ForecastTheFacts.Org

[TerryM]

Another, perhaps more illustrative graph from the same site, this one covering the whole of the ice sheet.

Chosing data from a small region, or a narrow time period to prove a contention is usually referred to as 'cherry picking.

Terry

[PhillipS]

The temps aren't all that different now than they were back in the last +AMO period. Either you don't understand history or you are trying to exaggerate for alarmist effect.

Take from HERE

Interesting page you linked to - thanks. Here is an excerpt to accompany the figure you posted:

The recent (post-1994) warming, is attributable to: 1.)

a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since 1991

; 2) recent

warming

phase of AMO; 3) an apparent

reversal of the global dimming trend

; and 4) ongoing and intensifying

anthropogenic global warming

(AWG), the

elephant in the room

, owing to a

dominance

of enhanced greenhouse effect despite other anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). The primary factor responsible for the warming trend is very likely to be AWG (IPCC, 2007).

[ben4vols]

Another, perhaps more illustrative graph from the same site, this one covering the whole of the ice sheet.

Chosing data from a small region, or a narrow time period to prove a contention is usually referred to as 'cherry picking.

Terry

Choosing data from a small region or a narrow time period? It is Greenland my friend there isn't a lot to choose from. It's not cherry picking but a lack of good data. Which goes to the graphic you displayed, I don't really trust the data. Yet it still proves my point that there isn't a great deal difference between today and the 1930's (minus a huge warm anomaly in 2010 which was the point of Box's blog post).

[The_Global_Warmer]

you dont get it.

How much warmer can the air above or around n a sheet of ice get while its still a thick sheet of ice?

How much ice will melt if albedo drops accross the sheet of ice?

How much ice will melt if albedo drops from the .80-.85 range to the .72 to .76 range accross the ice sheet & ghg forcing grows stronger everyday?

[WeatherRusty]

The temps aren't all that different now than they were back in the last +AMO period. Either you don't understand history or you are trying to exaggerate for alarmist effect.

Take from HERE

You're correct, the temp is not all that different....if you consider tenths of a degree up to a couple degrees not all that different. The entire globe is only 1/2 degree warmer than it was during the previous +AMO. That's not all that different either. However, the longer term trend is very obvious and since we are near certain of the cause we can expect that trend to continue.

[ben4vols]

You're correct, the temp is not all that different....if you consider tenths of a degree up to a couple degrees not all that different. The entire globe is only 1/2 degree warmer than it was during the previous +AMO. That's not all that different either. However, the longer term trend is very obvious and since we are near certain of the cause we can expect that trend to continue.

You aren't near certain of any cause. Even the author of the blog gives about 4 different reasons for this and the last one was AGW. Again I don't deny AGW does have some effect but what I do deny is that the climate is as sensitive as you think it is.

[WeatherRusty]

You aren't near certain of any cause. Even the author of the blog gives about 4 different reasons for this and the last one was AGW. Again I don't deny AGW does have some effect but what I do deny is that the climate is as sensitive as you think it is.

Three of the four reasons given relate to radiative forcing of climate. Aerosol pollution and global dimming serve to counteract the effect on radiative forcing by CO2. Remember, the net forcing is what is important. Take away two negative forcing agents and the full effect of CO2 becomes more evident.

Well, if you go by scientific investigation, the global equilibrium climate sensitivity lies between 2C and 4.5C for a doubling of CO2. That's what I accept as most likely.

What do you base your doubt on?

[The_Global_Warmer]

you dont get it.

How much warmer can the air above or around n a sheet of ice get while its still a thick sheet of ice?

How much ice will melt if albedo drops accross the sheet of ice?

How much ice will melt if albedo drops from the .80-.85 range to the .72 to .76 range accross the ice sheet & ghg forcing grows stronger everyday?

You aren't near certain of any cause. Even the author of the blog gives about 4 different reasons for this and the last one was AGW. Again I don't deny AGW does have some effect but what I do deny is that the climate is as sensitive as you think it is.

You don't have an opinion on this?

[PhillipS]

You aren't near certain of any cause. Even the author of the blog gives about 4 different reasons for this and the last one was AGW. Again I don't deny AGW does have some effect but what I do deny is that the climate is as sensitive as you think it is.

Perhaps you missed the author's statement "The primary factor responsible for the warming trend is very likely to be AWG".

If you believe that another cause is responsible, make your case by providing links to the peer-reviewed research that supports your position.

As I'm sure you're aware - scientific debate is settled by research, not rhetoric.

[ben4vols]

You don't have an opinion on this?

I don't see any reason to try and get uber technical by calculating albedo when temps aren't doing anything they haven't done in the past.

[ben4vols]

Perhaps you missed the author's statement "The primary factor responsible for the warming trend is very likely to be AWG".

If you believe that another cause is responsible, make your case by providing links to the peer-reviewed research that supports your position.

As I'm sure you're aware - scientific debate is settled by research, not rhetoric.

I saw the author's quote but I don't agree. Again temps aren't doing anything they haven't done in the past. Yes they are a tad bit warmer but then again the +AMO is a bit stronger as well, so it is to be expected. Maybe he came to that conclusion so he can continue to have his research funded. Or maybe he wanted to sit at the cool kids table at the next IPCC event.

[PhillipS]

I saw the author's quote but I don't agree. Again temps aren't doing anything they haven't done in the past. Yes they are a tad bit warmer but then again the +AMO is a bit stronger as well, so it is to be expected. Maybe he came to that conclusion so he can continue to have his research funded. Or maybe he wanted to sit at the cool kids table at the next IPCC event.

Your unsupported opinion is noted. Thank you for sharing it with us - I'm sure others feel as enlightened as I do.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't see any reason to try and get uber technical by calculating albedo when temps aren't doing anything they haven't done in the past.

That is a pretty embarrassing statement. It's like saying Tim Tebow is better than Tom Brady. Pretty absurd and founded in nothing.

You have backed your position horribly, I don't know how you can say stuff knowing it's founded in nothing.

But never the less, you still do it.

[WeatherRusty]

I saw the author's quote but I don't agree. Again temps aren't doing anything they haven't done in the past. Yes they are a tad bit warmer but then again the +AMO is a bit stronger as well, so it is to be expected. Maybe he came to that conclusion so he can continue to have his research funded. Or maybe he wanted to sit at the cool kids table at the next IPCC event.

So, you disagree that global temperature will continue to rise on into the future as radiative forcing from continued accumulation of CO2 increases? You and other's are saying you deny the science which accounts for most of the past century's warming and that warming will continue on into the future with consequences not experienced for many millions of years.. You and folks like Roger Smith believe natural variability accounts for most of recent past warming contrary to what scientific analysis indicates.

So much for science I guess then....huh?

If not from science, then how do you account for your position?

[ben4vols]

Your unsupported opinion is noted. Thank you for sharing it with us - I'm sure others feel as enlightened as I do.

Your opinion on someone else's unsupported opinion is noted as well. Thanks for playing.

[ben4vols]

You have backed your position horribly, I don't know how you can say stuff knowing it's founded in nothing.

But never the less, you still do it.

Yeah I know you would rather have this debate in the virtual albedo world where we can argue over made up values which would be impossible to really quantify from what little data we have from 70 years ago and then compare those values against each other.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah I know you would rather have this debate in the virtual albedo world where we can argue over made up values which would be impossible to really quantify from what little data we have from 70 years ago and then compare those values against each other.

Keep disrespecting all of the countless work hundreds of Men and Woman have done for centuries in Greenland and other glacial and tundra areas in, around, and over the arctic ice sheet, Greeland Ice Sheet, Thousands of frozen lakes and rivers in both hemispheres. From using wooden boats to radar alemeters, GPS, Advanced Microwave Satelittes, now laser pulse technology to measure ice height, width, depth.

We can reconstruct and observe Geeenland ice data for 300-400 years with high reliability.

The only reason anyone would pretend otherwise and mock the science behind this knowledge is because it's fits with by far the highest coorelation to long term GHG forcing.

In fact ice melt globally for over 100 years has continued to accelerate on a bell curve, in theory GHG forcing would increase ice melt before wide spread changes in global heat content because the ice responds directly to solar forcing.

As the other factors change. Faster snow melt = more ice melt.

Larger melt ponds which continue to rapidly grow in depth and width and earlier onset and later freezeups, because oceans are Warmer Unser the glacier at edges has way more bottom melt.

The warming of the oceans, increased rain and OHC will only enhance ice melt.

As co2 reaches 400 ppm at 397ppm now, rising faster as humanity keeps accelerating the GHG forcing,

Ice melt has accelerated 10-20 times over the last couple decades and shows no signs of dropping.

We will get beautiful images of Greenland and hundreds of miles of huge melt ponds this summer.

And it will be natural variance!!!!

[ben4vols]

In fact ice melt globally for over 100 years has continued to accelerate on a bell curve, in theory GHG forcing would increase ice melt before wide spread changes in global heat content because the ice responds directly to solar forcing.

As the other factors change. Faster snow melt = more ice melt.

Larger melt ponds which continue to rapidly grow in depth and width and earlier onset and later freezeups, because oceans are Warmer Unser the glacier at edges has way more bottom melt.

The warming of the oceans, increased rain and OHC will only enhance ice melt.

As co2 reaches 400 ppm at 397ppm now, rising faster as humanity keeps accelerating the GHG forcing,

Ice melt has accelerated 10-20 times over the last couple decades and shows no signs of dropping.

We will get beautiful images of Greenland and hundreds of miles of huge melt ponds this summer.

And it will be natural variance!!!!

If you look back at history one can see that each +AMO period is stronger than the last and the +AMO periods are greater in length than the -AMO periods. Thus it isn't a surprise that each +AMO period brings greater melting to Greenland and will probably continue to do so (minus a crazy act of nature) until the onset of the next Ice Age. Reducing greenhouse emissions would do little to change this.

[donsutherland1]

Your opinion on someone else's unsupported opinion is noted as well. Thanks for playing.

Scientists' opinions are not "unsupported." They are based on a lot of research. That some uncertainties exist does not render the scientists' opinions as "unsupported."

[LakeEffectKing]

Scientists' opinions are not "unsupported." They are based on a lot of research. That some uncertainties exist does not render the scientists' opinions as "unsupported."

Hey Don,

I don't think BB/PG/B4 was saying that....He was mocking the poster's (Friv's) qualification of him (BB) being "unsupported".

[dabize]

If you look back at history one can see that each +AMO period is stronger than the last and the +AMO periods are greater in length than the -AMO periods. Thus it isn't a surprise that each +AMO period brings greater melting to Greenland and will probably continue to do so (minus a crazy act of nature) until the onset of the next Ice Age. Reducing greenhouse emissions would do little to change this.

To quote a famous proverb: "The trees do not grow up to the sky".

There is an element of the Logical Fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) here as well.

Could it be, just possibly, that this tendency has to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere? If not, why not?

Reducing CO2 levels will inevitably reduce greenhouse warming (Physics 101), which exists at all times, including Ice Ages (just a little less so). So tell me, why should this not affect a pronounced tendency of the Arctic to warm during a period of rapidly increasing CO2?

[WeatherRusty]

If you look back at history one can see that each +AMO period is stronger than the last and the +AMO periods are greater in length than the -AMO periods. Thus it isn't a surprise that each +AMO period brings greater melting to Greenland and will probably continue to do so (minus a crazy act of nature) until the onset of the next Ice Age. Reducing greenhouse emissions would do little to change this.

Help me understand how ocean cycles can warm the entire Earth over multiple cycles. Where does the warming energy come from?

[LakeEffectKing]

Help me understand how ocean cycles can warm the entire Earth over multiple cycles. Where does the warming energy come from?

Maybe from the "missing heat"....

[ben4vols]

To quote a famous proverb: "The trees do not grow up to the sky".

There is an element of the Logical Fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) here as well.

Could it be, just possibly, that this tendency has to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere? If not, why not?

Reducing CO2 levels will inevitably reduce greenhouse warming (Physics 101), which exists at all times, including Ice Ages (just a little less so). So tell me, why should this not affect a pronounced tendency of the Arctic to warm during a period of rapidly increasing CO2?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc...a good episode of the old show The West Wing. Anyway.

Could it be that the tendency has to do with CO2 levels? Maybe a very small amount but overall I'd say no and for the simple reason that the temperature at Nuuk shows no correlation with CO2 levels but a high correlation with AMO. So what is driving the AMO cycles and is there any effect CO2 has on the duration and intensity of those +AMO periods? You can compare the previous +AMO period to the current one and the previous one to the one previous of that but right now the current +AMO period isn't finished so there is no way to draw a definitive answer. Early indications are that this warming period isn't all that different from the last.

To answer you last question, if CO2 isn't having much of an effect curently than reducing CO2 will have little effect as well.

[Jonger]

Can someone point me to a link showing a controlled experiment where 394ppm of CO2 versus 320ppm causes a notable warming with the sun.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Can someone point me to a link showing a controlled experiment where 394ppm of CO2 versus 320ppm causes a notable warming with the sun.

Satelites track how much work ghgs are doing, its not a conspiracy, its not fake.

when your backyard comes anywhere near your real cold for 30 years then as an old man come back and state its fake.

In all seriousness, its real and its getting stronger. You already know this.

[PhillipS]

Can someone point me to a link showing a controlled experiment where 394ppm of CO2 versus 320ppm causes a notable warming with the sun.

Now you are just being silly because a controlled experiment would require two identical Earths, both with the same orbital parameters around the Sun. So I'm pretty sure such a controlled experiment is not ever going to happen.

What climate scientists use instead of experimental data is observational data for the recent period and reconstructed paleoclimate data for the period before observations began. Do you have any legitimate reasons to assert that observational data is not sufficient?

[Jonger]

Now you are just being silly because a controlled experiment would require two identical Earths, both with the same orbital parameters around the Sun. So I'm pretty sure such a controlled experiment is not ever going to happen.

What climate scientists use instead of experimental data is observational data for the recent period and reconstructed paleoclimate data for the period before observations began. Do you have any legitimate reasons to assert that observational data is not sufficient?

Well the earth has warmed 0.8C in 150 years, not exactly major. I'm asking for a demonstration of how 80ppm can increase global temps and if its enough to do anything. So defensive guys.

[Jonger]

Satelites track how much work ghgs are doing, its not a conspiracy, its not fake.

when your backyard comes anywhere near your real cold for 30 years then as an old man come back and state its fake.

In all seriousness, its real and its getting stronger. You already know this.

Can you translate this?

Are you saying it hasn't been cold in my backyard in 30 years?

[PhillipS]

Well the earth has warmed 0.8C in 150 years, not exactly major. I'm asking for a demonstration of how 80ppm can increase global temps and if its enough to do anything. So defensive guys.

In the same period that the Earth has warmed 0.8 C we have raised the atmospheric CO2 level, and its radiative forcing, by 40% (392 ppm/280 ppm), This would indicate we'll see a 2 C increase (0.8/0.4) for a doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to 560 ppm. But that 0.8 C warming that we have observed to date only represents the fast response climate processes and there is more warming 'in the pipeline' - that's not the equilibrium response. The full warming we will have to deal with if we raise CO2 levels to 560 ppm will be around the 3.2 C value often cited. That will raise the global temperatures higher than they've been in a long, long time.

Those people that believe our civilization can adapt to those high temperatures without disruption of our infrastructure (sea-level rise and shortage of fresh water), our food supplies (droughts, heat waves, and extreme weather) and our economic stability and national security (millions of climate refugees and armed conflicts over scarce resources) are delusional.