2010 Arctic Ice Update

[lazarus]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGVgrRAyQmw&feature=player_embedded#!

rsmith even makes an appearance twenty seconds in.

[marchesarosa]

Has anyone "denied" the arctic summer sea-ice is in a period of decline?

What CAUSES it is the interesting question!

The arctic is a virtually landlocked polar "basin". It is the shallowest ocean and the smallest ocean by far.

See more here
thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31&page=1

[helen]

marchesarosa. You would agree that as in any hard science, there is no substitute for seasoned researchers making empirical observations of actual conditions in the real world? This has been one of your philosophical platforms for an age. Please would you look at this climatecrocks.com/2010/09/13/2010-sea-ice-update/
Fast forward to about 3mins 30 secs. I'm not really very bothered about what you think of the Crock Of The Week YouTube channel per se but the science here is as valid as any link you make and any criticism of it for it's source irrelevant. How do you answer the observations made here? This is about Arctic sea ice. Nothing else.

[marchesarosa]

I take it you are confident that the measurement of the "volume" of sea ice is "accurate", helen?

I am highly dubious of the measurement of any climate/weather variable that cannot readily be eyeballed, myself, clever though some folk think they are.

What about the GRACE "measurement" of ice-cap mass loss that has just been cut in half?

It is incontrovertible that Arctic sea ice has been declining since measurements began in 1979. Why should it not be if the Northern Hemisphere has been in a slightly warming phase itself thanks to the coincidence of PDA and AMO since about 1975?

We get no closer to understanding the cause. Ice does not melt because of CO2. There have to be "intervening" stages, surely? Then there is the correlation between GeoMagnetic Field and arctic temperature. What's all that about? You'll just have to spell it out for me, helen.

I can't take it on "trust". That would not be scientific.

[helen]

Mary, you haven't looked at the film I linked you to have you. It explicitly demonstrates empirical observations being tested in the field. You can't fall back on the 'we can never know [argument]' when you have always bolstered your stance by claiming that real time observations and measurement are the whole raison d'etre of your argument, anything else is is irrelevant: This has always been your argument. Refute the argument by the scientists in the film!

[helen]

Your other arguments above a simply straw men. You have linked us to WUWT ice graphs for an age and argued that the extent and thickness of ice at the Arctic isn't linked to global temperatures. My film calls this assertion into question. Please answer this please.

[marchesarosa]

I looked at the video yesterday and saw an ice-breaker making a very short transit of an ice-filled sea just north of the Canadian coast. It is ridiculous to extrapolate out to the whole arctic ocean from this, any more than the stupid Penn Hadrow expedition could make any sensible statements about the thickness of Arctic sea ice from their minimal investigation.

I do not deny climate and ice changes, helen. They do. What I want to know is why. The IPCC and its fellow travellers with their ridiculous explanation of extra CO2 just does not convince mainly because no mechanism is presented which is testable. that which should be investigated is taken as a given.

I do not take statements which purport to be "scientific" on trust. That is not the scientific method. I want convincing evidence.

The Arctic sea-ice has seen substantial melt before. Explain those please.

thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31

[helen]

You really do damn yourself Mary. You are so inconsistant it's like arguing with R-Smith. Throw up another straw man! The history of Arctic ice wasn't the call here. It's the ice forming and receding recently and your reliance on the WUWT graphs to justify your contention that everything can be explained by natural variation. There's a downward TREND in the amount Arctic sea ice this past century, it is irrefutable. Why do you try to argue otherwise? What is the cause? Who knows? Why do you insist on denying all the evidence? Instead address the question - why is this happening at what might be the consequences. The oil and gas companies love it; so do the US, Russian and Chinese merchant and military Navies. Why do you have such a problem?

[marchesarosa]

Helen, you seem persistently to confuse the concept of "climate change" with "CO2-induced climate change".

You do not even seem aware that you are doing it. No-one denies climate change. Some of us need convincing of the predominant role warmists ascribe to CO2, that's all.

Don't present YouTube propaganda pieces as "evidence", there's a dear.

[helen]

Climate Crock Of The Week is a perfectly valid channel on YouTube. I pointed out in an earlier post that you should call the message not the messenger. You've accused me enough in the past of calling your sources. Your turn to shoot the messenger Mary.

Please don't call me dear, it's so patronizing and does you no favours!

This argument about CO2 induced and so on. This is not the nature of this thread. Stop throwing up straw men Mary!

[rsmith7]

Helen darling,
I have seen no evidence from any source that would lead to the conclusion that the Earth's climate has been de-stabilised and is heading for catastrophe.
If you have any evidence that this is happening please share it.

[helen]

R-Smith, this thread is about Arctic ice. Nowhere in this thread has anyone suggested that the Earth's climate had been destabilised and is headed for catastophe. Why do you bring this up? Butt out man. If you want to talk about that stuff start your own thread. I want to see Mary's call on the evidence to which I linked on Arctic ice via a YouTube channel. Link is available above.

[marchesarosa]

"You have linked us to WUWT ice graphs for an age and argued that the extent and thickness of ice at the Arctic isn't linked to global temperatures"

You'll have to provide links to those statements you claim I have made, helen, because I have only ever discussed Arctic temperatures in terms of arctic measuring stations - the handful of cherry picked ones (included in GHCN) and the ones omitted i.e the ones that don't show anything out of the ordinary APART FROM NATURAL VARIATION such as those collected by John Daly and those mentioned by the Russians when they complained about CRU cherry-picking Siberian stations and omitting the vast majority that did not show "warming".

I have indeed compared the GISS redhot arctic anomaly maps with this summer's DMI coldest melt season ever recorded (i.e. since 1959) and marvelled at the discrepancy but then the reason for the discrepancy is obvious when you realise that the GISS anomaly maps are comparing current temps with a baseline period of 1951-80 - which encompasses much of the mid-century cooling period (1940-1975).


I have said all this before, certainly, but I have never denied the arctic is warming slightly or that the world MAY be warming slightly - I think the majority of that apparent warming is down to Urban Heat Island effect being passed off as CO2-induced and that it is confined to the Northern Hemisphere.

Again, we get back to the question does the warming, IF it is "real", reveal an anthropogenic “signal” or is it just natural variation?

We are no closer to settling this. You certainly have not settled anything with your crock of the week propaganda.

The alarmist have tried for years to demonstrate that the hurricane record bore an anthropogenic signal and have now given up and admitted that it cannot be found.

Same with Arctic melt.

You invent whatever you like regarding what you claim I have stated, helen, but be prepared to back up your assertions with links because, as with everything else on this board, some of us demand EVIDENCE.

[helen]

I'm pleased you looked at the link I gave. Crock Of The Week is an unfortunate name for the channel but the science expressed there is as valid as any other and features a lot of climate science stars from both sides of the barrier. I think it would serve you well to have look in every now and then.

'I have said all this before, certainly, but I have never denied the arctic is warming slightly or that the world MAY be warming slightly.'

This is a departure from form Mary, I'll try to support my surprise with calls to past posts at Radio4 or your own blogspot. I don't have that much time but I'm astonished to see you concede this. But as for the urban heat island effect. Most analysts recognise trends in weather records over several decades not weeks, months or a few years. Any leaps and jumps owing to urbanisation are recognised as anomalous and accounted for.......not getting into that tangle of crap here.
The hurricane record is another straw man and irrelevant to this thread; the Arctic melt record is real, is trending to a greater and greater extent and has to be explained.

[marchesarosa]

"the Arctic melt record is real...and has to be explained."

Agreed.