set. Will the warming pass 1998, yes. Will it be at the absurdity, probably not because the sun is not as active.

we have had an active solar system for 150 years. This has nothing to do with the warming...but when that solar system changes abruptly we will see it cool based on the changes we have monitored. But we haven't cooled back to where we would be have we?

Glaciers are still melting out faster then ever.

Greenland is as well.

Arctic Sea ice is melting out faster than ever

Antarctic land ice is as well.

Snow around Antarctica and the Arctic has increased in response to recent warming which also coincides with the Co2 being so high, which effects the poles more.

This also have negative feedback for warming with albedo effect of snow and helping slow the loss of land-ice on Antarctica.

This is pretty easy to see my friend. I wish you didn't feel so attacked or feel like your ideology is at stake. this is just science and it's pretty easily explained.

As far as the arctic. As long as the ice is there all summer the feedback won't run away. Even with the volume depleted the ice volume/thickness had little effect on the surface of the Earth. the sun shines on the ice sitting out of the water not the ice in the water. Even now the ice will not melt out until the ice underneath is gone because the ice itself creates and albedo effect under the water. Like a shield you see on Star Trek. Once the shield goes the ship is done from one photon. The ice as long as it can reflect the suns enegy above water the shield is intact below. the warm water can only penetrate so far into the ice before the energy is used up in melting the ice on the edges from the bottom. This happens in the 100 meter water or shallower easy. Once the ocean floor goes from 100 meters to thousands the warm water can not penetrate until the ice melt and the water around it warms. This is a process that has been happening for much longer then 30 years. We are just now understanding it. The ice is now so thin and new that this feedbacks power has increased a ton, much more so then the effects of a weaker sun and leveling off global temperature system. Because the ice is so thin so early we see rapid melt on the edges that allows warm water between 60-70N to penetrate faster and this coincides with the sun hitting it's peak. We see waters in those areas get warm in May and June and start bottom melt on the 70-80N. the last two seasons people who haven't accepted this or studied it called for large increases in sea ice because other factors like global temps have leveled off. or a short recovery in 2-4 year MY ice took place. However that couldn't stop this. So come JUNE in 2010 and 2011 we saw many posts about how nice the ice was looking.

http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/cgi-bin/amsr/polar_sst/polar_sst.cgi

That is 2002-now monthly SST anomalies. until 2007 it was harder for the warm waters to work into the arctic. This is because the ice thickness was to big still and the shallower shelves of the arctic basin were ice covered to long. After 2007-2008 the destruction of the MY allowed the waters to melt the FY ice faster allowing more time for the SUN to warm the waters in the arctic basin longer enhancing and speeding up the ice melt from BELOW. Also allowing warm streams from the Atlantic and Pacific more free access into the arctic basin.

2009-2011 should have seen a recovery back to 5.5-6.0 million km2 extents and increases in volume/MY ice. 2011 had at best 3 of 10 support for winds if say 2007 was 8 or 9 of 10. Surface Temps were also much colder than 2007, its not even close. But the SSTs were warm. with 2010 in 3rd. because of the process explained earlier.

The computer models were so far off in terms of ice loss because of this. We really couldn't of known how big of an impact this would have in the face of a dead sun.

We are seeing the arctic cool off now faster than it should given the lack of ice and snow. But he sun has been in a min now for a while. So when it's not at it's peak its weakness is exposed a bit more in places of low sun angle. However even with such swings in ice thickness the new ice is weak and filled with more salt than ever. It can not stand up to the new feedback and when we have another 2007 summer we are going to see the next dropoff the models predict.

I bet anyone here next summers Ice Extent will be between 4.0-4.8 million km2 with a max of 5.3 mil under extremely positive circumstances this winter or next summer aka(1996). And a min of 3.0 million km2 under 2006-2007 like circumstances.

This is so easy to explain, I can't understand why people can't see it.

There retorts are baseless in science or just predicated on ideology, doctrine, or emotion.

In the end the with all things equal if GHG go as we are currently going the forces outside of it would need to be drastic like volcanoes, 100 years of dead sun. Earths tilt moving or orbit moving further away. If not, this process is going to bear fruit.

The wild card is the arctic. If its demise comes fast enough the system will be thrown into chaos with unpredictable outcomes.

I hope this helps.

[skierinvermont]

It is open to interpretation. There you guys go again with the "science is settled" garbage. It's not settled, there are other factors that go into this other than CO2 causes warming, Those factors are not completely understood. For anyone to think they understand the system fully and perfectly is ignorant.

It is not open to interpretation. There is no debate in the scientific community that doubling CO2 causes 1.2C of warming and that the net feedbacks are positive as demonstrated by both the earth's history and physics (predominantly the water vapor feedback). The only debate is on the blogosphere and among politicians.

You don't need to understand every other factor to understand what the effect of CO2 will be. There is a misconception among many internet posters that AGW theory is dependent on explaining 20th century temperatures and being able to rule out every other variable that might have affected temperature. It's not. Even if we knew NOTHING about any other climate variable we would still know that CO2 causes 1.2C of warming per doubling and that earth has historically had a net positive feedback. We don't need to know everything to know something in this case.

We don't know everything or even close to everything, but we know enough to confidently conclude that doubling CO2 will lead to between 2-4.5C of warming.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes it would be ignorant. We will never understand the system perfectly and completely.

Of course don't.

But we know enough. We know that the sun goes into centuries of low/high sunspots which seem to have a 1-2C effect on global temps.

We know La Nina, El Nino, and any other correlation based way of looking at climate has effects on energy distribution and will effect short and medium term global temps and weather but have nothing to with total energy so they vary and should be considered irrelevant to GHG forcing. If you can't understand that then you already have veered from science to science fiction.

We can't assume volcanoes, magnetic shifts, asteroids, or some cosmic thing going on lights years away is causing any substantial impact on the Earths climate and use it to do nothing.

So this leaves the Sun. Which again we have almost 400 years of research and the tools to know how this works out on a general scale.

With that said we can use a high confidence interval to assert how much GHG will add energy to the system over a long period.

So what is undiscovered at this point is almost in the rhealm of phantom phenomenon or science fiction.

The sun, the Earths core, gas, and surface seem to be nearly the complete energy system.

We know the ice is going to melt out causing more energy to be contained on land and water, we know the sun goes threw cycles which have been accounted for with error margins, we know volcanoes are to unpredictable to include.

So at least give me some ideas on these undiscovered sources that cause energy in the system to go up and down like the ones we already know about?

[The_Global_Warmer]

It is not open to interpretation. There is no debate in the scientific community that CO2 causes 1.2C of warming and that the net feedbacks are positive as demonstrated by both the earth's history and physics (predominantly the water vapor feedback). The only debate is on the blogosphere and among politicians.

You don't need to understand every other factor to understand what the effect of CO2 will be. There is a misconception among many internet posters that AGW theory is dependent on explaining 20th century temperatures and being able to rule out every other variable that might have affected temperature. It's not. Even if we knew NOTHING about any other climate variable we would still know that CO2 causes 1.2C of warming per doubling and that earth has historically had a net positive feedback. We don't need to know everything to know something in this case.

We don't know everything or even close to everything, but we know enough to confidently conclude that doubling CO2 will lead to between 2-4.5C of warming.

lol I forgot about water vapor. thanks. Another feedback to add to the checklist in the arctic region from ice melt.

[LithiaWx]

We know I think the ice is going to melt out causing more energy to be contained on land and water, we know the sun goes threw through cycles which have been accounted for with error margins, we know volcanoes are to too unpredictable to include.

I'm not convinced the arctic ice melts out fully in summer anytime soon. That is where you are taking opinion and presenting it as fact.

btw, I fixed your post for you.

[LakeEffectKing]

LEK-

Don't be absurd you are definitely some bot or a sock-puppet. But those people support your view so of course you will feel attacked.

You really need to open your eyes to it. I don't see multiple posters here on "this" side of the arguement selling complete rubbish on a daily basis. You talk about conspiracies. Your a scientist you know this crap is laughed out of science circles because it's crap.

You once said it's like low carb eating.

Except that the peer reviewed process there supports low carb diets. In fact in the short term the evidence is overwhelming and now nutritionists and dietitioners put there clients on a low carb or near total no carb diet especially in the short term.

But more so then that the actual peer reviewed published papers support short term no to low carb diets. And now some papers support long term low carb dieting.

The Food and Drug industry is nearly as powerful as the oil industry and they as we both agree have tried to ruin low carb dieting or low carb lifestyle for decades.

But they have failed. public for different reasons... In the industry low carb is the accepted and most commonly used practice among fitness people.

The General public falls into the trap because of ADDICTION.

You can't deny that. We have proven without a doubt that carbohydrates are addicting on the neurochemical level. As well as the physical level with insulin which also causes a nuerochemical response similar to opiates.

Not to mention the emotional addiction(psychological)

The powers in the food industry didn't even try to fight low carb lifestyles man. they made low carb alternatives for there own products in hopes for a new market share. They already knew there products were addicting and knew that many people would stay on. I have read internal studies from companies that expected about 60 percent of US consumers by 2010 would not eat Carbohydrates, these were from the 1970s and 1980s. so instead of putting out complete denial campaigners to get the general public to reject or question low carb eating. they tried to exploit it.

Remember low carb doritoes? Low Carb Pizza, Low Carb Pancakes?

It failed. they gave us these items as best as could be processed and it didn't work.

That is the reason low carb eating has never caught on. Humans are not addicted to fossil fuels they are dependent on them because they drive the technology that humans have grown accustomed to. If there were alternatives humans wouldn't give two bleeps about oil. In fact most people would gladly give it up. I bet the polls on AGW would change then.

If we had real evidence that GHGs don't have a positive feedback in terms of warming the Earth then AGW wouldn't exist.

Let me spell this out for you.

These Scientists all agree that GHG's trap heat and will warm the Earth overtime.

They do not agree how much of an impact and how fast this will take place based on the atmospheric concentration of these gas's.

They also do not agree or know exactly how other forcing measures direct or indirect will effect this in ether direction.

There are hundreds if not thousands of accepted peer reviewed papers on factors like the sun, El Nino, La Nina effecting how fast temperatures will rise in response to GHG forcing.

Do you understand there is a difference between that and someone saying the science is still out on GHGs causing feedback that will warm the Earth?

Arguing how much proven factors will effect this is normal scientific practice.

Arguing that GHG's won't warm the Earth if we keep dumping billions of tons of them into the atmosphere out of the ground on a yearly basis is KooKoo.

At that point you are defying chemistry, biology, and physics and saying everything we know is a lie. That is not real, that is why the scientific community "so called rejects that notion."

Tacoman, Yourself, ORH are not here debating any of that. Your called skeptics. You don't believe GHGs will overwhelm the system as fast as the majority of the scientific community does.

But your not in the Kookoo group. Your group has thousands of credible scientists in it. In fact many fall in the category of it, I think we are already seeing this play out.

Co2 is going to possibly pass 400ppm by next year or by 2013 for sure. We currently have been in a La Nina and Solar Min for years now and the warming has slowed. but cooling hasn't started. That pretty much gives us a nice snapshot of how this works. When El Nino comes back and the sun is at it's peak you will see warming and probably records set. Will the warming pass 1998, yes. Will it be at the absurdity, probably not because the sun is not as active.

we have had an active solar system for 150 years. This has nothing to do with the warming...but when that solar system changes abruptly we will see it cool based on the changes we have monitored. But we haven't cooled back to where we would be have we?

Glaciers are still melting out faster then ever.

Greenland is as well.

Arctic Sea ice is melting out faster than ever

Antarctic land ice is as well.

Snow around Antarctica and the Arctic has increased in response to recent warming which also coincides with the Co2 being so high, which effects the poles more.

This also have negative feedback for warming with albedo effect of snow and helping slow the loss of land-ice on Antarctica.

This is pretty easy to see my friend. I wish you didn't feel so attacked or feel like your ideology is at stake. this is just science and it's pretty easily explained.

As far as the arctic. As long as the ice is there all summer the feedback won't run away. Even with the volume depleted the ice volume/thickness had little effect on the surface of the Earth. the sun shines on the ice sitting out of the water not the ice in the water. Even now the ice will not melt out until the ice underneath is gone because the ice itself creates and albedo effect under the water. Like a shield you see on Star Trek. Once the shield goes the ship is done from one photon. The ice as long as it can reflect the suns enegy above water the shield is intact below. the warm water can only penetrate so far into the ice before the energy is used up in melting the ice on the edges from the bottom. This happens in the 100 meter water or shallower easy. Once the ocean floor goes from 100 meters to thousands the warm water can not penetrate until the ice melt and the water around it warms. This is a process that has been happening for much longer then 30 years. We are just now understanding it. The ice is now so thin and new that this feedbacks power has increased a ton, much more so then the effects of a weaker sun and leveling off global temperature system. Because the ice is so thin so early we see rapid melt on the edges that allows warm water between 60-70N to penetrate faster and this coincides with the sun hitting it's peak. We see waters in those areas get warm in May and June and start bottom melt on the 70-80N. the last two seasons people who haven't accepted this or studied it called for large increases in sea ice because other factors like global temps have leveled off. or a short recovery in 2-4 year MY ice took place. However that couldn't stop this. So come JUNE in 2010 and 2011 we saw many posts about how nice the ice was looking.

http://sharaku.eorc....t/polar_sst.cgi

That is 2002-now monthly SST anomalies. until 2007 it was harder for the warm waters to work into the arctic. This is because the ice thickness was to big still and the shallower shelves of the arctic basin were ice covered to long. After 2007-2008 the destruction of the MY allowed the waters to melt the FY ice faster allowing more time for the SUN to warm the waters in the arctic basin longer enhancing and speeding up the ice melt from BELOW. Also allowing warm streams from the Atlantic and Pacific more free access into the arctic basin.

2009-2011 should have seen a recovery back to 5.5-6.0 million km2 extents and increases in volume/MY ice. 2011 had at best 3 of 10 support for winds if say 2007 was 8 or 9 of 10. Surface Temps were also much colder than 2007, its not even close. But the SSTs were warm. with 2010 in 3rd. because of the process explained earlier.

The computer models were so far off in terms of ice loss because of this. We really couldn't of known how big of an impact this would have in the face of a dead sun.

We are seeing the arctic cool off now faster than it should given the lack of ice and snow. But he sun has been in a min now for a while. So when it's not at it's peak its weakness is exposed a bit more in places of low sun angle. However even with such swings in ice thickness the new ice is weak and filled with more salt than ever. It can not stand up to the new feedback and when we have another 2007 summer we are going to see the next dropoff the models predict.

I bet anyone here next summers Ice Extent will be between 4.0-4.8 million km2 with a max of 5.3 mil under extremely positive circumstances this winter or next summer aka(1996). And a min of 3.0 million km2 under 2006-2007 like circumstances.

This is so easy to explain, I can't understand why people can't see it.

There retorts are baseless in science or just predicated on ideology, doctrine, or emotion.

In the end the with all things equal if GHG go as we are currently going the forces outside of it would need to be drastic like volcanoes, 100 years of dead sun. Earths tilt moving or orbit moving further away. If not, this process is going to bear fruit.

The wild card is the arctic. If its demise comes fast enough the system will be thrown into chaos with unpredictable outcomes.

I hope this helps.

Just skimmed through your post (not enough time right now to address all), but addressing a couple points

One. Low carb eating was villified to the MAX just a few years ago....and still is today to a bit lesser extent. The nutritionalists out there VILLIFIED each and every "fad dieter" out there because they were SO SURE OF THE SCIENCE!!! Yet here we are today, living testimony that WE WERE SKEPTICAL of the mainstream CONSENSUS.....thank God for that!!!

As for me feeling attacked???? Ummmm.....no such feeling here....not sure where you got that impression. If you mean that the rhetoric is of attacking nature for both sides (as I feel I'm staunchly not a denier, just want better science of ALL the forcings/feedbacks to be studied) then sure, it's quite obvious that there is a divisiveness forcing out there that is highly attacking. But on a personal level??? Not a feeling I get....

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm not convinced the arctic ice melts out fully in summer anytime soon. That is where you are taking opinion and presenting it as fact.

btw, I fixed your post for you.

You actually proved my point.

All you could do it go is something subjective on a short to medium range timeline.

The arctic has already melted out 70-80 percent of its volume just since the 70s.

this feedback is already well into action.

Which can't be debated. The Arctic melting out just causes it to be stronger than it already is. Which supports the Earth Warming faster than it would of Co2 was the only driver of an warming earth.

[Sunny and Warm]

It is not open to interpretation. There is no debate in the scientific community that CO2 causes 1.2C of warming and that the net feedbacks are positive as demonstrated by both the earth's history and physics (predominantly the water vapor feedback). The only debate is on the blogosphere and among politicians.

You don't need to understand every other factor to understand what the effect of CO2 will be. There is a misconception among many internet posters that AGW theory is dependent on explaining 20th century temperatures and being able to rule out every other variable that might have affected temperature. It's not. Even if we knew NOTHING about any other climate variable we would still know that CO2 causes 1.2C of warming per doubling and that earth has historically had a net positive feedback. We don't need to know everything to know something in this case.

We don't know everything or even close to everything, but we know enough to confidently conclude that doubling CO2 will lead to between 2-4.5C of warming.

If true, then why ...

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

[The_Global_Warmer]

Just skimmed through your post (not enough time right now to address all), but addressing a couple points

One. Low carb eating was villified to the MAX just a few years ago....and still is today to a bit lesser extent. The nutritionalists out there VILLIFIED each and every "fad dieter" out there because they were SO SURE OF THE SCIENCE!!! Yet here we are today, living testimony that WE WERE SKEPTICAL of the mainstream CONSENSUS.....thank God for that!!!

As for me feeling attacked???? Ummmm.....no such feeling here....not sure where you got that impression. If you mean that the rhetoric is of attacking nature for both sides (as I feel I'm staunchly not a denier, just want better science of ALL the forcings/feedbacks to be studied) then sure, it's quite obvious that there is a divisiveness forcing out there that is highly attacking. But on a personal level??? Not a feeling I get....

LEK,

Regardless of how much it was vilified by many main stream nutritionists.

The science on the matter has been conclusive for sometime now.

I agree with you. It would be nice to know how the sun warms and cools the Earth. So we can account for that better.

A full Maunder type min would completely throw off Co2 warming.

But the ice melting out would to.

A volcano erupting twice the power of Pinatubo(not sure if I got that right) could throw a wrench in the ice melt by causing a thickening of ice among things.

The sun going beserk with sun spots double the studied max could help the warming.

Regardless we still know co2 among other GHGs are still going to cause the overall system to retain more energy and warm.

[LithiaWx]

You actually proved my point.

All you could do it go is something subjective on a short to medium range timeline.

The arctic has already melted out 70-80 percent of its volume just since the 70s.

this feedback is already well into action.

Which can't be debated. The Arctic melting out just causes it to be stronger than it already is. Which supports the Earth Warming faster than it would of Co2 was the only driver of an warming earth.

Would you please slow down and type something readable? I find it hard to take you seriously, someone who claims to be joining Mensa and can't differentiate between to, too and two or threw and through. It really makes it hard to take you seriously when you go throwing opinion around as fact. It is your opinion that the arctic ice will eventually be void in a summer in the future, not fact. I'm not a denier but I do not respect alarmists like yourself who do nothing but hurt the AGW debate by peddling fear and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You seem fairly educated on the subject if you would tone down the fear and doomsday comments and slow down a tad on your posts you may find you reach people a tad better and your message is better received.

[BeastFromTheEast]

You actually proved my point.

All you could do it go is something subjective on a short to medium range timeline.

The arctic has already melted out 70-80 percent of its volume just since the 70s.

this feedback is already well into action.

Which can't be debated. The Arctic melting out just causes it to be stronger than it already is. Which supports the Earth Warming faster than it would of Co2 was the only driver of an warming earth.

You are going to get hammered this winter.. 50+ Inches for KSTL

Oh and a -0.69696969 Temp departure Dec-Feb

[Strongbad]

I have no interest in arguing what I am about to post. It's for the simple reason that there really is no point in arguing it. First, a quote from Roger Pielke:

When policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.”

This is at the heart of the global warming debate, and will probably be the reason it will be seen as a passing fad in under a few decades. The only way for that to change is if the alarmist predictions (not including predictions of slight warming or sea rises) come true. Everything from Massive weather events, to severe droughts, to uninhabitable coastlines. If those do not occur soon, then Global Warming as a movement will basically check out.

Global Warming, for better or worse, is just as much a Political movement as anything else. The sad truth is that the Environmental movement has been politicized beyond repair. Why else did the co-founder of Greenpeace, Stewart Brand, resign? If we try to convince people that the only way to stave off global destruction is through cutting back on Carbon emissions, what we are in fact really doing is telling them to get used to a Lower standard of living. That is a usless argument that will lose the public.

One tragedy for too many alarmists is that the AGW movement as a whole never jumped on the Nuclear power, clean coal bandwagons. Instead they subsidized and literally forced onto people technologies that have proven to be highly wasteful (Wind, Solar, Ethanol!) and not nearly as efficient as billed. To make matters simple, even if you are a true believer in global warming, many of your Leaders have failed you by losing the public's trust. Wasting your time on this website and trying to make your argument does not win them back.

I am not the problem, no matter how much I have been demonized here for being skeptical. Your problem has been a lack of credible alternatives to fossil fuels. Without economically properous messages, your movement will soon be in the dustbin of history.

Source

[PhillipS]

If true, then why ...

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Please help us understand your point. Dr. Giaever's expertise is in the fields of Superconductivity, Tunneling, Immunology, Tissue Culture, and Manipulating Single Molecules. How does any of that translate into expertise in climatology? Dr Giaever is certainly entitled to his opinions, and resigning from the APS because he disagrees with the organization's position on climate change is without doubt his right. But if you are saying that we should adopt his opinion because he won the Nobel Prize, then you are making the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Did it not occur to you that the APS adopted its position because the majority of its members, which includes a number of Nobel Prize winners, agreed that global warming is incontrovertible? Would you like to settle the climate change 'debate' by adding up the number of Nobel Prize winners on each side? I'm confident I know how that count would turn out.