Climate change

[Daniel1960]

What was it I said last week. Oh yes:

 

 

 

You don't get to label the "people you agree with" as "holding true to science" and label the other side as politicized alarmists.

 

I understand why it is an effective rhetorical tactic to pretend that your a centrist. Who knows, you might even believe this.

 

At the end of the day, you're another denialist troll who couldn't hack it on Real Climate site.

(Wish I knew what they did to drive you off the site. I'd pay good money to anyone who could show me how to do the same)

 

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, based on my previous post. I never said that people who agree with me, are holding true to science. However, if you feel that is true, I welcome that connection. There are those in this debate that claim that the entire warming (or most thereof) is attributable to carbon dioxide emissions. Contrarily, there are those who claim that the warming is wholely natural. I place those that contend that the warming is roughly attributable equally to both (give or take 25%) as centrists. I know there are those from either extreme that place those that believe even a lesser percentage to be in the opposing camp. This is similar to the "either you are for us or against us" philosophy.

 

Obviously, you have not visited realclimate recently to see my posts there. Funny how you persist in labelling those with whom you disagree, rather than presenting evidence to support your views. Silencing your opposition is a sign of desperation.

[hrothgar]

 

Funny how you persist in labelling those with whom you disagree, rather than presenting evidence to support your views. Silencing your opposition is a sign of desperation.

 

Let's review our last "constructive" exchange. Perhaps this will give you some indication why its not worth while treating you like an adult.

 

Post # 2365: You claim that the application of Newton's first law justifies an assumption that temperatures will not continue to increase

 

Post # 2364: I note that Newton's forst law doesn't apply because you have external forcings

 

Post # 2368: You claim that the C02 that has already been emitted is accounted for in the current trend

 

Post # 2369: I note that C02 persists with significant length of time and than we continue to dump an increasing amount of C02 into the system each year

 

Post # 2370: You claim that C02 only stays in the atmosphere for 5-15 years

 

Post # 2373: I note that the charts that you are citing are discussing the length of a time for a single atom to exit the system but they don't describe the duration of an impulse into the system

 

Post number 2374: You finally concede "we know that only about half of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere initially"

 

Spending my time pointing out the myriad of ways that you are misapplying physics, charts, and other artifacts doesn't make for an enjoyable conversation.

Its something that I feel obliged to do. The topic is too important to cede to idiots like you and Al_U_Card.

 

However, don't believe for a moment that I enjoy this, consider you a friend, an equal, or a desirable presence on these forums.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

Edmund Burke

[Daniel1960]

Let's review our last "constructive" exchange. Perhaps this will give you some indication why its not worth while treating you like an adult.

 

Post # 2365: You claim that the application of Newton's first law justifies an assumption that temperatures will not continue to increase

 

Post # 2364: I note that Newton's forst law doesn't apply because you have external forcings

 

Post # 2368: You claim that the C02 that has already been emitted is accounted for in the current trend

 

Post # 2369: I note that C02 persists with significant length of time and than we continue to dump an increasing amount of C02 into the system each year

 

Post # 2370: You claim that C02 only stays in the atmosphere for 5-15 years

 

Post # 2373: I note that the charts that you are citing are discussing the length of a time for a single atom to exit the system but they don't describe the duration of an impulse into the system

 

Post number 2374: You finally concede "we know that only about half of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere initially"

 

Spending my time pointing out the myriad of ways that you are misapplying physics, charts, and other artifacts doesn't make for an enjoyable conversation.

Its something that I feel obliged to do. The topic is too important to cede to idiots like you and Al_U_Card.

 

However, don't believe for a moment that I enjoy this, consider you a friend, an equal, or a desirable presence on these forums.

 

 

Edmund Burke

 

I think I see your problem. You make assumptions that are not valid.

 

I used Newton's first law as a parallel that temperatures will continue to rise at their long-term trend, unless a force acts upon it.

 

Many scientists agree that CO2 has already been incorporated into the current trend. I am not alone on this.

 

The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere us relativeky short, possibly even less than my referenced 5-15 years. If we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, atmospheric levels would begin to decrease immediately.

 

Calculations based on estimated emissions consistently show that about the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plantlife, oceans, and other known sinks.

 

All this is elementary physics. I do not subscribe to the theory that these changes will induce further acceleration, such that the entire system collapses. The natural tendency is for negative feedbacks to constrain forced changes. Newton did not say that for every reaction, there will a threefold increase in that reaction.

[hrothgar]

I think I see your problem. You make assumptions that are not valid.

 

Looks like the big one was the assumption that your posts have any meaning.

 

I used Newton's first law as a parallel that temperatures will continue to rise at their long-term trend, unless a force acts upon it.

 

No. You made a direct statement. You then engaged in a series of posts attempting to defend this statement. And now you are claiming that it was all an irrelevant analogy.

 

Many scientists agree that CO2 has already been incorporated into the current trend. I am not alone on this.

 

I don't recall anyone other than Al disputing that current trend in temperature changes are impacted by past co2 emissions.

 

The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere us relatively short, possibly even less than my referenced 5-15 years.

If we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, atmospheric levels would begin to decrease immediately.

 

There are a lot of feedback loops involved here. Most of the estimates that I have seen suggest that temperatures would start decreasing in about 30-40 years after the end of ac02 emissions.

As usual, your set of fact are completely different (and outside your little clique, completely idiosyncratic)

 

Calculations based on estimated emissions consistently show that about the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plantlife, oceans, and other known sinks.

 

No one disputes this. However most sources differ dramatically on the time that is required to remove the C02.

All this is elementary physics. I do not subscribe to the theory that these changes will induce further acceleration, such that the entire system collapses. The natural tendency is for negative feedbacks to constrain forced changes. Newton did not say that for every reaction, there will a threefold increase in that reaction.

 

No one is claiming that there is a self reinforcing feedback loop. This is another distraction that you are introducing to the discussion.

[Daniel1960]

Looks like the big one was the assumption that your posts have any meaning.

 

 

 

No. You made a direct statement. You then engaged in a series of posts attempting to defend this statement. And now you are claiming that it was all an irrelevant analogy.

 

 

 

I don't recall anyone other than Al disputing that current trend in temperature changes are impacted by past co2 emissions.

 

 

 

There are a lot of feedback loops involved here. Most of the estimates that I have seen suggest that temperatures will start decreasing in about 30-40 years.

As usual, your set of fact are completely different (and outside your little clique, completely idiosyncratic)

 

 

 

No one disputes this. However most sources differ dramatically on the time that is required to remove the C02.

 

 

No one is claiming that there is a self reinforcing feedback loop. This is another distraction that you are introducing to the discussion.

 

Once again, you attempt to twist statements around. Newton's law applied to physical object . However, it can be applied similarly to properties, such as temperature. It was not an "irrelevant analogy," as you claim.

 

I never stated that temperatures WILL start decreasing, only that they could, if the forces dictated. That statement appears to belong to you alone.

 

I believe several posters (you included) have claimed positive feedback loops, which will greatly increase the 0.5 - 1.0 C temperature increase attributable to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

Most scientific data places the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 has shorts lived. Most models and theories use long lived. I prefer data over models.

[Daniel1960]

Much research has gone into determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is critical in climate models. This time vary greatly. The IPCC has determined the residence time to be greater than a century, which yields higher warming in climate models. Other researchers have determined a much shorter time. Chancey Starr a residence time of about 5 years, based on photosynthesis and atmoic bomb data.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178

 

Sonnemann and Grygalashvyly calculated 58 years, based on mixing ratios from Mauna Loa.

 

http://www.ann-geophys.net/31/1591/2013/angeo-31-1591-2013.pdf

 

Lepori, et. al. calculated the lifetime to be 5.4 years, based on the C-13/C-12 ratio.

 

http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf

 

The residence time is not constant, but dependent on both the CO2 sinks and the atmospheric concentration. The residence time decreases as either increases. This makes most calculations approximations, as the both have been changing over time.

 

Of course, the uncertainty in residence time is critical to predicting other aspect of the climate also.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3280.full

[Al_U_Card]

Says it all...

 

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg

[Al_U_Card]

If tomorrow, a group of astro-physicists declared that Apophis (or some other NEA) was going to collide with our planet and we must immediately fork over 25% of our $ to pay for a sure-fire (heck, even half-assed would be better than nothing) means of avoidance, I would be delighted to contribute to saving the planet. Once the numbers were checked and agreement made on the means and method, it would just be another part of our cost-of-living. Calculations checked, observations verified and then, off we go into the wild blue.

 

As far as CAGW is concerned, nothing is certain, the calculations are hidden, adjustments are made to the data so that it agrees with the "theory", cohorts join in on stifling independent verification, and bureaucrats give out massive grants to support the meme while stifling attempts to check and refute. Publications are "press-released" for maximum impact on public insecurity when the contents are often ambivalent to or even against the prevailing attempt to "do" something.

 

Take on the IPCC numbers and see for yourself. What they are proposing is ineffective at best and harmful (to the developing nations) at worst. They will sop up useful cash for their boondoggles and commit us to a course of action that will dissipate our resources and consume our attention that should be otherwise focused on real problems (malaria, hunger, energy sufficiency etc.) and their correction.

[billw55]

Once again, you attempt to twist statements around. Newton's law applied to physical object . However, it can be applied similarly to properties, such as temperature. It was not an "irrelevant analogy," as you claim.

This is simply wrong. Newton's laws of mechanics have no meaning with respect to temperature.

 

You would be better off just admitting this was a bad analogy and moving on.

[Zelandakh]

This is simply wrong. Newton's laws of mechanics have no meaning with respect to temperature.

Newton's First Law adapted to temperature would say that the average overall temperature of a system remains constant unless a force acts on it. And yes, it would be better expressed in terms of energy but I think it is clear what is meant. Whatever the rights or wrongs of it, it seems something of an irrelevant tangent to the discussion.

[Daniel1960]

This is simply wrong. Newton's laws of mechanics have no meaning with respect to temperature.

 

You would be better off just admitting this was a bad analogy and moving on.

 

Perhaps I should have referenced Newton's law of cooling instead. Or better, Stefan's Law.

 

http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-climate

[Zelandakh]

That Law will indeed be very useful the next time the Daleks translocate the Earth to a different part of the galaxy! B-)

[Daniel1960]

Any comments on low climate senstivity matched to the revised global temperature data?

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Simple-model-ERSST-match-with-ENSO.png

[Al_U_Card]

To get rid of that nasty hiatus situation, they had to fudge the data, yet again, but this time with bucket measurements superceding the ARGO data! Looks like they were willing to forego another drop in climate sensitivity either because they think that most people are not aware of its significance or, yet again, climastrologists are incompetent...

[PassedOut]

One fascinating (and, ultimately telling) aspect of this discussion is the fact that some climate change deniers point to the most visible evidence of global warming that we have--the expanding sea ice around Antarctica--and use it to argue the opposite. To me, that shows the deniers to be either dishonest or willfully ignorant:

 

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica has been increasing for over three decades, suggesting greater stability in the greater Antarctic ice sheets.

Not at all. The expanding sea ice results from the accelerating fresh-water discharge from the melting Antarctic ice sheets.

 

Fresh water is lighter than salt water. Fresh water freezes at 0C while salt sea water freezes at -1.6C. The fresh water melt runs over the salt water and freezes more quickly, resulting in the expanding extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica.

 

As the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets continues to accelerate, we'll see more of this expansion.

 

What more needs to be said than Antarctic sea-ice is increasing steadily at a record-breaking pace?

Yes, that is additional concrete evidence of the accelerating loss of freshwater ice from Antarctic glaciers. The melting freshwater is lighter than saltwater and freezes before saltwater does. The Antarctic freshwater melt spreads over the saltwater and expands the area of sea ice, now at a record-breaking pace.

 

Indeed, "What more needs to be said...?"

 

Evidently, though, the deniers' position on this--however foolish on its face--is propounded beyond this BBO thread: Climate change skeptics may be about to lose one of their favorite arguments

 

As ice shelves melt, and more inland ice slides towards the sea, a gigantic volume of cold, fresh water enters the ocean. This freshwater pulse, the researchers continue, promotes ocean “stratification,” in which a cold surface layer lies atop a subsurface warmer layer. The cold surface layer promotes more sea ice growth atop open water, while the warm lower layer sneaks beneath that ice and continues to melt submerged ice shelves, which plunge deep into the water at the fringes of the continent.

 

The fundamental physical reason for the expansion of sea ice in this scenario is that cold, fresh water is less dense than warmer, salty water. Or as the National Snow and Ice Data Center explains:

 

As deep ocean temperatures around Antarctic rise, they increase ice shelf melt, according to a study led by Richard Bintanja. This meltwater is creating a cool layer near the surface of the ocean that promotes sea ice production. In addition, the meltwater is fresh, or much less salty and dense than surrounding saline ocean layers. So fresher meltwater floats upward, mixing with the cold surface layer, lowering its density. As this fresh layer expands, it forms a stable puddle on top of the ocean that makes it easier to produce and retain sea ice.

 

In this sense, expanding Antarctic sea ice might be anything but good news.

An appropriate article for Duh Magazine, one might think. But evidently this needs to be spelled out for many.

[Winstonm]

One fascinating (and, ultimately telling) aspect of this discussion is the fact that some climate change deniers point to the most visible evidence of global warming that we have--the expanding sea ice around Antarctica--and use it to argue the opposite. To me, that shows the deniers to be either dishonest or willfully ignorant:

 

IMO, what shows deniers to be disingenuous is their proclivity to argue whatever is convenient at the moment - one time arguing warmth is not occurring, the next minute it is occurring only naturally, then it is occurring but it is not harmful, then back to it isn't occurring again.

 

Their goal is to delay action and cause obfuscation. Their aims are political, not scientific.

[Daniel1960]

IMO, what shows deniers to be disingenuous is their proclivity to argue whatever is convenient at the moment - one time arguing warmth is not occurring, the next minute it is occurring only naturally, then it is occurring but it is not harmful, then back to it isn't occurring again.

 

Their goal is to delay action and cause obfuscation. Their aims are political, not scientific.

 

"Climate models cannot currently reproduce trends in Antarctic sea ice variability. Virtually all equilibrium climate models simulate a strong decrease in the area of sea ice."

 

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-ocean-interactions/antarctic-sea-ice/

 

Factors affecting Antarctic sea ice extend include SST, glacial melt, snow accumulations, ozone concentrations, and most importantly, wind patterns. Increased sea ice enhances glacial stability. To paraphrase Winstonm, some alarmists and deniers argue whatever is convenient at the moment. One group points to the Arctic sea ice losses in 2012, the other to the gains in 2013 and 2014. Lost in the mix is the long term trends and implications.

[Al_U_Card]

Since I am not a "denier", my goal is strictly to sow doubt about the nonsense that is being promulgated by the alarmist crowd. Presenting factual studies from measured observations that refute the litany of cries of "Wolf!" is sadly much easier than countering the "willful ignorance" of any and all that deny the reality of real scientific information and not modeled projections and scenarios.

 

Either way, what can cause increasing sea-ice? Why if it is glacially originated, MORE SNOW rather than melting. Melting makes glaciers recede. (As seen recently in Doh! magazine undoubtedly.) More sea-ice can come from colder temperatures (as measured) or by wind or by more fresh water, indeed. A natural source of this fresh water seems to be from the geological volcanism under the WAIS. Remains to be seen what percentage it covers.

 

Climate changes but can we affect it? Can we alter it? At what cost and with what inevitable side-effects?

 

[CO2] has been the whipping boy to date but it is pretty much a dead-horse as far as the flaying goes...

[Daniel1960]

To get rid of that nasty hiatus situation, they had to fudge the data, yet again, but this time with bucket measurements superceding the ARGO data! Looks like they were willing to forego another drop in climate sensitivity either because they think that most people are not aware of its significance or, yet again, climastrologists are incompetent...

A separate article, using the same NOAA data, arrived at the following conclusion:

 

"Redistribution of Heat in Oceans Explains Global Warming “Hiatus”

 

Since 2003, cooling in the top 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layers of the upper Indian and Southern Oceans, researchers say. These findings help to explain where the world’s heat has gone during the so-called climate “hiatus” — an apparent pause in global warming during the first decade of the 21st century. Because the Pacific Ocean covers such a vast expanse of our planet, say the authors, it is not surprising that its cooling could drive a significant change in temperatures globally. Surface temperatures around the world have cooled over the past decade or so, and scientists have been trying to determine whether this hiatus from the heat was triggered by an internal redistribution of heat in the ocean, with rapid warming happening at some deeper ocean level instead of at the surface, or if the world’s oceans are reducing their heat uptake. Now, Veronica Nieves and colleagues present an analysis of data collected over the past 20 years, which shows that Earth’s oceans have absorbed the same amount of heat — and that the planet’s atmosphere has let the same amount of heat through — for the past decade. Their results suggest that the interaction of the cooling Pacific Ocean, which covers nearly one-third of Earth’s surface, with the Indian Ocean at upper levels of the water column (from the surface to 300 meters depth) largely regulated global surface temperatures over the past two decades. During that time, temperatures below 700 meters didn’t change much at all, according to the researchers. Models of global climate should be updated to include these dynamics and account for the reorganization of heat within the oceans, they say."

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/08/science.aaa4521.abstract

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed, so the "missing heat" is neither to be found hiding in the deep ocean nor in the bucket measurements viz Karl et al. Just the old world doing what is always has. Equilibrating. This despite increasing [CO2]. Our additional 4% of the carbon cycle is not a lot to handle for this big old earth. Solar, cosmic and orbital variations have done much more in the near and distant past. Speaking of which, this video by the co-founder of Greenpeace (now PNG because he was revolted by the eco-socialist turn of that organization) is rudimentary but interesting.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

[Al_U_Card]

This just in from the "settled science" department...

 

Peer-reviewed survey concerning attribution

 

Interesting, considering the bona fides of the surveyors and the respondants.

 

In March – April 2012 the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, with several other scientists, conducted a survey of approximately 6,550 scientists studying climate change. It was published as “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” by Bart Verheggen et al in the 19 Aug 2014 issue of Environmental Science and Technology (peer-reviewed). In April 2015 they published a more detailed report (used in this post).

 

 

The conclusions deride the consensus-oriented approach of the IPCC and demonstrate much more uncertainty than is presented in the SPM of AR5.

 

[hrothgar]

 

The conclusions deride the consensus-oriented approach of the IPCC and demonstrate much more uncertainty than is presented in the SPM of AR5.

 

 

Once again the only thing that ***** for brains Al_U-Card is demonstrating is the danger of blindly quoting other web sites without doing a bit of background research into the topic at hand.

 

The PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency has very conveniently provided an FAQ which directly contradicts the assert that Al is making.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

 

Here's a relevant quote from the FAQ

 

Conclusions

How does the PBL-study compare to the often-quoted 97% consensus?

 

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

 

Cook et al. (2013) found that 97% of papers that characterized the cause of recent warming indicated that it is due to human activities. John Cook, the lead author of that analysis, is co-author on this current article. Similarly, a randomized literature review found zero papers that called human-induced climate change into question (Oreskes, 2004).

 

...

 

In the PBL-study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest - contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.

 

While these findings are consistent with other surveys, several factors could explain the slight differences we found:

 

Surveys like ours focus on opinions of individual scientists, whereas in a literature analyses the statements in individual abstracts are tallied. Literature analyses have generally found higher levels of consensus than opinion surveys, since the consensus is stronger amongst more heavily published scientists.

 

This study sets a more specific and arguably higher standard for what constitutes the consensus position than other studies. For instance, Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann (2009) asked about human activity being a “significant contributor” to global warming, and Anderegg et al. (2010) investigated signatories of public statements, while the authors of the current study asked specifically about the degree to which greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change in comparison with other potential factors.

 

Contrarian viewpoints are somewhat overrepresented in our survey and they may have overestimated their self-declared level of expertise (see question 9).

[PassedOut]

"Climate models cannot currently reproduce trends in Antarctic sea ice variability. Virtually all equilibrium climate models simulate a strong decrease in the area of sea ice."

 

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-ocean-interactions/antarctic-sea-ice/

Why did you pick (and edit) two sentences from one section of that reference? Let's take a look at that whole section (with my italics):

 

Climate model simulations of sea-ice trends

 

Climate models simulate a decline in ice extent, thickness and volume in Antarctica. Equilibrium models cannot currently reproduce trends in Antarctic sea ice variability [17]. Virtually all equilibrium climate models simulate a strong decrease in the area of sea ice [18]. This may be because global climate models do not currently incorporate ice-shelf / -sheet/ -climate interactions. Basal melt from ice shelves is therefore disregarded. These equilibrium models may give an idea of what may eventually happen. Simulations with models that do include these interactions, particularly simulating the effect of extra freshwater from melting glaciers and ice caps, do simulate growths in Antarctic sea ice [10, 12].

 

Transient climate models are more able to capture the transient response of sea ice to changes in the winds. A modeling study by Marshall et al. [19] showed that changes in the winds tend to push the ice edge northwards, increasing ice extent. These winds also push the ocean surface northwards too, which effectively brings warmer water to the surface and eventually counters the increasing sea ice trend after a few decades. These transient models show that not enough time has elapsed for the equilibrium response to be achieved. We may well see the trends reversing in a few decades.

As the earth continues to warm, obviously a time will come when the Antarctic sea ice retreats. That has no bearing on the fact that global warming causes the increases in the sea ice extents now. And, I think, you must know that.

 

Here is an earlier section of that same reference, the one that you provided:

 

Changes to sea surface temperatures

 

As the glaciers and ice shelves melt on the Antarctic continent, freshwater is added to the oceans. This layer of cold, fresh water on the ocean surface freezes easily [10]. When combined with increased ocean stratification due to this enhanced run off [11], sea-surface temperatures are depressed, encouraging sea-ice formation.

 

A recent modeling study has shown that increases in fresh meltwater flux from melting glaciers and ice caps on Antarctica under various IPCC standardized global warming scenarios offsets the decline in sea-ice area and to even further encourage the increases in sea-ice extent, especially in winter (in summer, air temperatures are too high to support significant sea-ice growth) [12].

 

Increased stratification has further implications. Suppression of ocean circulation overturning decreases the ocean heat flux available to melt ice, leading to an increase in net ice production[13].

You had to read this section to get to the section that you misquoted. So why not simply admit the plain truth--that the increase in Antarctic sea ice is the result of global warming, rather than the opposite?

[Daniel1960]

Why did you pick (and edit) two sentences from one section of that reference? Let's take a look at that whole section (with my italics):

 

 

As the earth continues to warm, obviously a time will come when the Antarctic sea ice retreats. That has no bearing on the fact that global warming causes the increases in the sea ice extents now. And, I think, you must know that.

 

Here is an earlier section of that same reference, the one that you provided:

 

 

You had to read this section to get to the section that you misquoted. So why not simply admit the plain truth--that the increase in Antarctic sea ice is the result of global warming, rather than the opposite?

 

Once again you cherry pick one possible explanation for the sea ice increase as proof that global warming is responsible for the increase. That was one of many possibilities stated in the article, which I am sure you know from reading it.

[PassedOut]

Once again you cherry pick one possible explanation for the sea ice increase as proof that global warming is responsible for the increase. That was one of many possibilities stated in the article, which I am sure you know from reading it.

If what you say were true, you would be able to list some of the "many possibilities stated in the article" for which global warming is not responsible. Actually, I see none. What are you including in the "many possibilities stated in the article" that are not caused by global warming?