This sounds like a bit of excuse-making, much like we’ve seen with the Great Pause, the lack of landfalling hurricanes, lack of strong hurricanes, winter weather, and so on. Set the BS Meter to stun
How Sea Ice Can Still Be Thick in Places in a Warming Arctic
It might seem to you that unusually thick local sea ice contradicts scientists’ predictions of declining Arctic sea ice cover, but that would be an overly simplistic and incorrect assumption. That misconception of both climate science and the behavior of sea ice has surfaced in the past when polar research vessels encountered difficulties with sea ice, and this time is (sadly) no exception.
What it really proves is that Warmists are part of a cult that bares no resemblance to scientific endevours, but, please, continue
These stories may assume (either implicitly or explicitly) that sea ice conditions are tied directly and simply to global temperature.
Um, that’s what we’ve been told for 25+ years by the Cultists. Is Desmog, as in from Desmog Blog, telling us that the Cultists have been full of mule fritters this whole time?
However, the conditions in any specific location are actually a function of many factors. Trends in polar atmosphere and ocean temperatures do drive long-term changes in sea ice cover (as shown in the video below), but short-term natural variability is very important, just as weather is naturally variable.
Additionally, sea ice is transported around by winds and ocean currents — controlled by persistent regional patterns as well as temporary effects like storms. (See, for example, this recent satellite imagery.)
That sounds dangerously like Desmog is telling us this is all about natural variability. And if NV can make these changes, why can’t it be the primary cause for any Arctic melting? Oh, right, you just have to take it on Faith that it’s mankind driving in fossil fueled vehicles that’s causing the warming, while, when things happen that disagree with the Cultists positions, it’s natural variability and totally is utterly in line with their prognostications AND WHY ARE YOU ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS! LISTEN TO YOUR BETTERS! DON’T QUESTION OUR DOGMA, ER, SCIENCE!
Saturday morning links
Check out the new format of American Digest – With cool video of LA night landing Why We Love The Color Green: It’s The Color Of New Life KIDS TODAY: THEY DON’T WORK SUMMER JOBS THE WAY THEY USED TO (h.t Insty) Wan
William Teach: That sounds dangerously like Desmog is telling us this is all about natural variability.
In climate science, it’s termed internal variability.
Potato, patahto
That’s right. So pretending climate scientists don’t acknowledge the existence of natural variability is poppycock.
No, they acknowledge natural variability as an excuse for their failed climate models.
drowningpuppies: No, they acknowledge natural variability as an excuse for their failed climate models.
Huh? Who do you think studies natural climate variations? Your bartender?
Yep, the bartender.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/22/some-fun-with-ipcc-texts/
Failed again. You suck at logic.
“For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.â€
No one​ expects
The Spanish Inquisition
So let’s get this straight. According to the Deniosaurs, they “believe” data on internal variability, but data on CO2 dependent warming is false. And it comes from the same scientists.
According to TEACH, WUWT and Roy Spencer (who misrepresents the models and data) 95% of the models are FAILURES!! Simple question. If it’s a massive conspiracy, why don’t the co-conspirators do a better job matching the models and temp data? Or is that part of their conspiracy – to make the data just close enough so it doesn’t look too perfect? N.B. – Roy Spencer has misrepresented the relationship between the models and the temp data, and the likes of TEACH have swallowed Spencer’s fraud.
drowningpuppies: “I’ve already written about the epic moment, when IPCC apparently recognized that most of the recent warming had been due to the natural variability.”
Where did he write it? Natural variability has always been part of climate science.
Seriously? Semantics is supposed to be an argument against the scientific evidence concerning climate change?
Gee whiz, that was hard to find.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/05/abusing-semantics-is-the-first-and-last-refuge-of-climatism/
drowningpuppies: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/05/abusing-semantics-is-the-first-and-last-refuge-of-climatism/
Where does it say the IPCC “recognized that most of the recent warming had been due to the natural variability”.