Are you now really arguing that there is no such thing as freezing point depression and boiling point elevation when making water saltier?:)
Really?
Air temperature increasing, ice extent increasing, ice mass decreasing does not lead to "it's the air temperature that dunnit". It speaks to a multitude of drivers, moving in opposite directions, and directly contradicts the idea of a single primary driver.
You're trying to justify a false premise, forcing contradictory observations into a box that won't contain them. The problem isn't that your proposed effect is bizarre - it's that your proposed effect *isn't really what's going on*. The complexity of contradictory observations is obviously coming from multiple drivers, not a single surface air temperature driver.
So with salt, you get freezing point depression and boiling point elevation - which means that if, as you posit, the new sea ice is saltier, it requires a *colder* atmosphere in order to form ice...which contraindicates your "slightly warmer air" assertion.
If, as you assert, warmer air means *more* ice extent at the poles, why do the antarctic and arctic behave differently in this respect?
I believe, if you're honest with yourself, you'll note that the melting and extent of ice at the poles has much less to do with any sort of atmospheric temperature effects, and much more to do with storm effects, and ocean effects, neither of which is particularly well modeled by any GCM.
The problem here is that someone is trying to take an observation, and force a world view on it, rather than accepting the true complexity at hand. It's like insisting that you rolled a 7 or 11 on craps because you blew on the dice.
And I take it you've got a theory to go with that well documented fact that makes the warmer air temperatures *skip* melting the surface ice, and instead melt the ice beneath:)
Seriously, given warmer air temperatures in antarctica, how do you explain *more* surface ice extent? Is there some magic freeze ray in your theory?:)
Winter, of course, is caused by the axial tilt of the planet - and it's regional to boot:)
Global temperature changes, on the other hand, can certainly be driven by ocean temperature fluctuations, as shown by things such as AMO and PDO.
The original claim was that expanding sea ice extent, and decreasing sea ice mass, is somehow a logical result of atmospheric global warming due to CO2. Obviously, it doesn't follow.
At best, decreasing sea ice mass, driven by temperature flows and fluctuations in the ocean, is driven by ocean dynamics, not atmospheric dynamics. From that POV, continued expansion of sea ice extent is *obviously* driven by lower atmospheric temperatures, which are generally precluded by a hypothesis that posits higher atmospheric temperatures.
Now, ask yourself the question - what moderates the transfer of energy from the sun to the oceans? Heat in the atmosphere, or changes in cloud albedo moderating the amount of sunlight that hits the oceans?
you're making a huge assumption that the magnitude of energy absorbed by melting ice is large enough to make a significant difference to the global temperature, and even if it were so what?
Not an assumption - pretty simple math when it comes to understanding the mass of water vs. the mass of atmosphere and their specific heats.
As for "so what", if *water* is driving *atmosphere*, wouldn't it be silly to look at *atmosphere* as the driver of the *water*? Causality starts somewhere specific:)
1) CO2 increases surface temperatures through the greenhouse effect; 2) this increased surface temperature magically *increases* surface ice, but *melts* subsurface ice
If you accept that melting is an endothermic reaction, then it's simple physics that melting ice (and a very little melt, in all actuality) will more than absorb any surface temperature heat - water has a significantly greater specific heat than air.
I'm still interested in hearing what kind of magical heat jump can pass through surface ice, and get to all that ice underneath to melt it:)
You fail to understand the basic thermodynamics here - melting ice will compensate for increased energy into a system, by melting. The assertion was made that ice melting cannot happen when the temperature is stable - but that's *exactly* what melting ice does.
You can make the argument that melting ice shows that energy is going into the system, but you cannot assert that the temperature must *not be stable* in order for ice to melt - regardless if you insert some sort of lag in reaction time.
Who was talking about the endothermic nature of the reaction?
The assertion that temperature must *not* be stable in order for ice to melt is refutable with the simplest countertop experiment - put ice in water. Let temperature stabilize. Watch the ice continue to melt without changing water temperature. Q.E.D.
Of course mass != surface area - but by what miracle do you assert that surface temperature warming will affect only *mass* but not *surface area*?
If the assertion is that surface area increases as mass decreases, the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.
No, I ask for a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement before accepting something as science - neither Genesis nor CAGW manage to provide one, so I don't reflexively believe them:)
So your assertion, that decrease in mass means increase in extent, means that eventually, when most of the mass of the ice is melted, the entire world will be covered in ice?
Furthermore, wouldn't the melting of ice mass (without affecting albedo), prove to be a negative feedback, since the ice melt is an endothermic reaction that mitigates heat from any source, natural or otherwise?
Funny how your dodge doesn't really address the issue:)
Even though it is not in exactly the form of a definitive proof,
Your problem isn't whether or not it's proof - it's whether or not it's *scientific*. Without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it simply *isn't science*.
Why is it that most of the world has gotten it and is doing something about it, except the US?
And tell me, how many coal fired plants has china put up in the past decade?
Why is it that its mostly only Americans that refuse to accept man-made global warming?
Because nobody has put forward the most *basic* requirement of the scientific method yet - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
what actually would be the downside of still doing something about reducing man-made greenhouse gasses?
Well, I can think of a few off the top of my head -
1) CO2 helps plants grow 2) CO2 emissions mitigation causes absolute electricity prices to rise, harming the poorest of the poor
That being said, do you realize you've once again ducked the question about falsifiability? It's like you're trying to convince me that the virgin Mary really was a virgin, or that Xenu really did oppress the universe trillions of years ago.
Put another way, say you spent the next month looking for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for CAGW and *didn't* find it - be honest, would you reconsider your beliefs, or would you simply hold onto them with the fervor of the faithful?
You quoted a *statement*, not a *necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement".
In order to be a "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement", it must include two very important things:
1) a list of observations that would prove it wrong; 2) a logical argument as to why in the absence of those observations listed, it is the *only* explanation left (or close to it).
Simply asserting that "it is extremely likely that God created the earth in 7 days" in the bible does *not* make it scientific. You've got to show what observations that would prove that God *didn't* create the earth in 7 days, and why in the absence of those, we *must* be led to the conclusion that God *did* create the earth in seven days.
For example, you can't say, "you can prove God didn't create the earth in 7 days if Christians don't exist", since the mere existence of Christians doesn't force us to believe that God exists. Similarly, you can't say, "you can prove CAGW isn't true if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", since the mere existence of a greenhouse gas doesn't force us to believe that natural climate change no longer exists.
Try again, see if you can find an actual statement of potential falsifiability in the IPCC report.
Have you any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming you'd like to quote? Or is your position simply that chanting ad hominem slogans is enough to prove your point?
When creationism, astrology, homeopathy, voodoo, and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming provide necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, *then* you can put them into science curriculum.
Just because famous politicians and some people in lab coats write thousand page reports trying to scare us about something, doesn't mean that it's science.
...name just one species that has gone extinct this year....name just one species that has gone extinct this decade....name just one species that has gone extinct this century.
So the assertion is that no matter what one attempts, there is no way to limit government power (i.e., given more freedoms to the people, one will have a "vacuum" that will be filled by another government removing those freedoms).
I wonder if there is any rationale for what freedoms are inevitably taken away by government, and if there are indeed *any* freedoms that can survive this continual power grab given the "vacuum".
Slashdot Mirror
Are you now really arguing that there is no such thing as freezing point depression and boiling point elevation when making water saltier? :)
Really?
Air temperature increasing, ice extent increasing, ice mass decreasing does not lead to "it's the air temperature that dunnit". It speaks to a multitude of drivers, moving in opposite directions, and directly contradicts the idea of a single primary driver.
You're trying to justify a false premise, forcing contradictory observations into a box that won't contain them. The problem isn't that your proposed effect is bizarre - it's that your proposed effect *isn't really what's going on*. The complexity of contradictory observations is obviously coming from multiple drivers, not a single surface air temperature driver.
So with salt, you get freezing point depression and boiling point elevation - which means that if, as you posit, the new sea ice is saltier, it requires a *colder* atmosphere in order to form ice...which contraindicates your "slightly warmer air" assertion.
If, as you assert, warmer air means *more* ice extent at the poles, why do the antarctic and arctic behave differently in this respect?
I believe, if you're honest with yourself, you'll note that the melting and extent of ice at the poles has much less to do with any sort of atmospheric temperature effects, and much more to do with storm effects, and ocean effects, neither of which is particularly well modeled by any GCM.
The problem here is that someone is trying to take an observation, and force a world view on it, rather than accepting the true complexity at hand. It's like insisting that you rolled a 7 or 11 on craps because you blew on the dice.
So now you're saying that surface ice is *sublimating* to reduce mass as it increases in extent?
By what magic is this happening?
And I take it you've got a theory to go with that well documented fact that makes the warmer air temperatures *skip* melting the surface ice, and instead melt the ice beneath :)
Seriously, given warmer air temperatures in antarctica, how do you explain *more* surface ice extent? Is there some magic freeze ray in your theory? :)
Winter, of course, is caused by the axial tilt of the planet - and it's regional to boot :)
Global temperature changes, on the other hand, can certainly be driven by ocean temperature fluctuations, as shown by things such as AMO and PDO.
The original claim was that expanding sea ice extent, and decreasing sea ice mass, is somehow a logical result of atmospheric global warming due to CO2. Obviously, it doesn't follow.
At best, decreasing sea ice mass, driven by temperature flows and fluctuations in the ocean, is driven by ocean dynamics, not atmospheric dynamics. From that POV, continued expansion of sea ice extent is *obviously* driven by lower atmospheric temperatures, which are generally precluded by a hypothesis that posits higher atmospheric temperatures.
Now, ask yourself the question - what moderates the transfer of energy from the sun to the oceans? Heat in the atmosphere, or changes in cloud albedo moderating the amount of sunlight that hits the oceans?
Not an assumption - pretty simple math when it comes to understanding the mass of water vs. the mass of atmosphere and their specific heats.
As for "so what", if *water* is driving *atmosphere*, wouldn't it be silly to look at *atmosphere* as the driver of the *water*? Causality starts somewhere specific :)
Sure, but asserting the heat *bypasses* the surface ice on its way to the deeper ice is ludicrous, don't you agree?
So you've chosen authority figures without bothering to ask them for necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements :)
Sounds just like people picking a pope :)
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/Revkin/sta...
Awful misuse of "Collapse" in headlines on centuries-long ice loss in W. Antarctica. See rates in papers. Same as '09
The trope goes like this:
1) CO2 increases surface temperatures through the greenhouse effect;
2) this increased surface temperature magically *increases* surface ice, but *melts* subsurface ice
If you accept that melting is an endothermic reaction, then it's simple physics that melting ice (and a very little melt, in all actuality) will more than absorb any surface temperature heat - water has a significantly greater specific heat than air.
I'm still interested in hearing what kind of magical heat jump can pass through surface ice, and get to all that ice underneath to melt it :)
You fail to understand the basic thermodynamics here - melting ice will compensate for increased energy into a system, by melting. The assertion was made that ice melting cannot happen when the temperature is stable - but that's *exactly* what melting ice does.
You can make the argument that melting ice shows that energy is going into the system, but you cannot assert that the temperature must *not be stable* in order for ice to melt - regardless if you insert some sort of lag in reaction time.
The assertion that temperature must *not* be stable in order for ice to melt is refutable with the simplest countertop experiment - put ice in water. Let temperature stabilize. Watch the ice continue to melt without changing water temperature. Q.E.D.
Of course mass != surface area - but by what miracle do you assert that surface temperature warming will affect only *mass* but not *surface area*?
If the assertion is that surface area increases as mass decreases, the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.
It simply doesn't follow.
Think a bit more carefully again.
Get yourself a glass of water.
Put ice cubes in it and wait until the temperature stabilizes.
Watch the ice melt further (the initial stabilization will include some ice melting).
Measure the temperature over that period of time.
Do you believe that the melting ice will continue to cause a reduction in temperature?
No, I ask for a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement before accepting something as science - neither Genesis nor CAGW manage to provide one, so I don't reflexively believe them :)
So, we're supposed to believe that in a warming world, ice sheets melt, but then sea ice will extend to cover the entire planet? :)
Funny how warming produces more ice and less ice at the same time :)
So your assertion, that decrease in mass means increase in extent, means that eventually, when most of the mass of the ice is melted, the entire world will be covered in ice?
Furthermore, wouldn't the melting of ice mass (without affecting albedo), prove to be a negative feedback, since the ice melt is an endothermic reaction that mitigates heat from any source, natural or otherwise?
Funny how your dodge doesn't really address the issue :)
Are you saying that melting of ice does not affect temperature?
Do you have a problem with the idea of endothermic reactions?
...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/
"Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometers."
Funny how facts get in the way of a good scare story.
Your problem isn't whether or not it's proof - it's whether or not it's *scientific*. Without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it simply *isn't science*.
And tell me, how many coal fired plants has china put up in the past decade?
Because nobody has put forward the most *basic* requirement of the scientific method yet - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Well, I can think of a few off the top of my head -
1) CO2 helps plants grow
2) CO2 emissions mitigation causes absolute electricity prices to rise, harming the poorest of the poor
That being said, do you realize you've once again ducked the question about falsifiability? It's like you're trying to convince me that the virgin Mary really was a virgin, or that Xenu really did oppress the universe trillions of years ago.
Put another way, say you spent the next month looking for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for CAGW and *didn't* find it - be honest, would you reconsider your beliefs, or would you simply hold onto them with the fervor of the faithful?
You quoted a *statement*, not a *necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement".
In order to be a "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement", it must include two very important things:
1) a list of observations that would prove it wrong;
2) a logical argument as to why in the absence of those observations listed, it is the *only* explanation left (or close to it).
Simply asserting that "it is extremely likely that God created the earth in 7 days" in the bible does *not* make it scientific. You've got to show what observations that would prove that God *didn't* create the earth in 7 days, and why in the absence of those, we *must* be led to the conclusion that God *did* create the earth in seven days.
For example, you can't say, "you can prove God didn't create the earth in 7 days if Christians don't exist", since the mere existence of Christians doesn't force us to believe that God exists. Similarly, you can't say, "you can prove CAGW isn't true if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", since the mere existence of a greenhouse gas doesn't force us to believe that natural climate change no longer exists.
Try again, see if you can find an actual statement of potential falsifiability in the IPCC report.
I've read it cover to cover - have you? :)
Have you any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming you'd like to quote? Or is your position simply that chanting ad hominem slogans is enough to prove your point?
When creationism, astrology, homeopathy, voodoo, and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming provide necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, *then* you can put them into science curriculum.
Just because famous politicians and some people in lab coats write thousand page reports trying to scare us about something, doesn't mean that it's science.
...name just one species that has gone extinct this year. ...name just one species that has gone extinct this decade. ...name just one species that has gone extinct this century.
So the assertion is that no matter what one attempts, there is no way to limit government power (i.e., given more freedoms to the people, one will have a "vacuum" that will be filled by another government removing those freedoms).
I wonder if there is any rationale for what freedoms are inevitably taken away by government, and if there are indeed *any* freedoms that can survive this continual power grab given the "vacuum".