Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace

In my mind, it's still plausible. There hasn't been a case yet that we can confirm, when an asteroid crashed into Earth. Large meteorites, yes, but not a real asteroid (with the exception of one theory by which the Moon was created from such impact).

Now, is it plausible that an asteroid hits Earth? Very much so, until we do some kind of exhaustive sky survey and even then there is a lot of dynamics that can swing yet another one on the collision course. I'm not saying that's likely, I'm saying that should this happen and not foreseen well in advance, we are doomed.

Same logic, I think, is applicable to runaway effects in the atmosphere, be it the thermal inversion or runaway heat wave. We should keep an eye out. The connection between greenhouse gases and the warming is not a 100% certainty but sure as hell that's one plausible model. It makes sense from the physics point of view. Ever wondered why it's so chilly on a clear night out, and so balmy on a cloudy night? Trapped infrared radiation in the latter case, and infrared bleeding to space in the former.

As to the OP, the record speed of icing-up was recorded after a record speed of de-icing and it's not even clear how much ice will be replaced to offset the dangerous trend in the long run.

I, like other scientists, make that conclusion based on decades of experimental evidence. Analysis based on enormous data bases of independently observed physical facts is not speculation. In 1957 or so (when people started thinking about this very seriously) it was a speculation since the observations were not done.

The fact that the CO2 and other greenhouse levels have increased due to human activity is an unambiguous fact. The isotopic ratios demonstrate that this CO2 was from fossil fuel sources which have not been in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of millions of years---far longer than the recent cycle of climate shifts due to ice age/warm period fluctuations.

Now, there may be additional CO2 starting to be emitted from feedforwards, and this will make global warming even worse.



No it freaking isn't. Do you have any idea how this works?

Before human activity, of course, the CO2 emission cycles was due to biological and chemical feedbacks and feedforwards driven by an interaction between orbital fluctuations which were highly amplified by the greenhouse emissions.

This time, with human activity, we have emitted CO2 from a different source, and at a rate much faster than ever before in geological history, and in a circumstance with no significant solar changes. This isn't speculation but fact based on enormous amounts of work.




No, global warming "supporters" (I don't like it, but it is true) take the position that climate is governed by laws of physics which are knowable from experiment and theory.



That's true. That's why we need experimental evidence. The evidence is that the CO2 is mechanistic in changing upper atmospheric radiation transfer and this changes equilibrium temperature. The point is that there are laws of physics, rock solid, which support this. It is not a debatable point.

Physical mechanistic explanation, not correlation is the origin of explanation for global warming. This is why it was predicted to happen long before there was direct evidence of significant excess warming (because the signal was, then, below the "noise", and now it isn't).



That's a lie. We observe the radiation balance in the upper atmosphere, and note that it has changed over decades exactly as predicted due to changes in atmospheric chemistry, i.e. more greenhouse gases.





No, not to people who actually work on this. The existence of some mechanisms which change temperature do not negate the existence of others. In fact, scientists know that none of them ever "go away" and imagining otherwise is a false dichotomy.



No, not at all. Global warming 'theory' is not based on this false dichotomy that the only way warming can happen is from CO2, it is based on the physically verified notion that more CO2 results in higher temperatures if all else is equal, because of increased IR emissivity in the upper atmosphere.



You mean like laws of physics? Orbital fluctuations start cooling and then biological and chemical feedforwards take over. The magnitude of the temperature changes from orbital fluctuations are too small to explain historical evidence without the effect of CO2. The historical record fully supports the evidence of the *mechanism* of CO2 on temperature.

Today, we have an emitter of CO2 which did not ever exist in the past.

The trajectory will hence be differ





Saskatchewan will indeed benefit from warming. However, the agriculture in downstream from the Himalayas will be devastated by the lower amount of snow, resulting in floods and droughts. In many places agriculture is limited by water, not warmth.





I think you underestimate the true size of the upcoming global warming change. If it is 5 degrees C, (which it could be in 100 years, easily), results will be devastating. Remember, that is over the entire planet (70% water) and over all seasons.

Think about an Ice Age. You know, deep snow & glaciers everywhere? That was 5C cooler. And glaciers were 2 miles thick in New York. A Heat Age every bit as hot above now versus the Ice Age? And you think that will be a minor perturbation?



Utterly untrue.

Thanks for your evidence. Talk about a small sample size. All of a sudden 3 cases of Male Polar Bears attacking females and babies is somehow translated into many being forced to become cannibals. Males do that all the time, that is why females stay far away from male bears. The four articles you reference all refer to the same 3 attacks. While I don't dispute that some incidents of outright canabalism occur, it is not widespread as you seem to contend.

Polar bears are a relatively recent emerging species, filling a specific ecological/climate niche, they will have to adapt to survive, like everything else.

I just love hearing about the poor poor Polar Bears and how they are suffering at our hands