• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reversal in Multi-Decadal Arctic Sea Ice Trend?

Jack Hays said:
The warmists have yet to muster the courage to address the OP argument.
Click to expand...

What's the argument Jack? Please 'muster the courage' to detail it in your own words - because you haven't addressed or discussed anything. Just copy and pasted other people's words from your favorite climate truther blog (which you probably didn't even read anyway).
 
Jack Hays said:
What is the relationship between Arctic sea ice decline and Eurasian cold winters?

[FONT=&]Posted on October 11, 2016 | 58 Comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
We conclude that the observed cooling over central Eurasia was probably due to a sea-ice-independent internally generated circulation pattern ensconced over, and nearby, the Barents–Kara Sea since the 1980s. — McCusker et al.

Published earlier this week in Nature Geoscience:
Twenty-five winters of unexpected Eurasian cooling unlikely due to Arctic sea-ice loss
Kelly E. McCusker, John C. Fyfe and Michael Sigmond
Abstract. Surface air temperature over central Eurasia decreased over the past twenty-five winters at a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic forcing and Arctic amplification. It has been suggested that this cooling was related to an increase in cold winters due to sea-ice loss in the Barents–Kara Sea. Here we use over 600 years of atmosphere-only global climate model simulations to isolate the eect of Arctic sea-ice loss, complemented with a 50-member ensemble of atmosphere–ocean global climate model simulations allowing for external forcing changes (anthropogenic and natural) and internal variability. In our atmosphere-only simulations, we find no evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss having impacted Eurasian surface temperature. In our atmosphere–ocean simulations, we find just one simulation with Eurasian cooling of the observed magnitude but Arctic seaice loss was not involved, either directly or indirectly. Rather, in this simulation the cooling is due to a persistent circulation pattern combining a high pressure over the Barents–Kara Sea and a downstream trough.We conclude that the observed cooling over central Eurasia was probably due to a sea-ice-independent internally generated circulation pattern ensconced over, and nearby, the Barents–Kara Sea since the 1980s. These results improve our knowledge of high-latitude climate variability and change, with implications for our understanding of impacts in high-northern-latitude systems.
Full access version available [here].
JC Comment: John Fyfe sent me this paper a few weeks ago, I think it is very interesting. I had hoped to have more time to write some comments on this, but unfortunately no time. So I will put the paper out there for you to discuss.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the OP?
 
Quaestio said:
You just keep showing you haven't read the reports....or didn't understand them.
Click to expand...
Well you tell me, when the titles of the secondary reports are,
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
Mitigation of Climate Change,
Don't you think some type of Scientific validation would be necessary
before the discussion of impacts and mitigation happen.
The first sentence of the Impacts Summary for policymakers is,
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
Human interference with the climate system is occurring,1 and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems (Figure SPM.1).
Click to expand...
This statement is no way expresses the 3 C range of uncertainty expressed in the the Physical Science Basis report.
And then you get fun images like Figure SPM.2 C
crops.jpg
Since it is VERY safe to say that world production of the cereal crops has only increased,
What exactly is their graph showing with a -2% change per decade, yield impact ?
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator3_2012_CornWheatRice.PNG
 
longview said:
If the data is showing an up tick over the last 25% of the record, even a slight one, it is still a change in direction.
Like I said, I think it would be too noisy to make such a call, but people claim to spot recent global warming in the noise also.
Click to expand...

No, people claim to spot recent global warming in much larger samples.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Oh look....

Another blog by a guy who trash talks blogs!
Click to expand...

This one is pointing out a phenomenon we've observed before. Before, people were talking about that last "recovery" spike all over the right-wing media. Look, arctic ice has expanded dramatically! Hahahah warmists!

And then it melted again, and they shut up for a bit, now it ticks back up and we see exactly the same thing again.
 
Deuce said:
No, people claim to spot recent global warming in much larger samples.
Click to expand...
The comment was about sea ice.
If the temperature had cooled even slightly for 9 of the last 36 years,
it would be big news.
 
Quaestio said:
What's the argument Jack? Please 'muster the courage' to detail it in your own words - because you haven't addressed or discussed anything. Just copy and pasted other people's words from your favorite climate truther blog (which you probably didn't even read anyway).
Click to expand...

I have already posted numerous points. Take it or leave it. Fact is that the OP is both sound and cautious in its claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom