Immoderate Motl

I had a short conversation with Luboš Motl (23rd-ranked sane climate skeptical scientist in the WORLD!) on his blog.

Moderated blogs suck.

He didn't allow me to finish my reply.

So herewith is how it stands.

This started because I saw a link on the Chief Moron's aggregator, Climate DeepThroat or somesuch. Linked over to this: Global sea ice anomaly is positive

Here's what the Motl-ey Fool wrote:

It's very warm in Central Europe - high temperatures in Pilsen reach 35 °C - and the global mean temperatures are close to the July 2009 values which were pretty warm.

But the sea ice tells us a different story.

For several months, The Cryosphere Today has been showing the decline of the Arctic sea ice. Several months ago, the anomaly grew and almost reached zero but it stayed slightly negative throughout 2010 and has been dropping, reaching -1.5 million squared kilometers a week ago or so.

However, the figure has been rising since that time and the newest reading is -1.333. At any rate, the Arctic has returned to a "shortage of ice" while the Antarctic sea ice boasts the good old tendency to grow. It's currently at +1.337 - so the total global sea ice anomaly is actually positive again, despite the warm global mean temperatures.

Imagine that. Several decades of news reports about armageddon and melting ice and after 30 years, we're exactly where we were in 1980. ;-)

So I wrote, innocently, as a comment:

Hey Lubos:

What about the two papers cited in the article below (which have been around awhile) indicating that sea ice increase around Antarctica is attributable to climatic warming?

That's inconvenient. Inform Morano that he linked to support for the climatic warming scenario on your blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/08/the_intricacies_of_sea_ice_for.php

Motl wrote back:

I see, so "global warming" means changes that differ by sign according to the hemisphere. It wouldn't be terribly global.

Very "wise". It's not only "inconvenient" but I would say it is also ill-considered.

Sorry but I won't be sending any mail of the kind that "everything we see is explained by global warming" to Marc Morano because I guess that even without my help, he is getting lots of e-mail from unhinged nutcases such as yourself.

Best wishes
Lubos

And here's what I wrote back to him, which he didn't post.

Dear Lubos:

One of the characteristic signs of unhingedness (not to mention pseudoscience) is the adherence to a simplistic explanation when it is clear that a complex explanation is required.


I noted to Stephen Goddard shortly ago on WUWT that he was erroneous regarding the warming of the Southern Ocean -- which is clearly warming from observable data. This would seem at odds with increasing Southern Ocean sea ice extent. Other observations indicate increased wind speeds over the Southern Ocean. Have you factored these observations into your simple "warming should result in lower sea ice extent" concept? I expect you haven't. Sea ice formation is a process including the effects of wind and temperature, density, brine exclusion, even ice morphodynamics -- does Arctic Sea ice form frazil and then pancake ice in the winter, or does it freeze in a different fashion? Do the areas in which the formation mechanism have any influence on the total sea ice extent? Are these factors considered in your analysis?


A comprehensive explanation provides a framework encompassing all data and observations. A deficient explanation does not. Warming and its accompanying regional meteorological and marine phenomena explain the increasing Antarctic sea ice extent comprehensively. Cooling does not.


Perhaps a simpler example is required. In much of upstate New York, snowfall amounts are increasing, despite observation of warmer and shorter winters. This seems counterintuitive. The comprehensive explanation is that warmer weather in the autumn allows the water in Lakes Erie and Ontario to stay warmer longer, increasing the incidence and severity of "lake effect" snowfall when cold air masses from Canada encounter the Great Lakes. A simplistic "warmer winters should mean less snow" is a deficient explanation. However, note that despite the increasing snowfall, the number of days with snow on the ground is decreasing -- also
consistent with a warming regime.

Oh yes -- another characteristic of unhingedness is deriding those who oppose you in factual discussions merely because they have raised a point of disagreement with a cherished element of the simplistic explanatory framework.

Your turn, Lube.