chubbs

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

Euro-reanalysis shows another arctic amplification winter with continental cold focused in Canada+Ntier US.

No point in reading, Delingpole is full of BS

CU just published first paper to detect acceleration in satellite record. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/climate-change–driven-accelerated-sea-level-rise-detected-altimeter-era

Here is another forecast using statistical methods. https://patricktbrown.org/2018/01/18/global-temperature-2018-likely-to-be-colder-than-2017-record-high-possible-in-2019/

To kick-off 2018, below is the recently issued UK Met Office Decadal forecast. Per write-up, PDO+ and AMO+ favor warming over the 5-year outlook period after a relatively cool 2018. Green is the CMIP5 predicted range. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

This year has been cool like 2013 so the volume and extent data are not inconsistent.

This year's low volume/high NSIDC area status is unusual. Looks like the mild winter is having some impact but is a weaker factor than a slow start to the Arctic Ocean melt season.

Yes, in August most melting is from water below the ice. Of course colder air cools the water also. Last season saw strong late season melting due to storminess even though temperatures were cool.

Interesting chart from Wipneus on the ASIF today showing the area of various ice thicknesses on July 22. 2017 lags in the thinnest categories but leads in the thicker. Wipneus notes that 0.26 on July 22 always melts and 0.71 sometimes melts in severe late summers. So a range of outcomes is still possible this year depending on weather.

This is a good summary. Every year is a roll of the dice but gradually the dice are being loaded. Recently winters have been the most problematic. Perhaps we will see some temporary sea ice rebound with reversion to more normal conditions this winter.

We are running below the trendline so can't give this prediction a gold star yet..

Just have to avoid unusually strong storms like 2012 or prolonged storminess like 2016.