BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

BTW only those who fear what that debate might reveal want to shut it down which explains the settled science rhetoric of the alarmist crowd.

When "science" devolves to the equivalent of a couple of six year olds arguing about who's right, it's time to shut down the "discussion".

Yet, Arctic sea ice extent is currently higher than the last three summers and seven out of the last ten.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

And I thought you weren't paying attention

Amazingly enough, the past 3 years, 2016, 2015, 2017 were the 3 hottest years in modern times. And 8 out of 10 most recent years were also in the top 10 hottest years in records. And 2018 still has several more potential warm months before the end of the year.

If you put your mind to it, you might see a pattern developing.

The three hottest summers in the Arctic (at least since 1979) were 1991, 1990, and 1998, with 6 of the top 10 occurring in the 1990s. The only summer since to crack the top 10 was 2002 at 6th. The coolest summers have been 2013, 2010, 2009, 2014, 2004 and 2018 (so far). While winter sea ice maxima tend to follow global temperatures (the last 4 being the lowest), summer sea ice minima does not appear to follow any pattern.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...meant80n.uk.php

I don't know if your numbers are from a reputable source, but for sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If so, the only reason I can think of is that Dennison's best and brightest builders got their map upside down and built the Mexican wall around the Arctic which is affecting weather and ice patterns. At least it is keeping the number of rapists and murderers from the Arctic from entering the US of A at an all time low.

Of course, there are plenty of anecdotal stories and "facts"

Record-high temperatures in the Arctic have scientists concerned

Arctic temperatures surge in the dead of winter

among many other stories. Even Sarah Palin can look out from her porch and see the ice melting.

Those stories are about warmer temperatures during the dead of winter. This is similar to what has been observed throughout the mid- and high-latitudes. Global warming has been amplified in Arctic, but so has summertime cooling.

Daniel, you keep repeating this point as if it some how excuses what's going on makes the situation better.
It doesn't.

Why do people care about the fact that the Artic is warming

1. The potential for large scale release of methane if/when the permafrost thaws
2. Disruption of the polar vortex and consequent disruption of weather patterns down south
3. The destruction of habitat for people and animals
4. Melting ice in Greenland and consequent increases in sea level

Average temperatures are going up and bad ***** is happening.

Those stories are about warmer temperatures during the dead of winter. This is similar to what has been observed throughout the mid- and high-latitudes. Global warming has been amplified in Arctic, but so has summertime cooling.

1. Speculative. Hansen predicted much higher methane concentrations due to global warming compared to observational data.

http://www.realclima...ony/#more-21478

Over the years, many people have misrepresented what was predicted and what could have been expected. Most (in)famously, Pat Michaels testified in Congress about climate changes and claimed that the predictions were wrong by 300% (!) – but his conclusion was drawn from a doctored graph (Cato Institute version) of the predictions where he erased the lower two scenarios:

Misleading graph from Michaels/Cato Institute (1998)

Undoubtedly there will be claims this week that Scenario A was the most accurate projection of the forcings [Narrator: It was not]. Or they will show only the CO2 projection (and ignore the other factors). Similarly, someone will claim that the projections have been “falsified” because the temperature trends in Scenario B are statistically distinguishable from those in the real world. But this sleight of hand is trying to conflate a very specific set of hypotheses (the forcings combined with the model used) which no-one expects (or expected) to perfectly match reality, with the much more robust and valid prediction that the trajectory of greenhouse gases would lead to substantive warming by now – as indeed it has.

2. Contentious. Some scientists make this claim. Climate models contend that the variability in the weather patterns will decrease due to the warming.

https://www.carbonbr...t-from-the-east

3. Specifics needed. Wildlife tends to diminish during cold periods and flourish during warmer periods.

https://web.stanford...oon_To_Man.html

4. Seems likely, and has occurred until the last two years. "The higher-than-average input of snow, which continued into June , combined with the near-average melt season to date has pushed the estimated mass gain for the ice sheet very high—more than 200 billion tons above the 1981 to 2010 model average (MAR 3.9 model, X. Fettweis), and above last year’s high values for the same time period." Some climate scientists speculation that warmer winters will result in still higher snowfall, while cooler summers will keep melt in check.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

However if the melting intensifies, ice sheet mass could rapidly decline in the second half of the month (July).

A deeper ice core near one of the sites had a much longer record of melt event features, covering 1547 to 1989. By comparing the records in the adjacent cores, the study determined that the recent level of annual melt events has not occurred in the past 500 years at least.

So everything balances out and there is no net warming.

The spin doesn't change.

Maersk launches first container ship through Arctic route in alarming sign of global warming

You really have to warn Maersk Line that what they are trying to do is folly and that thinning Arctic ice is a myth perpetuated by global warming alarmists. You would think the owners of a multi million dollar company would know better than to make business decisions based on global warming warnings.

Hansen is one scientist among thousands and thousands, and the best you can do is try to discredit a 30 year study? As a sidenote, in computer times, 1988 was closer to the stone age of computers than today, as the first smartphone wasn't marketed until 1994 and Intel's flagship CPU was the 80386

But, you should actually "READ" the links you are posting, because clearly you don't understand the results.

A quote from the paper



But, back to the point about you not understanding the study. There were 3 projections, which you could call high, medium, and low. As an aside, the US Social Security Administration makes similar multiple projections to estimate how the trust fund is going to do in the future. CH4 projections look pretty close to scenario C wouldn't you say?

From the beginning of the article




The closing quote from that article

Well, I already posted that infectious diseases spread by insects was expected to increase and pose a threat to humans in the near future.

Yes, insects, like all animals, are expecting to flourish.

You do realize that scenario C is where emissions are eliminated altogether, and warming ceases? Hansen stated that this is what is necessary to avoid future problems. Do you believe we have achieved this?