By DemocracyRules
h/t Strata-Sphere, National Geographic
This is my reply to my friend Richard who sent me a CTV news item about "catastrophic declines in Arctic sea ice".
Dear Richard,
So the MSM is crying again about "Global Warming" and “Arctic ice loss”. Funny, they don’t even mention the massive sea-bed volcanoes erupting underwater near Greenland ... hmmm. Wonder why not?
About sea ice and anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW)
To prove AGW, scientists have to:
(1) Prove there is GW
The null hypothesis is that there is none, climate didn't change
(2) Prove that humans are doing it
The null hypothesis is that humans have nothing to do with it
(3) Prove that AGW will get worse.
The null hypothesis is the problem will go away on its own
(4) Prove that AGW is bad
The null hypothesis is it’s not bad
(5) Prove that humans can fix it
The null hypothesis says we can’t
(6) Prove that fixing it would be cost-effective
The null hypothesis says malaria prevention would be cheaper
To get to (6) scientists must prove (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) first. Unless they can prove them all, they have no case. That’s why global warming is a crock. They would need at least 10 times more confirmatory evidence than they have, to get to (6). Furthermore almost all the data would have to point to (6).
Instead, every new piece of climate evidence is ambiguous, won’t replicate, or outright disproves global warming. I’ll show you that with the sea ice issue in a minute.
The AGW warmers have a backlash strategy. They try to declare AGW is actually the null hypothesis, and make every other scientist disprove it. Of course that’s silly, they are trying to make science run backwards! This explains why so many reputable scientists are jumping off the band wagon. They don’t want people laughing at them after they’re dead.
Specifically About The Sea Ice
The data is full of massive variance. A good statistician would either (A) average out the variance, because the mean is the most important thing. Or (B) they would treat the variance as the actual data of interest. When we study earthquakes, the seismic variance IS the data. If scientists averaged out the seismic data, it would be useless. Why do people assume humans cause changes in average temperature? Maybe we cause changes in temperature variance! Until you know for sure, don’t throw out the variance!
Statisticians hate it when scientists blithely “average out the variance” before they even think about what’s causing the variance. Variance isn’t garbage, it usually comes from somewhere. That’s what “Analysis of Variance” is all about. Analyze the variance to see what’s causing it. Multiple Regression is another way to explore and understand what causes the variance. Nooo, nooo, say the climate scientists, variance is bad, get rid of it! Why?
The Antarctic ice seems to be growing and nobody knows why. We know the atmosphere is cooling, but it’s too soon to say that’s why the Antarctic ice is growing.
The Arctic ice mass is more complex. Huge variance is present. Good data is available only from about 1980. Every time an AGW fanatic declares the ice is melting, it eventually turns out their data is baloney. Every time. So right now someone is crying about ice loss. But every time the ice mass increases, they shut up. So the media just hear intermittent crying about ice loss, and think there’s a solid story there.
Last summer David Suzuki and a bunch of crazies declared the lowest Arctic summer ice on record. Then scientists found the wind had just blown it into a corner, there was no ice loss.
In fact, there may or may not be any Arctic ice loss, and if there is, it’s small and buried in variance. There is too much variance and not enough good data to know for sure.
Here’s what we do know:
(i) Only satellite data has any hope of validity. How else would one do it accurately? We only have satellite data since about 1980. But also, satellite data is getting better, so maybe there are differences in measurements over time.
(ii) There may be a downward trend, but it bounces around like crazy, and ice levels are on the rise in the last few years.
(iii) Arctic air temperature correlates quite well with solar activity. AGW warmers hate this because it confirms the idea that global temperature mainly depends on sunlight, not CO2.
(iv) But Arctic water temperature is different. That’s probably because of a group of massive underwater volcanic eruptions are occurring north of Greenland, near the North Pole. Obviously, volcanoes that numerous and large will heat the water, and melt a lot of ice. This would be especially apparent in shoulder periods like spring, fall, and summer.
Gee, I wonder why the CTV article didn’t mention the massive underwater volcanoes? Hmmm...
(v) Here is my own little shtick about sea ice loss. It’s a simple argument, but ignored by the AGW warmers. The last ice age isn’t over. For sure, the ice mass in Canada is still declining. What is this, as soon as the ice recedes from New York City, everyone forgets about the last ice age?
For sure there are parts of the Canadian ice sheets that are still receding from the last ice age. This must also be happening in Russia.
And there is another big ongoing post-ice age event. Post-Glacial Rebound. Trillions of tons of ice melted in Canada in the last 15,000 years. In some places, Canadian ice was 3,000 meters thick! Most of it's gone. But the ice was so heavy, the continental plate that Canada sits on, got smushed down into the mantle underneath. Mantle is about like plasticine, and if you put weight on it, it smushes down.
So now the ice is mostly gone, and Canada is rebounding, springing back up. It’s called post-glacial rebound. This is happening all over Canada. The Arctic sea levels are actually dropping, about a meter per century, because of this rebound. So it’s bizarre that the global warming people are crying about sea level rise, while Canada pops up like a piece of toast!
Graph from Wikipedia
As the land pops up, the sea level goes down, and the shorelines move farther out. For example in Hudson’s Bay. The shorelines move farther out, and so Hudson’s Bay will probably get smaller because of it. The Bay will also get shallower, especially near the land.
This post-glacial rebound is happening everywhere in the Arctic, including Russia, Sweden, and Norway. Boing! So why would the Arctic sea ice be receding slightly? Well, for one thing, there is just more land in the Arctic, so of course there will be less ocean! Areas that used to be water are now land. Also the shallow coastal areas (the “littoral”) are bound to get more shallow, so they will warm up faster in Summer.
(vi) SO the KEY PROBLEMS for the warmers is that the global air temperature is dropping, and Antarctica ice is increasing. At he same time, CO2 levels are going through the roof, which was supposed to heat things up, but it didn't There is no correlation anymore between CO2 levels and air temperature. Why not? And their “climate models” are so wrong they’re funny.
The warmers are trying to distract the MSM away from their epic failures of theory and data by crying about Arctic sea ice. But if the arctic ice is diminishing at all, this may have nothing to do with global warming.
Personally, my money is on the volcanoes.
See ya
Really great article and writing about te Artic Sea Ice boondoggle..... I truly appreciate the whole truth, and you seem to have a firm grasp on all of it. I knew that the Ice wasn't melting as much as the MSM and tree huggers were telling us they knew, but I didn't totally know the why's and wherefore's about all of it. You blew me away with the whole way you wrote it, because I throughtly understood everything and the way you put it out. Thank you for all the help you jsut gave me in explaining this to others I talk to......
Posted by: Claudia | December 30, 2008 at 10:03 PM