chubbs

A linear trend through the ARGO float data gives 1.05e22 j per year increase for the 0 to 2000m layer. Deeper waters below 2000m add another 10%. So there is good agreement, albeit with large scatter in the corrected Resplandy et. al. estimate.

A couple of points: 1) Rainfall is only expected to increase by a percent or two per degree of warming on a global basis with some areas becoming drier (mainly dry areas) and others wetter (mainly wet areas) . So difficulty in finding trends in mean precipitation is not surprising. 2) The heaviest precipitation events are expected to increase 7% per degree of warming in line with the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture. Observations bear this out. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3110

Below is the best discussion of the available data for the past 1500 years. The current warming is unprecedented. Year-to-year variation in sea ice is expected. We get the sea ice is recovering story periodically in this forum: 2008/9, 2013/14, etc. Sea ice is not crashing and its not recovering, just a steady long-term decline with large year-to-year variability. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10581

Below is the daily sea ice anomaly and a one-year running average. Autumn, winter and spring have been leading the way down recently.

Go back an re-read what I posted earlier. 1) Sea ice is lower now than anytime in past 2000 years. Sure sea ice was lower in the early Holocene >5000 years ago. Summer sun in the northern hemisphere was stronger then. Summer sun is much weaker now; but, sea ice is decreasing rapidly. Why? CO2 of course, different type of forcing same result. All consistent with consensus science. 2) Per your chart, sea ice in the northern Barents Sea has been stable throughout most of the Holocene. Satellite data shows sea ice is crashing now. Why the difference? The recent crash doesn't appear on your chart; because, the method, used to study past climates, doesn't have the time resolution to pick-up the crash. Nothing wrong with the chart; just bad and misleading analysis by Electroverse.

Why? Whats the point? You ignored the material I posted. Scientific studies are not going to change your viewpoint. All I get from the interaction are insults.

yawn.....too much time spent on denier websites

No your charts don't show that at all. First of all your article is advocacy, designed to mislead and not inform. Second not one of your charts show sea ice extent across the arctic or antarctic. Instead they are proxy measurements at a single site, which are designed to study historic climate not the present. I checked one of them, the Barents Sea proxy from Koseoglu. The measurements of marker compounds in a sediment core have a resolution of roughly once every 200 years, and the most recent measurement is deemed representative of the 1980-2010 average, so the data can not be used to compare current conditions, with reduced ice, to those in the past. Another paper states that the site experienced seasonal ice throughout the Holocene. Near the winter ice edge early in the early Holocene but with trend to more sustained ice coverage during the Holocene that has been partially reversed in the past 150 years. During the 1980-2010 period, typically the site was only ice free in August and September, but currently the site and the entire Barents Sea is still ice free. The ice edge in Spring/Winter has retreated close to the site in recent years, so conditions currently may be approaching those of the early Holocene. In any case your bolded statement is false for this one site.

Here is your bolded text " there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years. ". The chart I posted shows that sea ice is lower than any time in the past 2000 years. So your bolded text is clearly incorrect. You are talking about the early Holocene 10,000 years ago when the summer sun was much stronger in the northern hemisphere. Yes, sea ice was also low then when the sun was stronger, but I don't find it comforting given our current rapid downward trend. I

Nice try. Sea ice below is a 5-year mean.

You claimed the article was correct. Here is the headline "Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Now at Historic High Levels" Obviously the main objective of the article is to mislead.

OK

Here is the latest on antarctic sea ice and on ice sheet mass. I don't see much change in antarctic sea ice. More importantly Antarctic ice sheet losses are accelerating and now contribute significantly to sea level rise. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

No that article is not correct. Its full of inaccurate and misleading statements. The article chart conveniently doesn't include the past 4 years with low sea ice - see chart below. There is no long-term trend in sea ice around Antarctica. Climate models predict very slow warming near Antarctica due to the time needed to heat up the deep oceans there. So the sea ice behavior there is not surprising. Of bigger concern is the ice sheet disintegration that is starting in Antarctica, due to ocean warming at depth, but you won't read about that at "electroverse".

"Based on high precision oxygen and CO measurements" so completely independent of temperature or other measurements. Link to paper itself below: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=CaC3iFrPBg-kkAuZwE4xxtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPM6F5Tw--xUcDaVyo5KYP7_G9gTDd9jkXQCGLmYVcdiHz9wkwN0E6N2nDZlq4WDQgItGi5ylVScf0yzGnaEVfvjiMb4AD29fhh3xQR3z_DrC_cMrTVL7ZhdR6IhWWEdbaBw61pmJWfJX3nlJ6qnYm0eEGF290YDw0L29Qu1D0Zo3ti9EtUV0eTqh8Y9w5-oUx2QwN2d9ZfvrbV8VI76Jac_wGy8vU0HDJC8kZsxCODUxL-v0-LWQnBluUpq-qsDVGV_FnsfWBY3t9eDW5Z4-YAmGWsK7U9CqUBkBPZgcWuym47_1VtxT74CJE_Bl65D2JD9IkLxfX80W9RBKrmEExeZfoxsqBGM592131t1to5g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Open-source paper on Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and age from 1958-2018 by Ron Kwok. Main point - Arctic has transitioned from multi-year to seasonal sea ice. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec/meta

While the "hothouse" has garnered all the attention, the following is a better learning from this paper: positive feed-backs that aren't in climate models will lead to additional slow warming over an extended period of time. We aren't going to rapidly transition to a hothouse, but its going to be very expensive to turn back the dial if we continue much more on this trajectory. That said, non-fossil alternatives are getting more and more attractive and there is plenty of natural gas to aid in transition so there is no need for a compromised future; but, we have to be willing to face our problems more honestly.

Per the detailed account below, it is Mann's critics who manipulated the data. https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

The study you cited was cherry-picking because it used a subset of data to make an erroneous claim. I "believe" in climate science because the evidence is overwhelming. It appears to me that you also have a belief system and search out supporting material. I have found that understanding climate science is a good basis for predicting the future. I don't expect warming to slow down until the global emission trajectory changes. What is your outlook for the future?

You are not offering a credible analysis just cherry-picking. As bdgwx points out above, the evidence for CO2 and other ghg being the predominant warming factor is overwhelming and getting stronger by the decade. Per the analysis below the natural contribution since 1850 is negligible vs the increase in forcing from CO2 and other ghg. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

You are repeating denier talking points in this thread not science. The role of CO2 in the current warming is well established, no natural "cycle" fits the pattern of warming. You are right some of the media coverage of this paper is over the top. To me the paper's most important point, is that nature is not going to bail us out. As we warm, most of the feedbacks are going to push us towards warmer conditions. So its up to us to address this problem. Sticking your head in the sand only makes a hothouse more likely.

June was cool in the arctic, NE Canada and Greenland but warm in Antarctica and Siberia. 3rd warmest June, 0.01 beyond #1 2016

A couple of comments: 1) One year in the arctic or antarctic is not very important. 2) GRACE data in graph is through 2017. See post above for papers on Greenland mass balance. 3) Regarding arctic sea ice, this year so far looks unremarkable to me. Its not a big melt year like 2012, but its not far from the long-term trendline on most metrics either. (see chart below) 4) There hasn't been any long-term trend in Antarctic sea ice so smack dab on the median is as expected. Ice shelves and ice sheets are the big concern in Antarctica, not sea ice.

Here is a chart from DMI which shows total mass change for Greenland by region reflecting both SMB and glacier discharge and iceberg calving. Biggest mass losses have been on the west coast which doesn't get as much precipitation as the east coast. Greenland SMB is up this year due to heavy precipitation, unusual compared to some recent big melt years, but not unexpected given natural variability.

Last Feb's SSW may be a factor in the benign melt so far this year. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0495.1