Around the Americas Expedition Team

Noted.

Noted.

The problem with it that I have is that people are portraying information about the decrease in ice extent as undeniable evidence to prove a hypothesis that would be several causal steps removed.

Here is a simplified analogy:

"My mug is warm because I poured water into the kettle."

As you can see this assertion claims that the kettle boiled the water, hot water was poured into the mug and the mug became warm due to conduction between the two media. However, does not validate the actual links to prove the assertion to be true.

Thank you for pointing out a typo. I am well aware that I won't persuade anyone with dismissing people's work.

You missed the point. As above.

I have never said warming is not occurring. There is an overwhelming amount of information that supports the analysis of global warming.

I use primary sources for all of my work. However, my employer provides the funds to purchase such information and data.

I would love to have the ability to purchase all the information I would desire. Yet, draining my savings into reports, articles and data sets that don't represent their premise or are of sufficient standard is not something I would like to do.

Interesting you mention this. You can gauge a personality through the media of text?

You have more free time than I do. I commend your research and I agree.

That is to your credit. What is not is being dismissive and condescending.

We were not talking about area, but about extent. It’s a crucial distinction in this discussion, since extent refers to water with at least (only) 15% ice. Part of the problem in 2007 was that the pack ice was so broken up that winds could move a great deal of it south, especially into the Atlantic, where it melts - exacerbating the ice loss.

I didn’t “dislike” your use of extent; extent is not an illegitimate measure - in fact, it’s used by the NSIDC. It’s a proxy for volume, and an indicator of area coverage, which affects albedo. But your previous claim that the increase in September extent in 2008 and 2009 over the collapse of 2007 represents natural variability in a stable system is undermined by the fact that there’s actually been a decrease in multi-year ice - i.e., in thicker ice.

Unfortunately there are positive feedbacks and non-linearity that are affecting sea ice going forward, because of more mobile ice and loss of albedo.


Can’t tell what you mean by the last sentence (surely not that we’re going into an ice age!); that arctic ice melts and retracts is inarguable, but you didn’t find the guys in the video “ridiculous” or advise them to “get over it” over a truism like that.

I take it when you say “casual” you mean “causal”, though what causes you refer to remain obscure. And your condescending attitude toward those benighted, irrational “bleeding hearts” doesn’t make your argument more persuasive; in fact that and your casual attitude toward the research they refer to won’t win either rational or emotional arguments with anyone worth persuading.

You’re kidding.

I call BS.

Nobody needs you to do original research in climate science; there is already an army of really remarkable minds engaged in this massive, complex problem, perhaps the most exciting of our time - in that, at least, we are fortunate, because in the next few years some important decisions will be made that will affect our future prosperity and even health.

Following on that, what is needed is for smart people like you to do their homework and start talking about the facts. Start with PRIMARY sources - there’s a lot of disinformation out there in the blogs. We need intelligent discussion and criticism. And give up the arguments about warming not happening - that ship has sailed, and you’re just going to look foolish later on. The arguments about it not being anthropogenic or about it not being bad are more interesting.

Quit putting people down. You’ll be happier and everyone will respect you more. I suspect that you act superior because you want respect, but you’ll get better results by offering respect.

This is the crux of the matter. Now, that point that you think is “pretty much” proven by the data appears to be that this oscillation is only natural variability within a stable system. But you have not considered the data adequately.

To begin with, you cited this graph:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.area.jpg

I suppose that it looks like random variation to you; it’s hard to blame you for thinking that, I must say, since the x-axis is so compressed, and no running mean is provided to show the long-term trend. Most importantly, this graph emphasizes the variation between maximum ice in March and minimum ice in September each year, not the difference between years. But the difference between years, or more importantly the difference between minimums, is exactly what we want to know about.

Here is a different graph from the same web site that presents exactly the same data in a way that is more clear - and more relevant to our discussion:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...aly.arctic.png

What’s actually happening with the trend is a lot easier to see. The data points that we are most interested in are the September minimums. The data show that there was a significant long-term decline even before 2007. September 2007 was indeed an outlier (though that collapse affects the capacity of Arctic sea ice to reconstitute going forward, because of the massive loss of multi-year ice, the conversion of pack ice to pancake, and the decrease in albedo) - but 2008 and 2009 also had lower extents than any (other) years on record. Here’s an even more effective - and useful - presentation of the data set that we most want to look at:

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Scroll down to “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Standardized Anomalies Jan 1953 - Jul 2009”, and then below that to “Arctic and Antarctic Standardized Anomalies and Trends Jan 1979 - Jul 2009”. Note that the y-axes on these two graphs present the anomalies as standard deviations, allowing us to assess not only the amounts of ice loss but their statistical significance.

One last thing. 2010 is shaping up so far as comparable to 2007, and losses are actually tracking greater than 2007 as of June 9th. It was a warm winter in the Arctic (that’s partly why it was so cold in North America, because of the Arctic Oscillation), there are big phytoplankton blooms offshore, and the permafrost melt has accelerated.

Thanks for playing. Do your homework. Check back with me in September, and we can drink a toast to Cryosat II.

@ Patricia Bee,

I don't believe it is a smart idea to insult your opponents in a debate. Interesting quote, though. It somewhat reminds me of television. It sets an agenda and portrays a false group think decision/perception/opinion on that agenda. It is in people's nature to adhere and follow the group think decision. Hence, they mimic falsehoods but by doing so the once false group think decision/perception/opinion becomes a true group think decision/perception/opinion. This process effects roughly 75% of people.

A bit off topic. :P

---

I would like to see all information, data, reports, articles a journal publications on this subject to become free and widely available. Perhaps, internet publication.

Too many times I have payed for literature and information to only realize that the quality of work is dismal or the abstract and title do not represent what was discussed. When one finds a report of sufficient standard the authors refuse to make their data available when requested or just don't respond to your letters. I guess not being employed by a university people will just ignore you.

Information being free would allow people to scrutinize without wasting their savings on substandard material.

---

It is a shame that this debate has become an ideological one. One would think it is a purely technical and scientific issue.

Climate-change deniers believe in or are victims of the old saw nicely reput by Richard Belzer:

"If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap."

I am now amused.

By the way I am a young whipper snapper being blunt about topics is in my nature. I am a member of the internet generation and surprisingly have used the medium since I was 5 years old.

We had a similar discussion. You disliked my normalized projection of the disappearance of the summer arctic sea ice in forty years time due to the fact that I only used surface area rather than thickness. For amusement purposes I attempted latter from first principles and it did not turn out pretty. Though, I should have just used the US Navy's data on ice sheet thickness.

This does not change the fact that my comment in this thread is true. Arctic sea ice melts and retracts in summer. Now in addition, providing that summer is sufficiently warm enough to do so.

People use this summer as an opportunity to record remarkable footage of ice breaking off into the ocean or that they can sail the northern passage. Yes, what they present is true. However, the assertions and deductions communicated lack casual links. Due to their lack of casual links or logical deductions their assertions are worthless. However, emotional proposition alone is enough to sway the bleeding hearts.

If the presenter can disprove or point out flaws in Miskolczi's greenhouse proof I would be inclined to listen to their argument and hence, their assertions.

Here is what I wrote on a internet board when I was still in high school, many years ago. I have reproduced this a few times but I believe it emphasizes my point.

"In reality, the onus is on the proponents to coherently present the information to substantiate their hypothesis. With respect, this does not entail speaking about issues that are steps removed from the crux of the debate. The debate within the sphere is actually an amalgamation of numerous hypothesis. Clarity of debate is required. Hence, debate topics are needed. This is not to say that the topics are the be all end all and don't branch further inquiry of debate themselves. Each topic also has a requirement of validity and quality assurance.

1) Is the climate changing?
2) Does the climate normally change?
3) What is causing the climate to change?
4) What are the affects of climate change?
5) Do these affects warrant concern?
6) Is the change beyond the natural variation?
7) If the greenhouse effect is involved, how is the greenhouse effecting climate and climate change?
8) Is there evidence to indicate that carbon dioxide has a signal?
9) What is the forcing effects and magnitude of carbon dioxide concentrations? Hence, what is the physics of carbon dioxide gas?
10) What proportions is the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations anthropogenic or "natural"?
11) Does the climate have feedback mechanisms? What are they and the magnitude of each individual feedback mechanism?
12) If our processes are contributing should we mitigate our contribution or climate change affects?
13) If so, how should we mitigate our contribution or climate change affects?
14) What is the cost benefit of mitigating and the different methods of mitigation?

These are only some of the debate topics or debating points. A sequential analysis takes place where by if the previous debating point is falsified, proven to be otherwise or not conclusive than the next point is irrelevant until deemed otherwise by empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice on such a divisive issues."

I do not have the time, funding or laboratory equipment to conduct my own research in this field. Any data I could potentially present would be of secondary sources and I can not account for the validity.

The only information I can provide you once again is the graph which displays the oscillation of Arctic sea ice area over time. Which pretty much proves my point.

Regards,


Proxy

Now I'm surprised at you, Proxy. We've already had this discussion underneath one of the COP15 videos, and you, bizarrely, are still asserting this? You have not done your homework, and frankly, telling people to "get over it" would sound smug even if the extensive evidence weren't against you.

Do you really want to go through this again?

Alright, let's see what you've got. New information?
.

Kenny, can you answer one question?

What makes you so upset that you have to lie half a dozen times in half a dozen sentences (give or take)? What makes it worth for you to paint such an utterly ugly picture of yourself to any reasonable person who actually reads your diatribe? Why are you doing this to yourself? I don't get it, but I am really curious. Where does all of this self-destructive energy come from?

kenny, all of your points have been debunked countless times. Which Bear numbers? Polar? Brown? At least get that right first. Yeah, ice melts in summer. Have you looked at the perennial ice figures? Or are those too hard to believe so you suck up to Glenn Beck? Wrong on the Earth warming 0.6C over the last 150 yrs. And the "meagre warming has reversed slightly for the last 11 years" argument has especially been a favorite of the denier crowd for years, even though it has been so solidly debunked as to be laughable whenever a denier tries to use it. Wrong again on the sea rise estimates. As is the norm with deniers like you, you don't bother to look up the data, you just repeat what the denier crowd mumbles. Fools following fools. Get a life.

what happens to the billion tons of coal that we burn every year? that exhaust goes into the air, it has some effect. 17 million barrels of oil every day, that burnt oil goes into the air and has some effect. global warming deniers should explain what they think happens to all the burnt coal and oil that we emit every day, and why they don't think that has any effect.

Trash. Why didn't he mention that Bear numbers have increased 4 fold since the 1960's except in Alaska (human encroachment not climate). Or that ice melts in summer. Or that the earth has warmed by only 0.6C over the last century and a half. Or that meagre warming has reversed slightly for the last 11 years. Or that the expected sea level rise is confirmed to be in millimetres as opposed to the confessed lies of Al Gore, Hanson et al of several metres?
As is the norm with these supposed experts, they speak as tho to children. A global warming may possibly happen but these people could only be right by luck. Its their conscious untruths that rids them worthy of trust.