No sense of scale and wilfully disingenuous, say the N.O. staff, of the quoted warmist below. This is an example of what they’re pumping out:
The thaw is happening far faster than once expected. Over the past three decades the area of sea ice in the Arctic has fallen by more than half and its volume has plummeted by three-quarters (see map). SWIPA estimates that the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer by 2040. Scientists previously suggested this would not occur until 2070. The thickness of ice in the central Arctic ocean declined by 65% between 1975 and 2012; record lows in the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice occurred in March.
As a novice in this field, I see impressive acronyms like SWIPA and quoted stats but differently to a novice, I know not to trust them and go looking for non-corroboration:
375 billion tonnes per year? 400 massive icebergs measuring 1km on each side. Wait a second… Those sound like big numbers … But how big are they compared to the Greenland ice sheet?
The USGS says that the volume of the Greenland ice sheet was 2,600,000 km3 at the beginning of the 21st century.
According to the “ice sheet goeth” graph, since 2001, Greenland lost about 3,600 gigatonnes of ice or about 3,840 km3 … That equates to a 16 km x 16 km x 16 km cube of ice (3√ 3,840 = 15.66). That’s YUGE! Right?
Not really. It’s not even a tiny nick when spread out over roughly 1.7 million square kilometers of ice surface. That works out a sheet of ice less about 2 meters thick… Not even a rounding error compared to the average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet.
Against that, my question is – yes but it’s still loss is it not? This from Taphonomics in the comments thread hardly helps the novice:
The web page ( http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ ) states: “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”
Of course, this text has remained the same even though this year and last year were both years of large snowfall.
To the rescue, in rides Rossa’s mother with this little baby:
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists from a survey. So at least one of the 97% “consensus” claims is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77.
Another study, authored by blogger John Cook, claimed that 97% of climate studies agree on climate change. But scientists were quick to debunk it.
Climatologist Dr. David Legates of the University of Delaware and three co-authors reviewed the same studies as did Mr. Cook and their research revealed “only 41 papers — 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% — had been found to endorse” the claim that humans are to blame for a majority of the current warming.
Where does this leave the novice?
Well, it leaves me at least in the same place that a political novice would be with the Leave/Remain war, something I’d say I know most things about. Both sides produce categorical statements in that war similar to this:
There is absolutely no scientific “consensus” about catastrophic manmade climate change.
There’s a passion there, is there not, a categorical “my view is the only view”, a dead giveaway in the “absolutely” and even me writing this must annoy the hell out of anti-MMGW accolytes, just as the graphs and lies of the other side annoy the hell out of those who’ve studied the data for years.
This is my mantra:
We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner. [I.A. Richards]
And part of that is failing to address key aspects, except in a cavalier or a dismissive way.
No manmade influence? What about HAARP, Woodpecker, what about the RAF in the 50s? Would it not be better to say “no innocuous man-made effect due to us plebs”?
The muvvers above us though have been hard at it trying to modify weather. That can’t just be dismissed because it’s not part of your decades of reading – it’s very much been part of mine – Project Stormfury, Operation Popeye, Dyn-o-Gel, Irving Langmuir, HAARP, Murkowski Committee, Woodpecker, silver-iodine.
When a climate model addresses all concerns, then perhaps it can be adhered to for some time with some degree of confidence. Not trusting rationalists at the best of times, this below merely reinforces that view with its tone, language and dismissive nature, quite counter to I.A. Richards’s call for empiricism:
At the same time, I don’t trust the other side either:
Where does that leave the novice, the muggins?