WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[kbachler]

As I said, it’s just a debate. There are “quotes” for both sides of the argument, and some that “straddle” it.

Here’s one saying both arctic and antarctic ice caps are growing.
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode

Some, on the other hand, say the arctic ice is decreasing but variable, while the antarctic ice cap is indisputably growing.

Nothing about this is any more definite than whether the stock market will go up or down tomorrow. But there is definitely a lot of money paying people to opine.

I haven’t read the article you quoted above - but there is a general misunderstanding about the caps.

First, to clarify, they are not growing, they are definitely shrinking.

Unfortunately, some people have confused the “expanse” of ice with the VOLUME of ice. Volume, the actual amount of ice is down, and continues to drop. However, especially seasonally, the AREA covered by ice has recently increased. The surrounding water is cold, it freezes, but it is not thick.

The ice cap is a 3 dimensional issue. If one ignores one of the dimensions, one comes to an incorrect conclusion overall.

Try : skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

 

[kbachler]

It says more than that, of course, including that the antarctic ice cap is more extensive than it has ever been since records have been kept.

“The most recent data show that the Antarctic is currently surrounded by more sea ice than at any other point since records began. In all, there are right now about 20 million square kilometers of frozen sea area surrounding the Antarctic continent. That is 170,000 square kilometers more than last year’s previous all-time record, and more than 1.2 million square kilometers above the 1981-to-2010 mean, according to researchers.”

There are more articles like this. A lot more. But as I said before, all of this is really just a “my quote is better than yours” debate.

AREA of ice - referred to above - is not the issue. VOLUME of ice, which has decreased and continues to decrease, is the issue.

When large amounts of glaciers break off, water is cooled, it freezes, so it “re-instates” some of the frozen area. But it doesn’t reinstate the volume.

The same process occurs in lakes, ponds, puddles, even bowls of water.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you are keen to explore the science

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

THE NOAA OUTGOING LONG WAVE RADIATION DATA APPEARS TO BE
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING

As Ridgerunner said, arguing with “my quote is better than your quote” accomplishes nothing. You can always find someone to back up even the most outrageous proposal. So rather than offer yet another quote that you will ignore, I have cited a raw data source in posting 683 that everybody seems to trust. At least “what’s up with that” trusts it. Did you even bother to look and see for yourself if the raw data supports the contention that the arctic ice cap is not shrinking?

 

[sps49]

As Ridgerunner said, arguing with “my quote is better than your quote” accomplishes nothing. You can always find someone to back up even the most outrageous proposal. So rather than offer yet another quote that you will ignore, I have cited a raw data source in posting 683 that everybody seems to trust. At least “what’s up with that” trusts it. Did you even bother to look and see for yourself if the raw data supports the contention that the arctic ice cap is not shrinking?

Um, not exactly “raw data,” since the disclaimer

“Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.”

is present on the webpage whose link you provided.

The “everyone seems to trust” statement implies a unanimity that is not present. So, big deal, another page with processed data. The statement that the “ice cap” is shrinking is as useless as “the world is warming,” if used in conjunction with the argument that AGW is the big knob in climate change. The attribution (natural vs man made variations) argument is not yet settled. Witness the recent climate sensitivity debate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I haven’t read the article you quoted above - but there is a general misunderstanding about the caps.

First, to clarify, they are not growing, they are definitely shrinking.

Unfortunately, some people have confused the “expanse” of ice with the VOLUME of ice. Volume, the actual amount of ice is down, and continues to drop. However, especially seasonally, the AREA covered by ice has recently increased. The surrounding water is cold, it freezes, but it is not thick.

The ice cap is a 3 dimensional issue. If one ignores one of the dimensions, one comes to an incorrect conclusion overall.

Try : skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

All of this is disputed; a matter of who’s quoting what “expert”.

I have seen the “thickness” argument before; sometimes made by the same people who argue that “extent” is more important than “thickness” when it comes to Greenland ice.

It would all perhaps be funny except that the politicians who don’t seem to believe in it in their own lives and the rich environmentalists who don’t either, want to make life harder and more expensive for us peons for the sake of their ideology. But then, that’s pretty much the history of the left.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Um, not exactly “raw data,” since the disclaimer

“Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.”

So ignore the snow cover regions (the white regions). They are unnecessary in seeing if the ice over is growing or shrinking. If you look at September images there is very little snow cover over the land anyway. The sea ice concentration limit of 30% is applied equally to all dates. There has to be a threshold level anyway, so 30% is as good as any other.

The “everyone seems to trust” statement implies a unanimity that is not present. So, big deal, another page with processed data.

Perhaps you did not see the instances where What’s Up With That (everyone’s favorite anti-global warming website) cites images from the Cryosphere project when those images suit their purposes. Those images are hardly “processed” like a tabular summary of ice coverage as a function of time. I have not seen anyone call into question the validity of the Cryosphere satellite images. I claim there is unanimity, except for those that just want to reject out of hand every data source that they personal did not collect with their own backyard thermometer. Come on now, why now accept the challenge and find satelite images in Cryosphere, or anywhere else, for that matter, that supports your view? (in the arctic only, please. I know the ice area in the anarctic has expanded recently, but the claim was made here that the arctic has also expanded.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have seen the “thickness” argument before; sometimes made by the same people who argue that “extent” is more important than “thickness” when it comes to Greenland ice.

I suppose it depends on what you are trying to measure. If you are trying to measure albedo, then total area is important, because the light bounces off of 1 inch of snow the same as it bounces off 100 feet of snow. But if you are trying to measure the amount of heat that has been expended in melting the ice caps, then volume is clearly the relevant parameter. I don’t think anyone has flipped back and forth on volume vs. area for the same issue.

 

[sps49]

Perhaps you did not see the instances where What’s Up With That (everyone’s favorite anti-global warming website) cites images from the Cryosphere project when those images suit their purposes. Those images are hardly “processed” like a tabular summary of ice coverage as a function of time. I have not seen anyone call into question the validity of the Cryosphere satellite images. I claim there is unanimity, except for those that just want to reject out of hand every data source that they personal did not collect with their own backyard thermometer. Come on now, why now accept the challenge and find satelite images in Cryosphere, or anywhere else, for that matter, that supports your view? (in the arctic only, please. I know the ice area in the anarctic has expanded recently, but the claim was made here that the arctic has also expanded.)

Your comment lacks coherence. I could care less what WUWT puts up on it’s page for this particular sub thread discussion. What I challenged was the implied claim that the UIUC page had some kind of authority as regards the claim of AGW causing ice cap reduction, and that it was “raw data,” which apparently you have now walked backed with your threshold comment. The threshold function modifies the data, as you yourself admit. It’s either raw data or its not raw data.

Your implied argument of a binary consensus consisting of those who agree unanimously and those who reject out of hand every data source they did not personally collect is found wanting also. There is plenty of room for doubt in this mess, and many opinions that do not fit your consensus model claim.

That Artic or Antarctic ice expands and contracts is not in question. The question is attribution, for which there is no clear answer as of yet, as recent debate over climate sensitivity highlights.

 

[Theo520]

Do you actually read the articles you are quoting?

It says:
“Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period, warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.”

Hans dear boy, the article was specific in cutting the legs from the ‘heat sink’ excuse.

“The temperature of the top half of the world’s ocean – above the 1.24-mile mark – is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your comment lacks coherence. I could care less what WUWT puts up on it’s page for this particular sub thread discussion. What I challenged was the implied claim that the UIUC page had some kind of authority as regards the claim of AGW causing ice cap reduction

They are not and they don’t claim to be. They are just a convenient source of comparative satellite images. The fact that they are unbiased is supported by the fact that both sides in the debate reference these images.

and that it was “raw data,” which apparently you have now walked backed with your threshold comment.

With your interpretation of raw data, no image data is ever raw. But it is raw data in the sense that no interpretive analysis has been done to it that would affect the validity of comparing October 1, 1980 with October 1, 2014. I mean, the difference between those two pictures is so huge that it does not take any complex analysis to see it. But you can pick other dates if you want, then we can talk about what it might mean.

There is plenty of room for doubt in this mess…

Perhaps, but I am not talking about the whole mess right now. I am only talking about one very small part - whether or not the arctic ice is growing or shrinking. If we can dispense with this one little issue, we are on our way to cleaning up the mess.

and many opinions that do not fit your consensus model claim.

I am not claiming any consensus on any model. I am only talking about arctic ice caps right now.

That Artic or Antarctic ice expands and contracts is not in question.

Tell that to Ridgerunner who thought otherwise in post 669.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suppose it depends on what you are trying to measure. If you are trying to measure albedo, then total area is important, because the light bounces off of 1 inch of snow the same as it bounces off 100 feet of snow. But if you are trying to measure the amount of heat that has been expended in melting the ice caps, then volume is clearly the relevant parameter. I don’t think anyone has flipped back and forth on volume vs. area for the same issue.

I think some have. I remember seeing the argument that the thickening glaciers in Greenland don’t tell us anything about MMGW because MMGW increases snowfall and therefore glacier thickness, and that the important thing is the extent.

Different argument. But then there are lots of them on both sides of the issue. As soon as somebody comes up with one, somebody else comes up with a counter-argument, on and on.

 

[sps49]

They are not and they don’t claim to be. They are just a convenient source of comparative satellite images. The fact that they are unbiased is supported by the fact that both sides in the debate reference these images.

I was commenting on your use of their website to bolster your own claims.

With your interpretation of raw data, no image data is ever raw. But it is raw data in the sense that no interpretive analysis has been done to it that would affect the validity of comparing October 1, 1980 with October 1, 2014. I mean, the difference between those two pictures is so huge that it does not take any complex analysis to see it. But you can pick other dates if you want, then we can talk about what it might mean.

Oh please get off it. You claimed it was raw data when it is not. At least own your words. The images are different, so what? It does not mean that AGW is the primary cause.

Perhaps, but I am not talking about the whole mess right now. I am only talking about one very small part - whether or not the arctic ice is growing or shrinking. If we can dispense with this one little issue, we are on our way to cleaning up the mess.

I am not claiming any consensus on any model. I am only talking about arctic ice caps right now.

You are attempting to use Arctic/Antarctic ice changes to reinforce your belief that AGW is the primary agent in climate change. You then categorize people into “pro” and “con” to simplify the view into a caricature of what it really is.

Tell that to Ridgerunner who thought otherwise in post 669.

I don’t have to tell Ridgerunner anything of the sort. But Ridgerunner has something to say in post 669 that may have escaped your notice; thank you for referencing it:

“It’s just one big high school-level debate, with each side having its graphs and quotes, and there’s nothing any more definitive about it than there is about whatever the high school debate topic is at present.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Tell that to Ridgerunner who thought otherwise in post 669.

No need for him to do that because Ridgerunner never denied that arctic and antarctic ice expand and contract. Undoubtedly they do, seasonally and cyclically.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I was commenting on your use of their website to bolster your own claims.

What’s wrong with using a trusted source of data to bolster any claim? If a claim is false, it will not be bolstered by true data.

Oh please get off it. You claimed it was raw data when it is not. At least own your words. The images are different, so what? It does not mean that AGW is the primary cause.

At this point I am not even claiming that AGW is the primary cause. I cannot tackle the whole question of AGW at once. But since Ridgerunner brought up the question of whether the ice caps were melting, I just wanted to resolve what little corner of this question I could.

You are attempting to use Arctic/Antarctic ice changes to reinforce your belief that AGW is the primary agent in climate change. You then categorize people into “pro” and “con” to simplify the view into a caricature of what it really is.

Only because that is the only way to appeal to people who have already got that caricature firmly embedded in their minds. If this were a real scientific discussion it would be taking a much different course, and such a categorization of “pro” and “con” camps would not be necessary.

I don’t have to tell Ridgerunner anything of the sort. But Ridgerunner has something to say in post 669 that may have escaped your notice; thank you for referencing it:

He is welcome to his opinion, and I respect him for it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No need for him to do that because Ridgerunner never denied that arctic and antarctic ice expand and contract. Undoubtedly they do, seasonally and cyclically.

The seasonal part can be factored out by comparing ice coverage on the same day in different years. And the cyclical part is, I assume, referring to very long term cycles that cause ice ages to come and go. The time scale for that is centuries. The changes observable over the 35 year period where we have satellite images is way too big and the time scale too short to be explainable in terms of ice-age cycles.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The seasonal part can be factored out by comparing ice coverage on the same day in different years. And the cyclical part is, I assume, referring to very long term cycles that cause ice ages to come and go. The time scale for that is centuries. The changes observable over the 35 year period where we have satellite images is way too big and the time scale too short to be explainable in terms of ice-age cycles.

Given that there are cycles of varying lengths everywhere else in the world, it would be remarkable if there were none at the poles.

 

[vz71]

Evidence:

businessinsider.com/before-and-after-pictures-of-glaciers-melting-2014-5?op=1

How about doing the right thing because its the right thing to do? Do you clean up after yourself at home?

Good stewardship of our environment is a much different thing than punitive measures inflicted upon others for the sake of something that may not be true.

I am all for efficiency. But draw the line at forcing others through punitive economic measures.
It is unproven, people should be afforded the benefit of their own doubt and not be burdened with economic burdens for this.

 

[Hans_W]

Hans dear boy, the article was specific in cutting the legs from the ‘heat sink’ excuse.

“The temperature of the top half of the world’s ocean – above the 1.24-mile mark – is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures”

Ocean warming greatly underestimated:

skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

I suggest you read the whole article.

 

[sps49]

What’s wrong with using a trusted source of data to bolster any claim? If a claim is false, it will not be bolstered by true data.

Veracity of a claim does not rest with the data. Interpretation, evaluation, diagnosis and other acts of reasoning of the data is where veracity comes into play. The data are irrelevant to veracity. True data are data that are a faithful reproduction of the quantity measured and reproduced in engineering units of the transducer that produced it, subject to various errors.

At this point I am not even claiming that AGW is the primary cause. I cannot tackle the whole question of AGW at once. But since Ridgerunner brought up the question of whether the ice caps were melting, I just wanted to resolve what little corner of this question I could.

Post 702 clarifies this question.

Only because that is the only way to appeal to people who have already got that caricature firmly embedded in their minds. If this were a real scientific discussion it would be taking a much different course, and such a categorization of “pro” and “con” camps would not be necessary.

He is welcome to his opinion, and I respect him for it.

Ahh, I see that you know what are in people’s minds too. A perilous assumption to make.

 

[sps49]

Ocean warming greatly underestimated:

skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

I suggest you read the whole article.

Shouldn’t that read “Uncertainties about ocean warming greatly underestimated:”?