The Global Warming Plateau

[Shady]

MLW member 'Michael Hardner' was recently on the firing end of your previous "no clue" labeling... and now, your sights have hit MLW member 'dre'. Apparently, not agreeing with you has consequences!

.

LOL! It must look pretty familiar huh? This kind of observation is rich coming from the likes of you! /facepalm

LOL!

[waldo]

LOL! It must look pretty familiar huh?

lil' buddy... clearly, you misinterpret! I certainly took no pleasure in highlighting the member's recent pattern of "no clue labeling" those who had the apparent audacity to challenge/question said members statements/claims. I'm somewhat taken aback with your comment - surely, you're not suggesting I've ever labeled you clueless!

[TimG]

It's not a particularly exclusive club, but one with respectable membership nonetheless.

Yet after I made that a comment Micheal Hardner made an honest effort to understand why I made that comment instead of wallowing in the alarmist echo chamber - and effort posters like dre and yourself seem unwilling to make.

[bleeding heart]

Sure, "wallowing in the alarmist echo chamber"--meaning, I suppose, that you can cite, oh, let's say, two instances where I've done so...and I mean (being a generous sort) even by your own subjective standards of what constitutes said chamber.

Alternatively, you could concede that you're making it up as you go along. Either way's good.

[TimG]

Sure, "wallowing in the alarmist echo chamber"--meaning, I suppose, that you can cite

This thread is an example. Dre made numerous claims about 'what skeptics' think - claims which based on crap circulated in the alarmist echo chamber instead of by actually reading skeptical blogs. You responded with a snarky comment that suggested I had no basis for my comment to dre. That is a pretty clear example of you wallowing in the alarmist echo chamber.

[bleeding heart]

This thread is an example. Dre made numerous claims about 'what skeptics' think - claims which based on crap circulated in the alarmist echo chamber instead of by actually reading skeptical blogs. You responded with a snarky comment that suggested I had no basis for my comment to dre. That is a pretty clear example of you wallowing in the alarmist echo chamber.

Not quite. My response to Waldo was a tacit agreement that your promiscuous use of "clueless" to describe your opponents--including Michael Hardner, not excluding him--suggests that merely disagreeing with TimG has, in and of itself, "consequences."

In other words, it was all about your style, and not at all about any echo chamber. I have no doubt that you feel the same way about everyone who disagrees with you on any subject...AGW itself being quite incidental to the phenomenon.

[TimG]

In other words, it was all about your style, and not at all about any echo chamber. I have no doubt that you feel the same way about everyone who disagrees with you on any subject...AGW itself being quite incidental to the phenomenon.

Again - what basis do have to say that I regularly call people 'clueless'? I can think of two incidents - one with dre where he made claims regarding what skeptics think that have no connection to what skeptics actually think. And a couple times to Micheal Hardner when he was insisting that my criticisms of an academic paper had no merit. Micheal has appeared to moderate his position which seems to indicate that my reaction was not as unjustified as you would like claim.

I find it ironic that you are commenting about my alleged use of a phrase based on a third party claim - an untenable position a best - and then suggesting that I am one being unreasonable.

Edited October 13, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Again - what basis do have to say that I regularly call people 'clueless'? I can think of two incidents - one with dre where he made claims regarding what skeptics think that have no connection to what skeptics actually think. And a couple times to Micheal Hardner when he was insisting that my criticisms of an academic paper had no merit. Micheal has appeared to moderate his position which seems to indicate that my reaction was not as unjustified as you would like claim.

I find it ironic that you are commenting about my alleged use of a phrase based on a third party claim - an untenable position a best - and then suggesting that I am one being unreasonable.

Even if my throwaway snarkiness was unwarranted or unreasonable, the primary question remains begged. If I am, as you say, unwilling to cease "wallowing" (ie ongoing, multiple occasions) in this "alarmist echo chamber" that has you exercised, surely you can find some concrete examples of my doing so. Instead, you take issue with the fact that I take issue with the nominal: "clueless" (the only matter stated or implied in my post).

You don't think this might lack some discrimination? That if I overstated in using "promiscuous" in your use of "clueless," that it might genuinely apply to whom you deem "alarmist"?

Edited October 13, 2013 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

I bet if we could capture the excess energy of all the keystrokes that go into these threads we could solve global warming.

[waldo]

Even if my throwaway snarkiness was unwarranted or unreasonable, the primary question remains begged. If I am, as you say, unwilling to cease "wallowing" (ie ongoing, multiple occasions) in this "alarmist echo chamber" that has you exercised, surely you can find some concrete examples of my doing so. Instead, you take issue with the fact that I take issue with the nominal: "clueless" (the only matter stated or implied in my post).

You don't think this might lack some discrimination? That if I overstated in using "promiscuous" in your use of "clueless," that it might genuinely apply to whom you deem "alarmist"?

you sir, are an arrteeest... one of the waggish kind!

[bleeding heart]

I bet if we could capture the excess energy of all the keystrokes that go into these threads we could solve global warming.

[Keepitsimple]

Remember all the breathless announcements and headlines last year about the record-low ice levels in the Arctic? Well, we haven't seen too many about the significant recovery this year, have we? Wonder why . Almost two million square kilometers more than last year. And lets not forget that the Antarctic has expanded to levels not seen in the sattellite record. Just one of the examples of those cheeky observations not playing ball with computer model projections. Cue Waldo........

This summer, Arctic sea ice loss was held in check by relatively cool and stormy conditions. As a result, 2013 saw substantially more ice at summer’s end, compared to last year’s record low extent. The Greenland Ice Sheet also showed less extensive surface melt than in 2012. Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Edited October 16, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Cue Waldo........

of course, I will not hesitate to showcase your lack of understanding... I will not resist spending cycles to highlight your continued denial - your "fake-skepticism"!

it's really a shame you haven't learned much of anything over time. It's somewhat mind-numbing that with all your bluster over claiming to be a "real skeptic" you can't actually present yourself... like a real skeptic! We've had no shortage of posts covering this your latest parroting of the "recovery" of the Arctic Sea Ice! Yes, this 2013 year only managed to be the 6th lowest extent coverage year on record! Just the 6th lowest ever!!! Considering 2012 was the all time record sea-ice minimum low, it's by no means an automatic that each successive year-upon-year will continue as record lows. In fact, there's a statistics principle that suggests a gravitation (a recovery) to the mean after an extreme. In any case, a few images and a video of extent & volume decreases.... decreases to showcase the level of your "real fake skepticism"! Notwithstanding that any actual new ice formed (in any year) is termed "first-year ice"... as distinct from multi-year ice... of course, this "first-year ice" newly formed will be the first/easiest ice to melt during next years 'Arctic melting season'. Enjoy Simple:

as for the Antarctic, you've been schooled on this many times over in the past... of course, you're not distinguishing between Antarctic land ice, ice-sheets, which are melting at an accelerated rate, and Antarctic sea-ice which has shown growth... in certain areas. Equally, you can't be bothered to ask the basic question - why are certain sea-ice areas of the Antarctic growing in size? It's certainly not because it's cooling around Antarctica; rather, surrounding ocean has been warming more than the rest of the world's oceans.

of course what you obviously don't know, is that it's the Antarctic Ice Sheet melt... not the Antarctic Sea Ice conditions, that is significant... and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting, increasingly. I guess what you didn't know is that the Antarctic Sea Ice regularly melts, every year, almost completely (summer to winter). But yes, there is an increase in the winter-time Antarctic Sea Ice, a small rate increase, one with substantial natural year-to-year variability. More pointedly, per the NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center), "the increase is attributed to a changing climate pattern, one associated with a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds; a condition associated with the loss of ozone and increases in greenhouse gases."

1. supporting citation in regards to increasing wind affect on Antarctic sea-ice: Why Antarctic Sea Ice Cover Has Increased Under the Effects of Climate Change

2. relatively recent changes in continued Antarctic land ice-sheet mass loss... over the last decade, overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained at a relatively constant diminishing rate - with data suggesting a 50% increase in Antarctic ice loss (IMBIE)

(note: due to the ongoing U.S. government shutdown, this NASA sourced graphic is unavailable at this time)

[waldo]

here you go Simple... a follow-up on my last post: The Arctic shifts to a new normal --- Thinning sea ice, thawing permafrost, and greening tundra are among numerous pervasive trends in today’s Arctic

On 5 September 1980, when the Arctic sea-ice cover reached its minimum extent for the year, it blanketed much of the Arctic Ocean and choked the inter-island channels of Canada’s Arctic Archipelago. Not only did ice extend over 7.5 million square kilometers, almost equal in area to the contiguous 48 US states, but it was an old, and thus thick, ice cover: 62% was multiyear sea ice—that which survives one or more summer melt seasons—and 38% was first-year sea ice. The age and thickness of the ice made it resilient to atmospheric and oceanic forcing, such as solar radiation, storms, and air and water temperatures. Consequently, the seasonal cycle of winter advance and summer retreat was thought to be in a near steady state.
.
.
On 16 September 2012, the minimum extent of sea ice was 3.4 million square kilometers, the lowest since satellite observations began in 1979 and 55% less coverage than existed in September 1980, as shown in figure 2 . In September 2012 there was little sea ice in the inter-island channels of Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, and in the Arctic basin the summer ice edge was distant from the Alaskan and Eurasian coasts. The 2012 ice cover was also younger and thinner, with 58% of it less than a year old. A thin ice cover is less resilient and more prone to melting and retreat in summer than a thick one. It is also more translucent and thus allows greater light transmission into the underlying ocean. One consequence is a rise in what’s known as primary production—that is, photosynthesis by algae and phytoplankton—in the water below the ice and in previously ice-covered waters.

[bush_cheney2004]

A Siberian lake has already provided confirmation of what has long been suspected....an Arctic region that has been much warmer in bewteen “super-interglacial” periods. Welcome back to the future......so sorry warmies !

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-has-survived-astonishing-periods-extreme-warming

[Keepitsimple]

The sad thing about the Alarmist mindset is that ANY studies or observations that support a reduced CO2 impact SHOULD be heralded as great news for everyone. After all, Human caused Global Warming has been labelled catastrophic and the greatest threat that humanity faces. Instead, they dispute or ignore any evidence that might put a dent in their theory. Alarmists like Waldo are so intent on "winning the argument" that they can't accept the good news that is clearly starting to emerge.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

And lets not forget that the Antarctic has expanded to levels not seen in the sattellite record. Just one of the examples of those cheeky observations not playing ball with computer model projections.

Lets also not forget the scientific consensus surrounding AGW as a cause for alarm has expanded to levels not seen in the historical record. Just another cheeky example of science not conforming to ideology.

As for me my own observations seem to jibe with science - the absence of plankton and algae has been quite remarkable this year along the west coast. There are lots of areas that we can navigate now that are normally blocked by the abundance of kelp forests. We also saw a whole lot less forage fish not to mention the whales that forage on them.

Upwelling, a process that brings nutrient-rich cold waters to the surface, occurs along the eastern margins of ocean basins (or the west coast of continents). The delivery of nutrients drives primary production, which is expected to decrease as upwelling circulation is altered by climate change.

http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/impacts/cumulative-impacts/ocean-productivity/

Speaking of deliveries and primary productivity a lot of fishermen and shoreworkers pretty much starved too by the looks of things. An even cheekier example of economic model projections not conforming to ideology.

Edited October 17, 2013 by eyeball

[eyeball]

A Siberian lake has already provided confirmation of what has long been suspected....an Arctic region that has been much warmer in bewteen “super-interglacial” periods. Welcome back to the future......so sorry warmies !

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-has-survived-astonishing-periods-extreme-warming

Arctic has survived 'astonishing' periods extreme warming before

Yucatan survived Chicxulub...

[Michael Hardner]

The sad thing about the Alarmist mindset is that ANY studies or observations that support a reduced CO2 impact SHOULD be heralded as great news for everyone.

You don't have a response to Waldo undoing your statement about the ice recovery ?

[TimG]

You don't have a response to Waldo undoing your statement about the ice recovery ?

Not worth responding to until someone locates some satellite footage from the 30s. Using 1979 as a starting point is an exercise in cherry picking. It is no different than cherry picking 1998 as the starting point for a temperature trend.

Here is a very exhaustive study of the data from the 20 to 40s:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

The 1920-1940’s arctic sea ice melt can therefore be seen as remarkable, albeit the caveats about apples and oranges need to be applied. Looking at the evidence available from each of the arctic oceans means the ice extent probably lies somewhere within that experienced during the first half of the 2000’s, but was probably not as low as 2007 and 2012.

The pre-satellite era data is dubious at best but it is sufficient to establish 1979 as a shameless cherry pick if someone is trying to make a claim about trends. Edited October 17, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Not worth responding to until someone locates some satellite footage from the 30s. Using 1979 as a starting point is an exercise in cherry picking.

The pre-satellite era data is dubious at best but it is sufficient to establish 1979 as shameless cherry pick if someone is trying to make a claim about trends.

oh, really... was the prior context offered pre-satellite? Why not put an end to your claimed cherry-pick and put up a comprehensive reconstruction... and while you're doing that make sure to quantify the 30s temperature while providing an attribution for the presumed/claimed warming of the 30s that correlates with whatever melting and extent loss you presume upon?

re: 20th-century sea-ice variations from observational data --- supporting data

The primary sources of the post-1972 data are the hemispheric fields of sea-ice concentration from (1) the U.S. National Ice Center (NIC), whose weekly grids (derived primarily from satellite data) span the period 1972-1994, and (2) the satellite passive-microwave grids from the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR)/Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) period, 1978-97 (Parkinson and others, 1999). As described by Walsh and Johnson (1979), the primary sources for the period from the early 1950s to the early 1970s were the charts of the U.K. Meteorological Office, the Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service, the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Icelandic Glaciological Society. For the first half of the 20th century, a primary source was the monthly April-September chart series of the Danish Meteorolgical Institute, digitized by Kelly (1979), and the corresponding wintertime information digitized by our group using the summaryies of ship reports in the yearbooks of the Danish Meteorological Institute. An additional source of data for the first half of the 20th century is the recent digitization of the Norwegian Polar Institute’s sea-ice charts by T. Vinje and R. Colony (Vinje, 1999). Since the Norwegian digital data also include the more recent decades, we added these data to the eastern North Atlantic portions of our grids through 1972, the year when the hemispheric dataset of the NIC was initiated. We also note that the Norwegian dataset extends well back into the pre-1900 period, permiting even longer temporal extensions for the eastern North Atlantic.

[waldo]

You don't have a response to Waldo undoing your statement about the ice recovery ?

Simple doesn't provide explanations and/or supporting detail/citation - ever! All Simple does is make unsubstantiated claims.

[bush_cheney2004]

We also saw a whole lot less forage fish not to mention the whales that forage on them.

Use to see a lot more `cod and salmon too. Maybe all the destruction of resources and marine environment by commercial fishing over decades is a factor....nah...that can't be....must be "global warming" !

[waldo]

The sad thing about the Alarmist mindset is that ANY studies or observations that support a reduced CO2 impact SHOULD be heralded as great news for everyone. After all, Human caused Global Warming has been labelled catastrophic and the greatest threat that humanity faces. Instead, they dispute or ignore any evidence that might put a dent in their theory. Alarmists like Waldo are so intent on "winning the argument" that they can't accept the good news that is clearly starting to emerge.

I realize you live... and die... by the single paper, silver-bullet approach to science fake-skepticism! Clearly, peer-response puts a nasty dent in your latest and greatest AGWkiller findings!

Oh wait... you also spoke of "a reduced CO² impact! Simple, do you have... "great news for everyone"?... do you have... "good news that is clearly starting to emerge"? Spread the news Simple, spread it... the great and the good!

[eyeball]

Use to see a lot more `cod and salmon too. Maybe all the destruction of resources and marine environment by commercial fishing over decades is a factor....nah...that can't be....must be "global warming" !

Sure its a factor. The handful of cod and salmon fishermen on smaller boats actually did pretty good this year...on the handful of days they were allowed to fish that is. It's actually the bigger corporate fleets that seemed to bomb more spectacularly this year - fishing closer to the bottom of the food chain on species more dependant on plankton.