The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that the peak in arctic ice cover this winter was the second lowest on record, just slightly above that of one year ago. The three next lowest peaks were in the three years just prior:
All of these are something like three standard deviations below the norm from 1980-2010.
The biggest abnormality this winter was that the Bering Sea between Alaska and Siberia did not freeze until very late. This encouraged the formation of persistent low pressure over the area, sending the jet stream high into the arctic from the Pacific for most of the season. And since what goes up must come down, that it did east of the Rockies
Since this is a US government web site, I am surprised that it is still available.
And yet the climate change denialist trolls keep trolling.
No one is denying the climate is changing. Indeed it always is. What is debatable is the cause(s).
There is no historical evidence for such rapid, sustained change over such a large magnitude in the past million years. It is not “always” changing like this. The role of human activity in driving this change is no longer debatable. And yet the anthropogenic climate change denialist trolls keep trolling.
And yes, denialist trolls, including at least one here, were denying climate change. Remember the phony “hiatus” or “pause?” Turns out there never was a pause in the warming, it was just going on in the ocean.
Joel, there is a historical evidence, just not recent history. Look into the 30s amounts.
Only alarmists concentrate on annual Arctic Ice coverage, and then only when it is falling. Antarctic is again on the rise as is total/global ice, even the Arctic Ice volume is rising.
But then we need to focus on weather, especially a the N Pole, just after a Super El Nino.
Don’t start on the pause or I will again show the chart where it is evidenced in most of the major temperature datasets.
Joel, make it easy on yourself.
An unstable jet stream builds character.
“Don’t start on the pause or I will again show the chart where it is evidenced in most of the major temperature datasets.”
Please show the chart that includes ocean temperatures.
“But then we need to focus on weather . . . ”
Only people who don’t know the difference between weather and climate.
“The role of human activity in driving this change is no longer debatable.”
A number of factors control global climate including:
1) Fluctuations in the Sun’s output
2) Variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt
4) Solar rays
5) Ocean currents
6) Volcanic activity
All of which are probably infinitely stronger than the effect of CO2. (In fact there is no historical correlation between CO2 and temperature). Why do you think that, at one time, the Earth was completely covered in ice? Or that dinosaurs lived in Antarctica? All sans mankind.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now .04% or 400 parts PER MILLION, and increase of maybe 100 parts PER MILLION since industrialization began. Do you have any idea how small a percentage this is? It is truly a trace element. And it “drives” (your words) climate change?
Also, did you know that the Earth is at a historic low in terms of CO2 concentration. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=qtkiCjZv&id=2CEE8E5D06A0EE544E6E03C7B72C9CFA1627908C&thid=OIP.qtkiCjZvErEfh7KBxsRKbgHaFv&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fpubsecrets.files.wordpress.com%2f2011%2f09%2fco2-over-geologic-time.png&exph=541&expw=698&q=co2+over+geologic+time&simid=607991445158758617&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
The average concentration seems to be about 3000 parts per million, or 7 times the current concentration.
You claim to be some kind of “real” scientist. If so, you are a remarkably unskeptical one. Which means you aren’t really a scientist.
Joel is a simpleton. In the 70’s it was “Global Cooling” and an imminent Ice Age. The cause was remarkably similar to “Global Warming”: industrialization and automobiles. The cure was also similar: we need to control peoples behavior to “save the world.” It is a totalitarian’s wet dream.
Actually, it is a recurrent theme/fear in history, dating back to prehistoric times: “mankind is destroying the world because of it’s wickedness, you must do as I say.”
It is remarkable how threatening the very concept that we might face a threat that would require collective action is to some people. There is literally no scenario that could be envisioned that would require the cooperation of the human race that wouldn’t be considered to be some sort of insidious plot to control the world in certain quarters. Apparently the only preferred order being some sort of hyper darwinian individual agent seeking to maximize wealth. The resultant state being in some way the optimum or blessed state achieved by well, what I’m not exactly sure. Perhaps we can be enlightened by some of its truer disciples?
The difference between a simpleton and an ah is that the simpleton knows when he should not talk.
Some times you can’t make this sh!. up. Joel: ” There is no historical evidence for such rapid, sustained change over such a large magnitude in the PAST MILLION years.” Indicative of his understanding and blind belief, his poor selection of the Million years time frame includes ~9 to ten Glaciations. Here is a chart of the Vostok ice core EVIDENCE for just 1/2 that period. http://i0.wp.com/powerline.wpengine.com/ed-assets/2014/12/vostok_temperature_co2.png
No historical evidence? Glaciations are not SUSTAINED? This is just another example of the ignorance prevailing in the “believer” set.
Joel also asked for the chart that showed the “pause’ including the sea surface temps. It is here: http://agw-alarmism.blogspot.com/2017/09/for-those-who-disbelieve-hiatus-even.html The article is here: http://agw-alarmism.blogspot.com/2017/09/for-those-who-disbelieve-hiatus-even.html
I got tired of the recent DENIAL that it ever existed so created an article and blogspot blog to use as the evidence showing the MAJOR surface temperature datasets of the period showing the PAUSE.
Just for Joel’s understanding the SURFACE shown in these datasets includes the OCEANS’ surfaces. The PAUSE was in the data before it was magically disappeared by a re-analysis of the sea surface temperatures using a ?better? approach on the then existing sea surface data.
Not only is Joel wrong, but laughingly so with the wrong time frame and no actual knowledge of the data.
Sinclair Broadcasting comes to Angry Bear.
EM, why even waste your and our time by posting unrelated nonsense? Can you refute anything written? I just did using the actual data of the era.
i should have appended this comment to my response to you
April 3, 2018 12:09 am
The difference between a simpleton and an ah is that the simpleton knows when he should not talk.”
I refute everything you have written. You have no standing whatsoever in the world of science, and there is no reason for anyone to engage in any conversation with you based on your thoughts in this area.
EM, actually you haven’t refuted anything:
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
“these claims have not been convincingly refuted”
synonyms: disprove · prove wrong/false · show/prove to be wrong/false · rebut · confute · give the lie to · demolish · explode · debunk · drive a coach and horses through · discredit · invalidate · [more]
prove that (someone) is wrong.
deny or contradict (a statement or accusation).
“a spokesman totally refuted the allegation of bias”
synonyms: deny · reject · repudiate · rebut · declare to be untrue · contradict · gainsay”
You have, however, disagreed without any knowledge what I have written.
That just shows the depth of your ideological beliefs and ignorance of the subject. But, we always knew that.
Now back to ignoring your unsupported ideologically-based commentary.
I have actually seen the exact same things you have written discussed by real scientists. Many times I have suggested you take your ideas to a forum with real scientists, you then will tell me they will bar you from posting. Of course that is a lie and easily proven by the actual posts that contain the same tired old lies you now spout.
I deny the truth or accuracy of your posts. Y’know, like refute.
You wanna pretend to be a scientist? Go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and take your best shot.
EM, bet you never heard of the RealClimate bore hole.
“The Bore Hole
The Bore Hole
— group @ 6 December 2004
A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.”
Sensible conversations = comments that do not agree with/disputes the RealClimate agenda. Bet you also believe they do not censor or delete comments, as is done on many other alarmist science sites.
What kind of science needs to hide comments in places like the “Bore hole”, or bans commenters or removes and/or stops showing comments without notice?
” Joel: ” There is no historical evidence for such rapid, sustained change over such a large magnitude in the PAST MILLION years.”
Yep. It’s still true. None of the glaciations you cite were the result of as rapid and sustained change as has been occurring with anthropogenic climate change. Yes, glaciation is sustained, but that’s not what I said. What I said was rapid and sustained *change.” Nothing you posted rebuts my comment. You just didn’t understand it .
Not only is CoRev wrong, but laughingly so with the wrong time frame and no actual knowledge of the data.
Why would anyone want to read things that make no sense?
Surely you do not think your posts would make no sense?
Meanwhile, there are a ton of posts at RC that are not in the borehole that disputes their “agenda”.
Take a shot.
Cause I gotta tell you, you ain’t gonna get any respect for your posts in here. Well, except for Lennie.
CoRev bleats “Just for Joel’s understanding the SURFACE shown in these datasets includes the OCEANS’ surfaces.”
Just for CoRev’s understanding, most of the ocean water is not surface water. The warming being absorbed by the ocean isn’t limited to the surface. Heat travels by conduction and convection.
Not only is CoRev wrong, but laughingly so and no actual knowledge of the data.
““While this is a very important measure because it is what we experience as inhabitants of the Earth’s surface, it is not a full measure of heat accumulation in the Earth’s system,” Boyer says. “More than 90% of excess heat in the Earth’s system enters the ocean, where it is moved away from the surface.””
To repeat: moved away from the surface. Ergo, simple surface temperature measurements fail to capture the heat capacity of the oceans.
And, of course, deep water warming would be expected to melt more underwater ice.
He won’t care. He will link to his datasets(most of which are laughable) and stick to his story.
At best all you can say of him is that he does not understand that 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, is a progression.
Joel 1st claims ther was no pause, then comes back with a NOAA study that explains why the pause happened, its 1st four words of the title: Study: Global Warming Hiatus…”
He then goes on to say that: “… were the result of as rapid and sustained change…” Not only were the glaciations clearly SUSTAINED events, with the long term averaging we can not tell the were the result of as rapid and sustained change amplitudes of change within the average periods. Dunno, some one must be pulling another’s leg here.
Your first paragragh is total bs.
You need to have more lennies around.
There was no pause in global warming. There was no hiatus in global warming. If you read the links, you’d understand. The fact that you prefer word play is trolling.
There has never been as dramatic and sustained *change* in global temperatures in the last million years. The fact that there was sustained cold temperature doesn’t falsify what I wrote. It is the sustained change, not the sustained endpoint, that points to anthropogenic causation. The fact that you deliberately misquote me is trolling, CoRev.
Do you really not see how foolish you sound?
Joel, claims: “There was no pause in global warming.” I really don’t know how he can make that statement, when the most common metric for “global warming” was the surface temperature datasets. And in them there clearly was a “pause” in the surface temperature increase.
Questioning your claim is not trolling when the data itself showed the “pause”.
Your whole argument is based upon the use of “change” without defining the subject of the “change”. The subject of the Article was this the “2018 Arctic Ice Cover “. your 1st comment referenced “climate change” without defining what in the climate was “changed”. At this point I just note it wasn’t Arctic Ice Cover.
Throughout you have shifted the subject of the “change”, and after questioning gone to a new/modified target.
That is clear evidence of your acts of trolling or lack of knowledge.
Your million year claim is just ludicrously wrong. Show us the scientific paper making such a claim. I showed you my charts, show us your scientific study. Otherwise you are the only troll here.
““There was no pause in global warming.” I really don’t know how he can make that statement, when the most common metric for “global warming” was the surface temperature datasets. And in them there clearly was a “pause” in the surface temperature increase.”
I’ll type slowly this time. There was no pause in global warming. There was an illusion of a pause because surface temperature measurements were being used as a proxy for global warming. But global warming happens whether you measure it properly or not. In the event, deep ocean temperature increases can explain where the rest of the warming was occurring. Just because you don’t measure something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
“Throughout you have shifted the subject of the “change”, and after questioning gone to a new/modified target.”
Again, I’ll type this slowly, since your comprehension is weak. I didn’t shift anything. I consistently claim, and still claim, that there is no evidence in the last million years for as rapid and sustained increase in global temperatures as has occurred in the latest episode. Your childish attempts to pretend I posted anything other than that is clear evidence of your acts of trolling or lack of knowledge.
“Your million year claim is just ludicrously wrong.”
My claim is that there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on those who claim there is evidence. The universe of things for which there is no evidence is huge. There are no scientific papers written about non-evidence; if you could publish papers claiming non-evidence, there would be virtually no limit to publication!
You are the only troll here, CoRev, and a simpleton to boot. You clearly know nothing about science.
It is why he will not take his graphs to realclimate. He, and they, are all misdirection; garbage; straw men; and the careful pruning of words to make his point.
They would take in the graphs, rip them into little shreds with actual science; and embarrass him. Then of course he would repeat all of his processes listed above and talk about their “agenda”.
I remember years ago(before he went away and I regret his return) in a similar conversation with him:
I am not a scientist, but I believe i can read and comprehend to a certain extent. Knew he was full of it due to this “processes” that he has tried to use on you, so I went to realclimate to ask some real scientists to review his claims. Showing how smart they are, they immediately siad he was a troll, and avoided any reply in here. But one did reply about him and his processes:
“Your troll at angrybearblog.com doesn’t come across to me as somebody with much between the ears. And given your excellent sourcing of quotes from Richard Alley, I’m surprised you haven’t hit upon where the troll is kidding you (& possibly kidding himself)
The Alley 2000 GISP2 reconstruction is a bit of a favorite for denialists. The little bump at the end (helpfully coloured red in your toll’s version) – hey – is this all that your allegedly-mighty seeowtoo can manage?
What appears little understood by these eager denialists is that the Alley GISP2 data stops well before the present day data. It’s not even 95-years -before-present, because the convention used in Alley (2000) is to set “present day” at 1950. Thus the last data on the graph is AD1855 when CO2 was still below 290ppm.
A more correct but still not up-to-date version of the graph is perhaps this one used to debunk this same nonsense from Don Easterbrook, or perhaps this figure from Kobashi et al (2011) but which again is still not up-to-date as that pesky temperature on Greenland just won’t stay diwn, damn it. And here is yet another version but the original graphic (by Gareth Renowden) is now 3 years old, so the record 2012 melt year would be higher still. The up-to-date Greenland temperatures for some reason don’t feature greatly in the published research. It’s the melting that gets all the attention.”
And that is him, a stone cold troll whose limited ability requires him to hit blogs with mostly non scientists, or fellow travelers, and play his game.
Seems like nothing ever changes.
You’re right, of course. I don’t expect CoRev to change. He’s obdurate on stilts. I remember his previous spell of trolling this blog. I post my rebuttals for others to read.
I am a scientist, and it pains me to see people lie about science and cherry-pick data. Because I’m a scientist, it is easy to spot CoRev’s lies and distortions. Others may not find it as obvious, so I don’t mind Fisking him now and then. But feeding trolls is tedious business and I’m getting mighty tired of this thread.
Joel, you have back tracked an each of your major claims in the thread.
Joel – ” Remember the phony “hiatus” or “pause?””
Joel’s back track – “There was an illusion of a pause because surface temperature measurements were being used as a proxy for global warming. ” And the surface datasets is exactly where we sais the pause existed.
Joel – “There is no historical evidence for such rapid, sustained change over such a large magnitude in the past million years….”
Joel’s back track – “Yes, glaciation is sustained,…”
The real problem with Joel’s written claims is their poor scientific form. It took over 30 comments before Joel actually defined what he meant in his earliest ludicrous claim: “Joel
April 2, 2018 11:35 am
There is no historical evidence for such rapid, sustained change over such a large magnitude in the past million years….” Note, no definition or scale for “rapid”, “sustained” or “magnitude”, but he still claims scientific credentials.
Joel started this thread by trolling:
April 2, 2018 10:36 am
And yet the climate change denialist trolls keep trolling.”
And, yet Joel has blamed others of rolling when just challenging his poorly written and so far unsupported original claims. Supporting his “what I really meant claims” is far from science.
You have had your fun. I am tired. Enough. Go away with your silliness. Joel has bearing.
No backtrack, CoRev. Straightforward, honest and consistent.
I’m done with your juvenile attempts at trolling. Sad.
I’m sure the readers of Angry Bear will see you for the fool you are.