Arctic Ice 'tipping point' unlikely according to

funny how silent these thread go if Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, or Tim Lambert haven't posted a rebuttal on something. i must say it is quite gratifying to see more and more studies coming out that are questioning some of our basic assumptions about this topic. it seems that maybe we are moving into a new era possibly opened up by Climategate.
 
Do I have to refute every single thing you post?

I deemed this post unworthy of rebuttal since (1) we already knew that the ice has varied with temperature in the past (like this helps your point of view?) and (2) summer arctic ice will be gone in 20-30 years which makes this study pretty irrelevant.

The tipping point stuff doesn't really make much sense because ice is trending downward, but will still be present in the winter for a good amount of time. It does matter some concerning albedo, but this is not good for your point of view either.

Why don't you post maybe one new global warming/climate change item a month and I promise to always respond? Otherwise, your volume frequently overwhelms my interest and time especially when it is stuff that seems either irrelevant or just silly. I sort of put this one in the silly category.
 
Paso, you seem to have missed the point of the study. There claim is that the tipping point we have heard so much about is much ado about nothing. We certainly do not know that summer arctic ice will be gone in 20-30 years, that is a projection based upon models, not a certainty by any means.

As for the rest, you can respond or not respond when you want to. Recently, you have responded with 5 and 10 year old blogs rather than recognizing the new material coming forth in peer reviewed papers. That is your choice, but it isn't terribly compelling. It seems we should be looking at the new material and considering how it might shape our past understanding.

I would encourage you to read Judith Curry's blog. She has a very moderate blog that looks at almost every major new paper or study and the conversation there is quite reasonable.

For a good sample of how she looks at issues read this on Arctic Ice: Judith Curry On Arctic Ice

She really is quite the scientist and wants to look at the issues from every angle. she is what we would call a "luke-warmer" not a skeptic/denier or a alarmist.
 
The way most use it is to suggest that at some point the climate will permanently disallow arctic ice due to certain albedo effects etc. It seems that was has been suggested is that once we get past a certain point in terms of Arctic Ice Loss, there is no going back. The new study says this is not the case.
 
Paso, you are talking to the wrong guy. I think much of the fears that have been propagated are overstated so no, I don't think it is going to melt. I think 30 years of a downtrend is hardly anything to panic about when we know that the PDO was positive for most of that time and has now switched to negative in recent years.
 
Paso, it would be virtually impossible for the trend to be positive after only a few years. as a dynamic system turns directions, it is going to take a while until the trend (a mathematical average of sorts) catches up with the new direction. so no, the trend is most certainly not positive. but then you knew that didn't you?
 
so it is a silly point paso. you know it would take another 5 years of no more ice loss below 2007's level as well as increasing gain to even have a positive trend. so based on that question you can continue saying this for probably at least 5 years even if the ice starts to recover steadily. (I am estimating the math of course, but you get the point.)
 
Now that's funny. Bravo.

bow.gif
 
I don't even know who Revkin is so no it isn't awkward just silly. This is science not line up and quote mine the moron.
 
Andy Revkin covered the Environment for the New York Times for 15 years. He is a convinced AGW enthusiast (like yourself) and has done editorial work for Discover Magazine and Science Digest. He is also a graduate of Brown University (Biology) and got his Masters in Journalism from Columbia. Further:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You quote mined his column. You realize this, right? And he does not agree with you especially if you read his comments. His background btw makes him slightly less qualified than me fwiw (which is not much). I really don't read columnists on global warming which is why I had never heard of this guy. I tend to read the actual peer reviewed papers.
 
To say he is less qualified than you is an assessment made solely by his Academic background. But that is not always the best assessment. I suspect that if he wrote for the New York Times for 15 years on this subject, he actually knows quite a bit more than you do on the subject, regardless of where he got his degrees. To use your somewhat simplistic assessment would denigrate Einstein since it is believed that only one of his papers were ever peer reviewed. I only say that to point out that you are using a very simplistic model based on modern standards which don't really inform us of what someone actually knows about a subject.

Regardless, this guy is convinced of AGW but still doesn't hold the view that you insist is correct in this thread.
 
You might reread this thread because you are creating a straw man for my "view". Polar ice was less than it is now 6,000 years ago. We already knew this. This is why I think the "point" is silly. It just is a small, repetitive, and meaningless point intended to distract.

Was polar ice completely gone in the summers 6,000 years ago? If not, how can you or anyone opine on what the impact of its complete absence will be on the environment based on a comparison with a time when there still was polar ice in the summer?

As far as tipping points go, I don't remember anyone saying that polar ice would not refreeze in the winter for many years to come. The absence of polar ice will have negative implications for albedo.
 
I believe Texoz has touched on this issue already (and I know I have with my constant references to volume trends as the most important indicator), but here is a new study that is soon to be published in a peer-reviewed journal:In reply to:
 
The Arctic ice is in a death spiral and, in fact, has already passed the de facto tipping point. Of course the media got the story all wrong once again.

Within 20-30 years, barring volcanic eruptions, the arctic will be virtually ice-free.

BTW, did you guys see this report from MIT, issued a few months ago?


The Link


Here is the abstract:


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I like your posts, mop. But I get the impression you're doing a lot of confirmation bias when you go looking for information.
 
It is actually a little worse. He tends to almost always get his information from Watts even though he frequently tries to disguise it.
 
That's too bad. I know we're all hostage to our innate cognitive biases and all that, but the world is a pretty darned interesting place and I don't understand why people wouldn't want to acquire the best quality information available.

If it happens to fit your ideology, great. But don't confuse the two.

People, especially as the age, have a tendency to get stuck in their ways.
 
Bevo,
just fyi, even though it is understood you should say "ice free in the summer."

if we get to the point where we're ice free year round, we're in a world of pain.

IMO, we are beyond "tipping point." Specifically, we're beyond the point of natural cycles. Too much melting and heat already into the system. Only a VERY large volcanic eruption could possibly push us back to a natural cycle, but with continued CO2 emissions the "tipping point" would be reached again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top