This should give FirstAscent a stroke...

[FirstAscent]

If the topic is as controversial I try to stay in a state of agnosticism. It's better for my mental health.
I don't think we have enough data to form a valid conclusion on the effects of greenhouse gases in relation to temperature. Quite simply I think that the signal to noise ratio is too high for something done so far to be called a measurement.

Where is the controversy? Because I don't really see any. Pretty much all the disagreements I've seen have been shown to be falsified reports, funding for some rogue scientists from Exxon/Mobil, general silly statements easily debunked (stuff like myrkul's comment), self fulfilling memes popularized by propaganda artists, etc.

The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in? It's up to you to determine that form.

If you're a little confused, here's a little more info:

- Look at the printed format of it, it's heading, declarations, etc.
- Look at the signed names on it. Google those people.
- Look at the history of the creator of it.
- Look at the source of funding of the institute behind it.

Now, why would someone create such a thing known as the Oregon Petition? Please explain this to me.

[MoonShadow]

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Let us quote this for posterity as a splendid example of a brainwashed libertarian climate change denier engaging in either manipulative deception or malignant stupidity. I invite any and all who wish to support myrkul in his statement above so that we may aggregate the lot of you into a single group. Don't be so quick to jump on his bandwagon without some consideration of what he's saying though.

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

I'm not saying there isn't more heat energy. I'm saying it would make sense that the temperature stays roughly the same, even with the added heat energy, because melting ice absorbs heat energy in changing phase from ice at 32° to water at 32°.

Now, let me ask you: Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

So you're going to defend your statement? I think that's great. Keep it up.

I agree with his statement, and am no ashamed to say so.  It's this very principle that climate alarmists are depending upon while pointing to the min/max ice extent over the years.  Presumedly, once the ice is completely gone, the rate of warming would rapidly increase.

[MoonShadow]

Can I be on "the list" too?

[ElectricMucus]

The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in?

I haven't done this much of a digging, just looked up the wikipedia page on it.
It seems that the credibility is very questionable. There is something about fake signatures and wrong credentials along with the majority of signers in the wrong fields of science.

That is usual in anything to be considered "fringe" and is to be expected in every field of science on any topic. I've seen similar articles on physics, economics, geology and even math.
I am even sceptical about things like special relativity, capital, subduction and algebraic structures. The difference is that climatology has evolved to the point where it affects politics.

But I try not to let that affect my judgement.

[FirstAscent]

Can I be on "the list" too?

You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.

[FirstAscent]

The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in?

I haven't done this much of a digging, just looked up the wikipedia page on it.
It seems that the credibility is very questionable. There is something about fake signatures and wrong credentials along with the majority of signers in the wrong fields of science.

That is usual in anything to be considered "fringe" and is to be expected in every field of science on any topic. I've seen similar articles on physics, economics, geology and even math.
I am even sceptical about things like special relativity, capital, subduction and algebraic structures. The difference is that climatology has evolved to the point where it affects politics.

But I try not to let that affect my judgement.

Who funded it? And what was the document manufactured to look like? And why do you feel the parties made it all? If there's no consensus, there's no consensus, right? But what it there is a consensus? Then maybe some parties would want to manufacture doubt, right? But why? Why would they want to manufacture doubt?

Now, regarding that consensus: what was the consensus prediction on Arctic melting back then (in the '90s)?

[FirstAscent]

Presumedly, once the ice is completely gone, the rate of warming would rapidly increase.

Do you know why it would?

[myrkul]

Can I be on "the list" too?

You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.

Oh goody! So, what happens when we're all gathered up? Do we get a train ride?

Are you ever going to answer those questions?

[FirstAscent]

Can I be on "the list" too?

You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.

Oh goody! So, what happens when we're all gathered up? Do we get a train ride?

You'll all be put in a corral and the rest of us can throw fruit at you and laugh at you for not understanding the silliness of your statement.

Are you ever going to answer those questions?

I really don't entertain questions that you might take seriously, given they are derived from your silly statement.

[myrkul]

Are you ever going to answer those questions?

I really don't entertain questions that you might take seriously, given they are derived from your silly statement.

No, they're not.
This one:

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

is derived from science. The same science my "silly statement" came from, true, but they're independently derived.

This one, however:

Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

is completely unrelated, and I'd very much like your answer. What do you propose to do about global warming? I'm even allowing you to assume it's all our fault.

[myrkul]

Come on, man, I'm giving you a golden ticket here! You get to assume not only that global warming is happening, but that people are causing it. How come you're not answering that?

[stochastic]

Wow, this is the worse journal club meeting I have ever attended.

[Schleicher]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/

…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing.

You omitted the last sentence:

On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

[myrkul]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/

…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing.

You omitted the last sentence:

On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

Yes, I did. Just to see who would catch it. That makes you smarter than FirstAscent. Congratulations, I guess.

[stochastic]

They should publish the reviewers' comments to the manuscript.

[fornit]

before this get any more painful and embarrassing:

the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.

besides that, the first thing you would expect from local changes in temperature differences is storms, changes in sea currents and other effects that have to do with temperature differences in general, way before you experience the actual effects of local temperature changes in the global average temperature.

i am very much a layman regarding weather and climate, but the fact that the glass of icewater example isnt very fitting is painfully obvious even to me. to top it all off its not even accurate. unless the glass is very flat, the ice will always float on top and the water at the bottom will be slightly warmer, because of the weight anomaly of water (heaviest at 4° Celsius afair).

[MoonShadow]

Presumedly, once the ice is completely gone, the rate of warming would rapidly increase.

Do you know why it would?

Yes, I do.  I know several contributions, in fact.  If the polar ice actually disappears, it's a certain sign that much more energy is making to the poles, mostly due to greenhouse gas IR refraction.  It would strongly imply that AGW is generally correct.  It wouldn't actually prove anything, but it would be strong evidence alone.  However, it's actually impossible for co2 alone to be a strong enough greenhouse gas to cause an irreversable cascade as some alarmists imply, for the simple fact that the Earth has been provably warmer with much more co2 in the atmostphere than is present today.  Think about it, the Earth is a closed system; so before plantlife evolved to cover the Earth, where was all that carbon?

[MoonShadow]

before this get any more painful and embarrassing:

the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.

Dude, we are not talking about a little bit of ice.  While the ice-in-a-glass analogy has obvious flaws, the effect would certainly have a dampening effect upon the global averages, for no other reason than the area that is 'local' to the polar ice does make up a significant portion of the globe, and cannot much exceed 32 degrees F lest the melting of the ice absorb that heat.

[FirstAscent]

Ice albedo feedback loops positively accelerate warming. A larger polar cap reflects heat back into space. Minus polar caps (or polar caps of diminishing size), more heat is absorbed into the oceans. Same goes for glacial ice sheets.

[bb113]

They should publish the reviewers' comments to the manuscript.

They did:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012-discussion.html