Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Looks warmer than the 1880s to me...

 

Are you answering for Alric something you apparently fail to understand? Alric has yet to respond.

I am fully enlightened to a degree you fail to grasp in regards to GISS and their raw data. If these data are readily available (and you are mistaken to think they have been through peer-review ), why do you suppose NASA has been threatened with a lawsuit TODAY?

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times

They were guilty of making errors while massaging the data, got caught at it, made changes, then re-massaged the data. Then, when asked for the raw data via FOI, refused to provide it. Indeed they have stonewalled for two years while FOI requires it be provided within 20 days. These are the guys you believe without question. Great.

 

And that proves ZERO. You either move the goal posts and/or ignore complete refutations of you positions.

I'm beginning to regard your behavior as trollish.

 

If you want DRAMATIC evidence of global warming with a view from the non-scientist, I suggest you find and watch the following episode of "Nature of things" :Main - The Nature of Things with David Suzuki | CBC TV

From circumpolar scientists and indigenous peoples, a vivid description of how the polar ice pack has changed (without question to those deniers!) in the last generation. It was posited a number of years ago that we were heading toward ice free summers in the Arctic by mid century. Now it seems we are on track to see them by 2015! The seasonal diminishment of sea ice over the last decades is startling. Ice shelfs that have existed for ~4000 years are melting away in rapid fashion.

Those that don't believe this is happening have never spent any time in the high latitudes.

Icarus

 

Polar sea ice extent is tracked in daily at the National Ice and Snow data center, here:

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

The minimum summer extent is what makes the news. That blew through the downward trend line two years back. And while the extent recovered, the total ice volume never did.

What has gone unremarked is that, while the minimum this year was above the record, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, we're getting very close to the two-year-old record again, in terms of ice extent. Basically, the ice didn't recover much this fall and it's back close to the 2007 minimum again, for this time of year, as shown here:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure2.png

I've now seen several seemingly responsible people say that we're virtually certain to have an ice-free summer arctic ocean within 20 years.

Just to pre-empt, I'll point out that (e.g.) the NASA general circulation model predicts warming in the arctic, and little to no warming in the antarctic.

 

So why did temperature decline from 1940-1980? You keep skirting the question. Your definition of AGW is falsified by the decline, Alric.

And if that does not falsify it, what will? As climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has said:

"what I see is that there is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun.

This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And if none get it right, it won't mean that any were actually wrong. If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And of course, no one needed a model to know that."
​

 

David Suzuki? Come on.

Now if you want the opinion of someone who IS AN ARCTIC SCIENTIST and who HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME "in high latitudes" why don't you quote this guy - Syun-Ichi Akasofu.

He is the former director of both UAF’s Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center.

Interestingly, he makes the same point I am making to Alric (to which we all know he has not yet responded):

Akasofu said there is no data that “most” of the present warming is due to the manmade greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in February. He pointed out that the atmosphere cooled from 1940 to 1975 despite a rapid increase in carbon dioxide emissions during the same period.

and...

“Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,” he said. “All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That’s what I call ‘instant climatology.’ I’m trying to tell young scientists, ‘You can’t study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.’”
​

 

I repeat my assertion that perhaps more than any other single factor that also flies under the radar, is the very real potential for run away thawing of massive amounts of permafrost, exacerbated by decreasing albedo due to the lack of snow cover. Even if the potential Arctic temperature rise is at the low end of predictions, this decrease in albedo, will lead to runaway permafrost melting with HUGE releases in carbon that will dwarf what the models predict now.

So even if the most vehement deniers may not call the melting of the permafrost "human caused" since we can't draw an iron clad line from cause and effect, certainly the outcome won't be subject to debate,,, it will be catastrophic.

Icarus

 

I am just going to paste these from the myriad times you've been answered:

http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...man-based-global-warming-204.html#post1012217

"To TimBikes: Your question was answered many times over by me and others. You are creating the straw man that the system is linear, that is X amount of CO2 results in a Y amount of temp increase. This is a complex system with many inputs and outputs. It just doesn't work the way you unjustifiably want it to work. Many people pointed this out at you and you ignored the answer over and over demonstrating clearly one of the most common mechanisms of denialism."

An interesting observation is that not only slower warming in those years there is also a slowdown in CO2 concentration.

 

Tim,

Regardless of how you feel about David Suzuki, I wasn't quoting him. I was mentioning the Arctic/Climate scientists from the US, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the Russian Federation that are featured in the piece noted. Not to mention the indigenous peoples who live in the Arctic who are being effected sooner than we are going to be.

Icarus

 

Alric - no warming in 40 years - that was YOUR falsification criteria. YOU. So your explanation after the fact when you know you've been smoked in an argument doesn't cut it.

Now if when I asked you "How many years without warming does it take to falsify AGW?" you had said "Gee Tim, it doesn't work that way..." that would be one thing. But you said 40 years.

AGW falsified by you. :smow: Again. LOL!

 

Well, if you want to try to publish that you proved AGW is not happening using a discussion with some guy in an internet forum be my guest.

 

Sure there is generalized warming in the arctic - but this cannot be attributed to anthropogenic causes, as Akasofu notes.

 

Brilliant critique, Tim; thorough and substantive. Ignore the science, attack the scientist.

Don't forget the methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas.

 

Just messin' with you man. But since I guess you are agreeing that you have falsified AGW, can we now count you as a "skeptic"?

 

My point was not to attack Suzuki (which I didn't - I just said "come on"). I mean, he is (according to wikipedia) an "environmental activist". Now he does have degrees in zoology and genetics.

Just the same, I think I'll take the word of the guy who ran the International Arctic Research Center over Suzuki's word.

And by the way - there was substance to my post - I posted the opinions of an Arctic scientist. So how does that lack substance? I also posted a link to a scientific paper written by the scientist.

 

Is global warming stoppable? Yes, every time it is supplanted by global cooling.

Is global cooling stoppable? Yes, every time it is supplanted by global warming.

Repeat until the sun dies and the globe with it.

Hey, Efucso, you can come and close the thread.

 

That's the point,,, the melting of permafrost releases HUGE quantities of methane.

Icarus

 

Alric, you are wasting key strokes mate, they have their fingers in their ears and are humming loudly. I gave up because I get fed up with having to read their same messages which say nothing over and over,, having all my questions go unanswered along with the same tired personal attacks.

 

Climategate: The Smoking Code Watts Up With That?

Logically, if the numbers don't need to be manipulated then why would they do it? The only reason is the numbers don't support the AGW theory.

This story is mind-boggling. I am starting to wonder if the CRU was also involved in rating financial firms and home loans over the last few years.

Al Gore is going to wish for the good old days when he only had lost an election.