Annals of Global Warming: Arctic ice at second lowest level ever measured


Two years ago warming denialists claimed the Earth is actually cooling, and they predicted dramatic cooling by late 2010.

Instead, warming continues, overcoming the temporary mediation caused by increased particulate and sulfate emissions from coal burned in uncontrolled fashion in China, as evidence by things like the continued shrinking of Arctic ice below 20th century averages.  See this press release from NASA:

RELEASE : 11-337 – October 4, 2011

 Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits Second-Lowest Level

WASHINGTON — Last month the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the summertime sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and shrinks each summer as the sun rises higher in the northern sky. Each year the Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum extent in September. It hit a record low in 2007.

The near-record ice-melt followed higher-than-average summer temperatures, but without the unusual weather conditions that contributed to the extreme melt of 2007. “Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels,” said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. “This probably reflects loss of multiyear ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas as well as other factors that are making the ice more vulnerable.”

Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said the continued low minimum sea ice levels fits into the large-scale decline pattern that scientists have watched unfold over the past three decades.

“The sea ice is not only declining, the pace of the decline is becoming more drastic,” Comiso said. “The older, thicker ice is declining faster than the rest, making for a more vulnerable perennial ice cover.”

While the sea ice extent did not dip below the 2007 record, the sea ice area as measured by the microwave radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite did drop slightly lower than 2007 levels for about 10 days in early September, Comiso said. Sea ice “area” differs from extent in that it equals the actual surface area covered by ice, while extent includes any area where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean.

Arctic sea ice extent on Sept. 9, the lowest point this year, was 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). Averaged over the month of September, ice extent was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). This places 2011 as the second lowest ice extent both for the daily minimum extent and the monthly average. Ice extent was 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

This summer’s low ice extent continued the downward trend seen over the last 30 years, which scientists attribute largely to warming temperatures caused by climate change. Data show that Arctic sea ice has been declining both in extent and thickness. Since 1979, September Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 12 percent per decade.

“The oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic continues to decline, especially in the Beaufort Sea and the Canada Basin,” NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve said. “This appears to be an important driver for the low sea ice conditions over the past few summers.”

Climate models have suggested that the Arctic could lose almost all of its summer ice cover by 2100, but in recent years, ice extent has declined faster than the models predicted.

NASA monitors and studies changing sea ice conditions in both the Arctic and Antarctic with a variety of spaceborne and airborne research capabilities. This month NASA resumes Operation IceBridge, a multi-year series of flights over sea ice and ice sheets at both poles. This fall’s campaign will be based out of Punta Arenas, Chile, and make flights over Antarctica.  NASA also continues work toward launching ICESat-2 in 2016, which will continue its predecessor’s crucial laser altimetry observations of ice cover from space.

To see a NASA data visualization of the 2011 Arctic sea ice minimum as measured by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) on Aqua, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-ice-min.html  [I have changed the link to one that works for me.]

Here is that visualization, presented by Cryosphere Program Manager, Tom Wagner:

On Sept. 9th, 2011, Arctic sea ice most likely hit its minimum extent for the year. On Sept. 20th, NASA’s Cryosphere Program Manager, Tom Wagner, shared his perspectives on the ice with television audiences across the country.

On the top of the world, a pulsing, shifting body of ice has profound effects on the weather and climate of the rest of the planet. Every winter as temperatures dip, sea ice freezes out of cold Arctic Ocean waters, and every summer the extent of that ice shrinks as warm ocean temperatures eat it away. Ice cover throughout the year can affect polar ecosystems, world-wide ocean currents, and even the heat budget of the Earth.

During the last 30 years we’ve been monitoring the ice with satellites, there has been a consistent downward trend, with less and less ice making it through the summer. The thickness of that ice has also diminished. In 2011 Arctic sea ice extent was its second smallest on record, opening up the fabled Northwest Passages and setting the stage for more years like this in the future. In this video, NASA’s Cryosphere Program Manager, Tom Wagner, shares his perspectives on the 2011 sea ice minimum.

More data and animation versions here, at Goddard Multimedia.

 

About these ads

60 Responses to Annals of Global Warming: Arctic ice at second lowest level ever measured

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Minor paraphrase from the old country song: Black Flag = “been wrong so g.d. long that it looks like right to me.”

    Like

  2. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    I have never read a blog so contradictory to its own byline.

    Like

  3. Black Flag® says:

    Ed

    El Nina is caused by changes in circulation of air and its moisture content; those changes in circulation of air and its moisture content are caused by slight changes in temperature.

    Utterly bizarre claim – one that no one of merit makes, not even the IPCC

    So, Ed, prove it.

    Like

  4. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Any reasonable American would be happy to claim Al Gore as a mentor.

    Not true.

    If it were one million years ago, it was before humans. My point remains:

    No, it doesn’t.
    Life was abundant – contrary to your bizarre claim.

    When CO2 was higher, humans did not survive, or could not survive.

    When know life was abundant and flourishing.

    Your claim is irrational

    That humans did not yet exist does not change the fact that it was not a good time for the human race.

    Say what!>!>

    You are insane.
    Because something did not exist means it was bad for them.

    Ed, I have met some badly irrational people before, and you are claiming up the list fast to be among the worse.

    When did the warming denialists develop such hatred for the human race?

    No, it is you who hate humans – you blame them for all bad things, and make up lies – and then promote policies that would harm people.

    I noted: “Those periods of ‘much higher’ CO2 concentrations would destroy human life as we know it, and maybe much more life.”

    You are insane -you have no proof, – not a shred – yet you proclaim things as if they are truths – \

    ZERO

    Life FLOURISHED, you lose.

    Hey, I’m not the one arguing that humans survived CO2 much higher than 390 ppm. You are, BF. Crackpot? You’re claiming, in essence, humans lived with dinosaurs.

    Ed, stick your head in a paper bag and breath deep and exhale and breath again?

    Or are you too afraid to die after the second breath?

    You are categorically insane.

    Are you a creationist, too?

    Crap comment, most worthy of you.

    I’m tempted to ask you again to document it, but that seems to be fruitless.

    I provide documentation, but you cannot read or comprehend.

    Miss Dr. Beck’s link did you???

    No, Ed, you are insane – you cannot comprehend, hold bizarre understanding, are ignorant of science.

    Let me ask simply that you stop telling such whopping lies. Children read this blog, sometimes looking for information for school reports. Don’t tell such lies. Don’t even hint at them.

    You are the liar sir, and I pity anyone who thinks you are a reference.

    I noted the destructive nature of massive CO2 concentrations in the air,

    Yes, you have lied about it – you know very little about C02, already demonstrated by your failure to understand logarithmic application.

    A reminder: The total of humans surviving previous eras of CO2 greatly above 390 ppm, all totalled: 0. That’s zero, zip, nada, a nullity.

    Bull. You ignore science, and make up stories.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Drought of El Nina is NOT caused by “slight” increases temperature, but due to changes in the circulation of air and its moisture content.

    Again, you are a zero on understanding climate and weather.

    El Nina is caused by changes in circulation of air and its moisture content; those changes in circulation of air and its moisture content are caused by slight changes in temperature. Cause and effect reasoning is one of the first things to go when that form of pseuido-Alzheimer’s known as “climate change denialism” strikes a victim.

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    Like your mentor Al Gore, you get your units all messed up.

    Any reasonable American would be happy to claim Al Gore as a mentor. Alas, I can’t — I worked with him, or collided with him, depending on your views, and found him to be a nice guy, with great intentions, and way ahead of everybody else in policy on science issues. Not until Steven Chu took over the Department of Energy have we had a potentially more knowledgeable person in science working at high levels of government.

    Not billions, millions of years ago, and life was just fine.

    If it were one million years ago, it was before humans. My point remains: When CO2 was higher, humans did not survive, or could not survive. That humans did not yet exist does not change the fact that it was not a good time for the human race.

    When did the warming denialists develop such hatred for the human race? What malevolent policies result from that repugnant philosophy? You think we shouldn’t do anything about warming so we’ll all die?

    I noted: “Those periods of ‘much higher’ CO2 concentrations would destroy human life as we know it, and maybe much more life.”

    Aptly-named Black Flag said:

    Of course it would not!

    Let’s be clear. Here is the number of humans who survived previous episodes of great CO2 concentrations; this chart shows ALL survivors from ALL previous periods:

    . ZERO

    You are a crackpot!

    Hey, I’m not the one arguing that humans survived CO2 much higher than 390 ppm. You are, BF. Crackpot? You’re claiming, in essence, humans lived with dinosaurs.

    Are you a creationist, too?

    I noted: “In human history, CO2 has not been so high.”

    Yes, it has.

    I’m tempted to ask you again to document it, but that seems to be fruitless. Let me ask simply that you stop telling such whopping lies. Children read this blog, sometimes looking for information for school reports. Don’t tell such lies. Don’t even hint at them.

    I noted the destructive nature of massive CO2 concentrations in the air, and the cavalier way BF talks about it: “But, what’s a little killing off of all human life, so long as we get to complain about government regulation, right?”

    BF said — did he misspell, or did he intend to surrender invoking Godwin’s Law?:

    It is YOUR pograms that will kill human life.

    Yous is the anti-human agenda.

    A reminder: The total of humans surviving previous eras of CO2 greatly above 390 ppm, all totalled: 0. That’s zero, zip, nada, a nullity.

    I challenged BF so he’d not lie to us — fruitlessly, it appears: “If you disagree, please offer an example, with documentation, of any time humans lived good lives with higher CO2 concentrations.”

    LoL!

    No documentation, but the zero between the two right angles is the accurate count of the total number of humans who survived those times.

    But of course, you don’t even offer a link to Anthony Watts. You’re claim is factually bankrupt.

    Like

  7. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    PS: It is you who has the extraordinary hypothesis that humans do cause climate change

    It is YOU who must provide the proof.

    My task is to show where you are wrong.

    My job is done -yours….not so much.

    Like

  8. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    How do you know that?

    AGW rests on CO2 causation -which has been falsfied.

    What do you know that you’re not telling? Where is the paper that claims humans do not cause global warming? Why are you hiding it?

    I do not do your homework, and you wouldn’t read it even if it was shoved under your nose.

    Have you ever read anything by Kin Hubbard? You should.

    Why?

    Like

  9. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    Like your mentor Al Gore, you get your units all messed up.

    Not billions, millions of years ago, and life was just fine.

    Those periods of “much higher” CO2 concentrations would destroy human life as we know it, and maybe much more life

    Of course it would not!
    You are a crackpot!

    . In human history, CO2 has not been so high.

    Yes, it has.

    But, what’s a little killing off of all human life, so long as we get to complain about government regulation, right?

    It is YOUR pograms that will kill human life.

    Yous is the anti-human agenda.

    If you disagree, please offer an example, with documentation, of any time humans lived good lives with higher CO2 concentrations.

    LoL!

    Right now

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    But I do know this
    Anthropogenic Global Warming has been FALSIFIED

    How do you know that? What do you know that you’re not telling? Where is the paper that claims humans do not cause global warming? Why are you hiding it?

    Have you ever read anything by Kin Hubbard? You should.

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    . . .there have been periods of much higher concentrations, and the Earth is just fine . . .

    3 billion years ago or so, yeah. Earth was fine. Animal life, not so much.

    Those periods of “much higher” CO2 concentrations would destroy human life as we know it, and maybe much more life.

    In human history, CO2 has not been so high.

    But, what’s a little killing off of all human life, so long as we get to complain about government regulation, right?

    If you disagree, please offer an example, with documentation, of any time humans lived good lives with higher CO2 concentrations.

    Like

  12. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    As I pointed out, these data corroborate the hypothesis.

    LoL!

    No, it doesn’t! Most of it shows your hypothesis is an utter fantasy!

    As I pointed out, there are various, different means of corroborating the hypotheses, including ice cores,

    …shows that you are wrong – Co2 is a consequence not a cause

    historical records,

    ..that you are wrong, there have been periods of much higher concentrations, and the Earth is just fine,

    …and that there have been major warming periods, which is expected in a INTER-glacial epoch

    and lake varves, and other methods besides.

    Such “proxies” are incredibly suspect to assume a singular cause when lift is far more complicated than you suppose.

    For corroboration, we don’t need data for the whole globe

    In fact, we do, or it can’t be called “Global” warming

    — but there are good data for most of the northern hemisphere, and enough data from the southern hemisphere to indicate there are no contrary data.

    Only to a man who is blinded by dogma

    There is so much contrary data that the best the science can do today is say”
    Wow, we don’t know much about this at all

    . The question we’re trying to answer is, is the current warming precedented in history in a way to suggest we shouldn’t hit many panic buttons?

    Answer is “no”

    The other question is “the cost of panic” – which is huge and risks the collapse of global economy and the deaths of millions

    Were there warm years? Yes. Warm decades? A couple. Warm centuries? Not really.

    Ed, we have had 40,000+ yeas of warming.

    Honestly do you not understand we are in an interglacial epoch???

    Were those warming events global? Not so far as we can see. Were they caused by CO2? No.

    Yes, they were and you’re right -they were caused by the same natural events recent warming (and cooling) are caused by.

    No other suggested cause has panned out, either because it doesn’t exist,

    How convenient you are tone deaf to cosmic rays and its experimental proven influence.

    because it is cyclical, or because its effect is not so great as to overcome the CO2 greenhouse effect.

    Ed, the earth is not a greenhouse.

    A tree ring can have growth variations due to more than temperature. Drought and floods can cause variations . If you have these records showing hot and cool years, you are still not getting what the actual temperatures were . Only that certain years and decades were warmer or cooler than other years .

    Tree rings are very much more influenced by moisture and not by temperature, Ed.

    The question is, do the tree rings deny the hypothesis of global warming caused by CO2, or affirm it?

    Neither – they are not a good proxy for anything but rain fall

    because we can’t find another likely cause.

    Sure can, its called “rain”

    without the widespread agreement among science agencies of different nations in different cultures, world wide.

    True, but unlike climate science, they are not reeking of political motivations and vast sums of grant money.

    You reject the findings of NASA.

    Those which are scientific fraud – you bet. It matters not what acronym you want to plant your dogma behind, if it is not science, it is not science

    Is there any evidence that would convince you that global warming is occurring,

    No one disputes this – nor the fact of Global cooling.

    and that CO2 is the cause?

    Scientific proof, not hearsay.

    Or is this a cult with you, and others?

    The “cult” is on your side of the fence, Ed.

    You, as pointed above, out and out ignore science fact.

    Frankly, I do not know what influences climate change – I surmise it is not one thing, nor separate things, but a lot of things that through their own natural cycles regularly create the influence.

    But I do know this
    Anthropogenic Global Warming has been FALSIFIED, and one or group that remains married to the discredited hypothesis is a zealot and remains married by irrational emotion and not by any scientific fact.

    Like

  13. Black Flag® says:

    Scoorge,

    Minor changes in global temps can cause big changes in weather patterns and regional weather

    Utter bull.

    Drought of El Nina is NOT caused by “slight” increases temperature, but due to changes in the circulation of air and its moisture content.

    Again, you are a zero on understanding climate and weather.

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    So you guys have this data for the whole globe ?

    As I pointed out, these data corroborate the hypothesis. As I pointed out, there are various, different means of corroborating the hypotheses, including ice cores, historical records, and lake varves, and other methods besides.

    For corroboration, we don’t need data for the whole globe — but there are good data for most of the northern hemisphere, and enough data from the southern hemisphere to indicate there are no contrary data.

    It’s not one line of data that raises the concerns of scientists. The question we’re trying to answer is, is the current warming precedented in history in a way to suggest we shouldn’t hit many panic buttons?

    Were there warm years? Yes. Warm decades? A couple. Warm centuries? Not really. Were those warming events global? Not so far as we can see. Were they caused by CO2? No.

    Another question that we’ve been working on since at least the 1950s is this: Is current warming caused by something other than the rise in CO2 concentrations?

    No other suggested cause has panned out, either because it doesn’t exist, because it is cyclical, or because its effect is not so great as to overcome the CO2 greenhouse effect. Of course, several other suggested causes turn out to increase the effects of CO2, like sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Alas, denialists fight all efforts to stop warming, even the control of SF6 — so we know their goals are politically motivated, and not motivated by reason, science, or a moral drive to do good.

    A tree ring can have growth variations due to more than temperature. Drought and floods can cause variations . If you have these records showing hot and cool years, you are still not getting what the actual temperatures were . Only that certain years and decades were warmer or cooler than other years .

    The question is, do the tree rings deny the hypothesis of global warming caused by CO2, or affirm it? Accounting for those differing causes of tree ring records, tree rings affirm the hypothesis that we are seeing unprecedented warming now, globally and not locally, and that CO2 is the current cause of the warming, because we can’t find another likely cause.

    You know, Alan, were the science Al Gore talks about weak, there would not be such universal findings and acceptance of it. On serious issues where there has been disagreement in the past, we see different agencies and different scientists slugging it out in papers — Big Bang or Steady State? cause of AIDS? origins of HIV? control of particulate air pollution? viruses as a cause of cancers? non-locality of quantum objects? existence of atoms? spread of typhoid, typhus, plague, polio? quarks? neutrinos? really? effects of DDT? — without the widespread agreement among science agencies of different nations in different cultures, world wide. You reject the findings of NASA. But those are also the findings of the European agencies, including those who compete with NASA and those who don’t like NASA. The USSR’s science agencies made the same findings as NASA before the fall of the Soviet system, and they make the same findings today, though colored by the oligarchs’ desire to downplay warming so they can continue polluting. Even the science agencies of China agree, and they have a stake in keeping up unregulated pollution.

    Is there any evidence that would convince you that global warming is occurring, and that CO2 is the cause? Or is this a cult with you, and others?

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    Alan said:

    I will repeat myself . One of the chief rationalizations for Man made Global Warming is that any exceptionally warm years and decades happening in the era of green house emissions did not happen in the eras before green house emissions.

    That’s false. IPCC has never come close to saying such a thing, nor has anyone else.

    Global warming denialism is based on false notions, either gathered honestly but stubbornly clung to after the facts become clear, or created by the same forces that argued (falsely) Rachel Carson was wrong, thalidomide is safe, and there’s no harm in letting banks make reckless speculation in housing securities.

    Exceptionally warm years prior to the era of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels occurred — so did exceptionally cold years. When they occurred there was a clear reason for them to occur other than CO2, and those causes were cyclical and not involving destructive feedback loops that could cause runaway warming; when they occurred many of them were localized, and not global; when they occurred they abated after less than two decades, or three decades — or the six decades our warming has continued unabated.

    Alan’s claim appears to be one of the foundations of his belief. It’s a false claim.

    Warming denialism takes on the image of a cult, belief in the face of facts, dismissal of all contrary knowledge and evidence, bizarre claims of dark conspiracies.

    Meanwhile, the world warms. Maybe we should call them “Nero-ists.” (Alas, it’s probable that Nero didn’t do what the legend claims, so that might be inaccurate.)

    Like

  16. Scrooge says:

    The Incas had a severe drought for 30 years that evidence shows was caused by la nina. If I lived in TX I would be concerned. Minor changes in global temps can cause big changes in weather patterns and regional weather. Decimation of a civilization seems to me should raise concern rather than be used to rationalize away the dangers of GW. The TX drought may end in a year or so even though they have a great head of their climate dept that thinks it possibly will last longer. But what they are seeing now looks like it will be the norm 30 to 40 years from now. Maybe sooner because it looks like scientists being conservative as are 20 times more likely to err on the conservative side when talking about consequences.

    Like

  17. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Yep. What was the cause of those warm years, if they exist?

    We can account for warm years with other data. In the past, there were not years so warm as the last half of the 20th century, not for so long.

    Consequently, we cannot question climate change, honestly. ”

    I will repeat myself . One of the chief rationalizations for Man made Global Warming is that any exceptionally warm years and decades happening in the era of green house emissions did not happen in the eras before green house emissions.

    I say you cannot know with any accuracy what the average Global temperature was in 997 AD. You have a rough idea that it was warm in Northern Europe. You don’t know what the average Global temperature was for any particular decade around 3,000 BC. You might know the Global averages for those centuries . There were no weather satellites and terrestrial recording stations. You might know certain geographical areas pretty good, but not Global temperatures especially for something as short as a year.

    If there were record breaking hot years or decades, you’d have to account for them in a time of less CO2. Or if they happened before,independent of CO2, maybe they are again .

    ” Tree ring data will get us to a specific year. Those data are solid to about 12,000 years. Sediments can easily take us back 50,000 years, with great accuracy. Ice cores go back 200,000 years. ”

    So you guys have this data for the whole globe ? A tree ring can have growth variations due to more than temperature. Drought and floods can cause variations . If you have these records showing hot and cool years, you are still not getting what the actual temperatures were . Only that certain years and decades were warmer or cooler than other years .

    ” In the past, there were not years so warm as the last half of the 20th century, not for so long. ”

    I do not accept that . I have read of droughts that lasted decades in South American and wiped out Pre Inca civilizations. Great droughts of these kinds are caused by large temperature changes. These droughts have not happened to the same degree ion modern times. I believe that cycles of temperature were even more violent historically than today .

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    I’ve spent some good time with the dendrochronologists, and I think their work is solid — they are tentative where they need to be, and they warn of accuracy issues appropriately, where appropriate.

    Having review their work, on some things, I would agree.

    However, offering such a blanket over the entire group is folly. There is a lot of work in the field that is outrageously sloppy, poorly documented, poorly organized, statistically out and out wrong and scientifically irrelevant.

    Mann’s work is the latter.

    Scientists concede that measured data go back only a few centuries.

    No, reliable data only goes back a couple of decades.

    But what we have there verifies what was observed

    No, it does not.
    It is incomplete, and at the moment tells us nothing

    Anyone who says different is not doing scientific work, but politicking.

    We know how much CO2 has increased in the past 150 years

    No, we don’t.

    http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

    I had the honor of working with Dr. Beck and had a great deal of correspondence with him on this matter.

    — unprecedented since oxygen first showed up in the atmosphere about 3 billion years ago or so.

    This is completely false.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
    ….shows the Earth had ppm 10 to 30 times more in geological times.

    That’s just a factoid

    God help us with your “facts” – most of them are simply not true.

    except that warming in that period tracks very well with the line we’d expect if CO2 was causing the warming.

    No, it does not – it does not correlate significantly at all.
    http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/images/2008/02/23/co2_temp_graph.jpg

    So it’s not just sparse data, it’s solid 300 year data that are verified by CO2 measurements.

    Its bad data, sparse data, incomplete data, most of it meaningless and it is not 300 years old.

    Over 100 years, were it NOT CO2 causing the warming, we should see different fluctuations,

    You seem to believe that humans understand climate.

    We do not. We barely understand some rudimentary basics, and the odds are, we are wrong about them.

    But the latter half of the century was measurably warmer, on average, than the first half.

    …and by 2008, we were back to the level of 1960.

    So much for your hypothesis.

    Worse, the logarithmic function of CO2 creates exponential warming, probably, if CO2 is the culprit.

    You are a scary man.

    You take something that is a trivial, reverse it, add an exponential function out of fantasy just to make your dogma

    You are a terrible deluded man.

    The rest of this post is so horrible, wasting time exposing your fraud is pointless – enough has been demonstrated.

    Like

  19. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Let’s assume one error would negate all of the other findings, the actual warming of the Earth, the effects on animals and plants, and repeal the designated hitter rule.

    Let’s not assume anything.

    It takes but one refutation of the AGW hypothesis to discard it – and it has far more then just one refutation.

    This means that the Earth warms and cools, and the winds blow and doesn’t, animals run, bees buzz, ants swarm, plants blossom and the sun will shine tomorrow.

    It means the AGW hypothesis is wrong, and that is all it means.

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    If we only have accurate temperature readings from the last 3 or 4 centuries, and those only in selected areas of the Globe, truly Global records are far less than that, how can you say a decade or a year of warmth has no precedent within the last one thousand years or 5 thousand years ? The last 3 centuries is a very short time period in climate terms. That is really the only period of which you have any certainty of .

    I’ve spent some good time with the dendrochronologists, and I think their work is solid — they are tentative where they need to be, and they warn of accuracy issues appropriately, where appropriate.

    We must look at the long term. Scientists concede that measured data go back only a few centuries. But what we have there verifies what was observed, and the feared hypotheses. We know how much CO2 has increased in the past 150 years — unprecedented since oxygen first showed up in the atmosphere about 3 billion years ago or so. That’s just a factoid except that warming in that period tracks very well with the line we’d expect if CO2 was causing the warming. So it’s not just sparse data, it’s solid 300 year data that are verified by CO2 measurements.

    If we concede time prior to the 20th century, we still have reason to be concerned. Over 100 years, were it NOT CO2 causing the warming, we should see different fluctuations, and, absent any other causes (which are in fact absent), the trend line should not differ much from what it was in the early 20th century. But the latter half of the century was measurably warmer, on average, than the first half. Worse, the logarithmic function of CO2 creates exponential warming, probably, if CO2 is the culprit. That is exactly the trend line we see in the latter half of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st, except the temperatures actually measured and the damage actually observed are greater than predicted in 1990.

    You claim the measures were not as predicted. Other denialists claim we should dismiss the predictions of the 1990s — the hockey stick — because the actual temperatures measured differed from those predicted. What you fail to say — did you even know? — is that the measured temperatures were higher than predicted. Warming is proceeding at the upper levels of the ranges predicted, signalling greater danger, not less.

    Since 1980 almost every year is above the 20th century average, and since 1998, every year is way above the 20th century average. Were there no CO2-driven warming, at least a few of those years should have dipped below average.None did.

    So, why do we need data back farther than 300 years? We don’t, really. Scientists are cautious, conservative types, though. They said, “What if we’re missing something that happened in the past, something that might be happening again, something that is just cyclical and will end.” That’s where Michael Mann and the other dendrochronologists come in. With tree rings, they can make very close and accurate calculations of what happened in the past. Was there such a high level of CO2 perhaps? What do the warming curves look like?

    Mann charted it out and got the hockey stick.

    Can those figures be corroborated? What if there was a volcano, or the crash of an alien space ship that gave a CO2 spike, or . . .

    That’s where the ice bubble stuff comes in. The ice core data verify Mann’s chart.

    No, we can’t know everything. But what we do know tells us trouble is brewing big time. What we know, from CO2 science, is corroborated by actual measures over the past 300 years — and it doesn’t contradict global warming in any way. Tree rings go back farther — and they corroborate the warming scenario. The ice cores verify the tree rings.

    If warming is not accurate, some data somewhere should clearly contradict the theory. No contrary data have shown up.

    When we can’t know exactly what we want to know, we look carefully for corroboration. Every data set, of any kind, made by any people, verify warming and corroborate it.

    I realize that scientists can get general climate information by looking at sediments, tree rings, etc. Those will not tell you necessarily that a particular year or even decade was as Globally warm as the last decade has been.

    Tree ring data will get us to a specific year. Those data are solid to about 12,000 years. Sediments can easily take us back 50,000 years, with great accuracy. Ice cores go back 200,000 years.

    If the trends of any of those methods diverged, we’d have dought. They don’t diverge.

    At some point there must be solid, contrary data, if we are not to believe what the rocks and stars tell us.

    And if there have been as warm years in the distant past, then man made climate change can be questioned.

    Yep. What was the cause of those warm years, if they exist?

    We can account for warm years with other data. In the past, there were not years so warm as the last half of the 20th century, not for so long.

    Consequently, we cannot question climate change, honestly.

    Like

  21. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Yeah, I get that you’re trying to say there’s an outside chance of a warmer year before recorded history of climate. In recorded history, the past decade was the warmest. If we include pre-history, most signs point to this past decade being the warmest ever.

    You could be right. There may have been a warmer year in pre-history. So what? ”

    So what ? You fail to see the relevancy?

    If we only have accurate temperature readings from the last 3 or 4 centuries, and those only in selected areas of the Globe, truly Global records are far less than that, how can you say a decade or a year of warmth has no precedent within the last one thousand years or 5 thousand years ? The last 3 centuries is a very short time period in climate terms. That is really the only period of which you have any certainty of .

    I realize that scientists can get general climate information by looking at sediments, tree rings, etc. Those will not tell you necessarily that a particular year or even decade was as Globally warm as the last decade has been . And if there have been as warm years in the distant past, then man made climate change can be questioned .

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    Let’s assume one error would negate all of the other findings, the actual warming of the Earth, the effects on animals and plants, and repeal the designated hitter rule.

    Then the screw up Matt Ridley did on DDT would negate all of his work.

    The screw up climate deniers did on that poor 4th grade kid in Texas would make this book look like a minor footnote.

    And what about all the excitement when a delivery service mistakenly sent auto parts to that guy in Spain? Y’all leapt to the conclusion that scientists who study warming had sent him a bomb.

    So, since you’ve read the book, tell us: What is the argument, what does it mean? So what, and who cares? as the late, great Jim Riley would have asked.

    It doesn’t look like there’s any science in it, to me.

    Like

  23. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Perhaps you will entertain reading this book

    Blooming brilliant. Devastating” – Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist

    “…shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC” – Richard Tol, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change and convening lead author of the IPCC

    “…you need to read this book. Its implications are far-reaching and the need to begin acting on them is urgent.” – Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

    …but I doubt it – it would hurt your zealotry.

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:

    I said: “At this point, with the warmest decade in human history and a scary number of the ten warmest years in human history having occurred in the last decade, it’s not enough to claim CO2 doesn’t warm.”

    That was on the way to noting that, since the world warms, if one wishes to make a claim that CO2 is not the culprit — which it appears to be after 50 years of searching for the source of the warming — then a critic needs to propose an alternative culprit. Now that I think about it, the critic should also explain why CO2 looks like the culprit; that would require extensive knowledge of the theory behind CO2 warming, which most critics don’t want to bother to learn.

    Alan responded:

    This is the second time you have made this wild claim. Previously I cited a NOAH article which clearly states that accurate temperature records only go back a few hundred years. Recorded human history goes back thousands of years. Unrecorded human history goes back tens of thousands of years.

    Here’s my post on NOAA’s saying the past decade was the warmest in history.

    NOAA said:

    As the Earth continues to heat up from rising levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the planet is likely to see more record-breaking years. “As we continue to get warmer, the odds of any given year breaking the record are pretty high,” Easterling said.

    Indeed, four of the five warmest years on record have come in the last decade. The reigning warmest year on record is 2005, followed by 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2009, Easterling said.

    You can check out the NOAA posting yourself.

    Yeah, I get that you’re trying to say there’s an outside chance of a warmer year before recorded history of climate. In recorded history, the past decade was the warmest. If we include pre-history, most signs point to this past decade being the warmest ever.

    You could be right. There may have been a warmer year in pre-history. So what?

    You may want to read what NOAA actually says about global warming:

    How do we know the Earth’s climate is warming?

    Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

    Oooh, and see this at that same NOAA page:

    How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

    A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

    Alan said:

    This is like Al Gore, the High Priest of Global Warming, saying that the earth’s temperature at it’s center was several million degrees, when it is estimated to be 9,000 degrees .

    Slip of the tongue, not a craven denial of facts. Slip of the tongue, not a stripped transmission of the brain.

    Like

  25. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” AT this point, with the warmest decade in human history and a scary number of the ten warmest years in human history having occurred in the last decade, it’s not enough to claim CO2 doesn’t warm. ”

    This is the second time you have made this wild claim. Previously I cited a NOAH article which clearly states that accurate temperature records only go back a few hundred years. Recorded human history goes back thousands of years. Unrecorded human history goes back tens of thousands of years.

    This is like Al Gore, the High Priest of Global Warming, saying that the earth’s temperature at it’s center was several million degrees, when it is estimated to be 9,000 degrees .

    Like

  26. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    If either were true, it would not change the facts of global warming nor the human element of causation of the warming.

    So, you agree that increase or decrease in ice sheets has nothing to do with AGW.

    Excellent. We can move on.

    No such finding, unconnected to global warming, has been made. Arctic ice is melting due to global warming.

    You are daft.
    It has to do with wind.

    You are an irrational moppet.

    You are a zealot and no amount of fact, physics and science will make a difference to you.

    Fortunately, the rest of the world is waking up to your crackpot theories and discarding the AGW myth.

    You are the last of the holdouts – the zealots – and, you will remain as such until you pass away.

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    You are irrational or you cannot read.

    If either were true, it would not change the facts of global warming nor the human element of causation of the warming.

    As the ice sheet increase/decrease has already been demonstrated to be caused by wind changes – using such to claim “it’s AGW” is irrational – you make no sense.

    No such finding, unconnected to global warming, has been made. Arctic ice is melting due to global warming. Has warming altered wind, too? Then it may have an additional effect. However, it is inaccurate, false, to claim warming has not shrunk the Arctic ice pack. Warming has driven the reduction of the ice with reductions in precipitation, increases in temperatures preventing sea ice from forming, longer warm spells, reduced cloud cover to shield the ice from sunlight, and pools of water on the ice, which absorb more heat from the sun. Does wind play a role? How could wind not be affected by warming?

    Did you read the post at the top of this thread? Our nation’s best scientists discuss the effects of global warming on the reduction in the Arctic ice cap. What do you claim to know that they don’t?

    Further, by your own agreed instrumentation, we see temperature go down – which is completely contrary to your hypothesis of Co2 causation.

    Not so. Temperatures have not dropped, but instead they have remained shockingly high, even while massive increases in particulate and sulfate pollution from China have reduced warming’s effects over the past decade. Those “reduced” effects still gave us the warmest decade in human history.

    Here’s the summary of the real science – notice how the real scientists talk about the reality of global warming and the need to reduce CO2:

    Dimmer switch on global
    warming explained

    The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased steadily between 1998 and 2008 even as the Earth’s temperature declined, consistent with climate change resulting from both natural and human causes, researchers find. Robert Kaufman and colleagues used model simulations to pinpoint factors that may have triggered a decade-long cooling event during what was otherwise a period of warming. The study period was part of a normal 11-year cycle of declining solar energy input, according to the authors. The decade also included a cyclical shift from an El Niño pattern to a La Niña climate pattern—an ocean-atmosphere phenomenon that frequently causes cooling. The authors further noted that China doubled its coal consumption from the years 2003 to 2007, leading to a huge increase in sulfur emissions that may have had a cooling effect on the planet. The researchers suggest that this cooling effect may have counteracted ongoing warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations, permitting natural forces to predominate the planet’s temperature. The proposed explanation may portend a future period of rapid global warming as solar input rises and as China installs scrubbers that remove aerosols from coal-fired boilers, according to the authors.

    “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008,” by Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock

    10.1073/pnas.1102467108

    Here’s the abstract of that study: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790

    Note also that CO2 is not the only cause — only the greatest cause, and the one which must be controlled in order to stop disastrous warming

    Like

  28. Flakey says:

    Black flag

    “I gave you a link which has plenty of resources to it.”

    Yet you give this link as your primary and only source of facts. Now you say it only a starting point. So are you now saying that your argument has no basis in fact at all. That you refused to even do homework into your own position in the argument?

    Like

  29. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    If I am so ignorant, show us a good source to document your claim.

    I am not here to do your homework.

    I gave you a link which has plenty of resources to it.

    Work for yourself, sir.

    Like

  30. Ed Darrell says:

    You cannot be so ignorant as not have known this.

    If I am so ignorant, show us a good source to document your claim. I am not so ignorant, of course. You’re making stuff up, or worse, you’re relying on a tall tale someone told you.

    Otherwise, it remains clear that you’ll tell any tale, no matter how far it falls from the truth, in order to rant.

    Like

  31. Pangolin says:

    Black Flag is why people moderate forums and comments. The liars ALWAYS have more spew that people documenting their claims can refute simply because the spew only requires that you type instead of research.

    Like

  32. Scrooge says:

    So I go to one of the links given to show what I’m not sure and see a plot of the last three solar cycles. Very standard but I’m a little confused about what that is supposed to indicate. But if anybody thinks this is anything significant spaceweather can give you a lot more. And just to be fair I actually looked for any “NASA” research on a 60 year cycle causing the ice to melt but for some strange reason couldn’t find any.

    Like

  33. Black Flag® says:

    Here, Ed, you can read the story – it has names and citations that you can follow up, if you wish

    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    Like

  34. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    I can’t explain it, mostly because it’s not accurate. I explained earlier why it’s not accurate.

    No where did you present your data nor calculation whatsoever.

    You offered a baseless statement with no proof – and in that statement, made an error regarding “heat” dispersion.

    So, you may think you know what you are talking about, but you have not much of a clue, sir.

    Now, again without any hint of an iota of confirming sources, you claim that atmospheric scientists in the 1970s feared global cooling, and then changed their minds.

    You cannot be so ignorant as not have known this.

    Oh, wait, you can. You didn’t even know about the Co2/log function.

    Who told you that? Which scientists proposed the hypothesis, and where can we read their errors first hand?/

    Use Google, it is a great tool

    Like

  35. Black Flag® says:

    Poor Ed,

    “According to you, the ice should be expanding”

    ….

    So, I guess he’s changed his mind, and warming is not abating.

    You are irrational or you cannot read.

    As the ice sheet increase/decrease has already been demonstrated to be caused by wind changes – using such to claim “it’s AGW” is irrational – you make no sense.

    Further, by your own agreed instrumentation, we see temperature go down – which is completely contrary to your hypothesis of Co2 causation.

    It’s progress to persuade one denier, even if they exit spouting insults

    You started the insults first, Mr. Pot and Kettle….

    Like

  36. Black Flag® says:

    Ed

    It seems to be that the IPCC is saying warming will increase, not that we don’t need to worry about more CO2 in the atmosphere because its warming effects slack off logarithmically.

    As we’ve already agreed, CO2 will increase warming – that is a fact of physics. The question asked is “what relevance does it have?” (ie: the spit in the ocean analogy)

    Further, now that you have learned something new about the logarithmic nature of absorption,and that the warming increase is a log function, and you seem to have agreed to that -finally.

    Further, the IPCC offers a HYPOTHESIS that an increase in the concentration does not immediately create a change in climate – it lags behind the concentration increase – quote “…, at the time of equivalent doubling, the climate will not have realized its full, equilibrium response to the forcing.

    Note: this is a HYPOTHESIS, not a conclusion, nor verified by experiment.

    So I stand by my critique: To the extent that the relationship between CO2 and rising temperatures is logarithmic, the logarithm is not towards less warming, but the opposite.

    How can you claim it is a “critique” of my argument, when no where in my argument did I say otherwise? We agreed Co2 adds warming, so you are tendering a strawman here!

    What I did say is that Co2 increase cannot explain the warming as its influence is TOO MINOR.

    Here is a calculated graph of the temp. variance due to increase concentration.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

    I further stated that given that temperature – as suggested by the graph I offered earlier in another post- does NOT follow Co2 concentration increase, the correlation you claim Co2 has to such temperature is simply not demonstrated – which is the refutation of the AGW Hypothesis.

    As Einstein said, no amount of experiment can prove him right, but it only takes one experiment to prove him wrong – and AGW hypothesis is riddled with such “wrongs” as it is dependent on the CO2 causation – which by calculation of a law of physics cannot explain the warming, if such warming exists

    Now, you can remain immune to this and hold irrationally on to a discredited hypothesis, but that makes you irrational. I hope, since your byline states you strive for “a little accuracy in …. science” you avoid being irrational.

    So, you can, alternatively, offer another a different hypothesis, and follow the scientific method to evaluate it.

    The choice is yours.

    Like

  37. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    . Like a 60 year solar cycle causing the arctic to melt. No evidence to support and the evidence there is shows it to be rubbish.

    See, you absolutely right about crazy people – unfortantely it applies to you.

    So decades of research by NASA – to you – is no “evidence”, and hence rubbish.

    As Churchill quipped: You walk along merrily and trip over the truth, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and continue on you way as if nothing happened.

    Trying to say CERN proves cosmic rays are the cause of the GW we are experiencing is an outright lie.

    Wow! You are irrational.

    Though cosmic rays do provide CCN they are so small they make a minimal contribution.

    Bull. You are making up stories to fit your agenda.
    You have no data or evidence to make such a claim

    And besides over the last 50 years the influx has been stable.

    You are ignorant and make up stories.

    It has not, nor ever “stable”. As I noted before, you believe the world is “static” and this belief underlies all your ignorance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

    The ocean currents are causing the arctic t o melt, yep and what makes currents change is temperature and salinity.

    No, and again you are ignorant of the science.

    Wind changes – as I have already documented for you.

    Anybody who understands sea breeze and mountain breeze understand that temp does affect wind. Even thaough in this case we are looking more at changing pattern due to warming.

    You already demonstrated your ignorance, and lack of science.

    It is no surprise you are a zealot.

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:

    Black Flag finally cites a source, but the source doesn’t agree with his conclusion so far as I can see:

    Here, from IPCC … I assume that they will do for you….
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_reporting.html

    “..as the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic..”

    This is know physical science, Ed – but I have no problem helping you “catch up” with the physics – but only to a point. I am not interested in running a Physics 101 class on your blog.

    Here’s what that document says, in greater context:

    One of the key criteria in selecting a climate scenario was that it should be physically plausible. This criterion also applies to the relationship between climate and non-climatic scenarios. Thus, projections of climate should be consistent both with projections of atmospheric composition and the emissions scenarios upon which they are based, as well as with “downstream” projections of sea-level rise. Carbon dioxide concentration is one of the most important of the non-climatic factors to consider. Besides being a major greenhouse gas that influences the climate, it is also of great importance for plant growth and productivity. Thus, it is important that appropriate levels of CO2 concentration are used in conjunction with a given climate change. Unfortunately, this has been a source of some confusion in past impact studies, especially with regard to the timing of CO2 doubling. The following points are worth noting:

    Equilibrium GCM 2 x CO2 experiments commonly assume a radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentration (for example from 300 ppmv to 600 ppmv). In fact the absolute concentrations are not especially important, as the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic – a doubling from 500 to 1000 ppmv would have approximately the same climatic effect.
    Equilibrium 2 x CO2 experiments are usually interpreted as representing an equivalent 2 x CO2 atmosphere, in which the combined effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on the earth’s radiation balance are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2 alone. This equivalent doubling is expected to occur several decades before an actual CO2 doubling.
    The climate has a lag time of several decades in its response to an equivalent CO2 doubling, as represented in transient AOGCM experiments. Thus, at the time of equivalent doubling, the climate will not have realized its full, equilibrium response to the forcing.
    In CO2 enrichment experiments with plants, a doubled CO2 environment relative to ambient is typically imposed (levels of 660 ppmv or 700 ppmv are popularly adopted). In contrast to GCMs, the absolute CO2 concentration is of importance to plants, because their response to CO2 is commonly non-linear.

    Similarly, relative sea-level rise is predominantly a result of global warming, so this should also be consistent with the estimates of climate change.

    It seems to be that the IPCC is saying warming will increase, not that we don’t need to worry about more CO2 in the atmosphere because its warming effects slack off logarithmically.

    So I stand by my critique: To the extent that the relationship between CO2 and rising temperatures is logarithmic, the logarithm is not towards less warming, but the opposite.

    Like

  39. Ed Darrell says:

    Black Flag said:

    Warming is abating – demonstrable by your own documentation – while human Co2 production has increased, not decreased.

    But when I repeat his claim in this way: “According to you, the ice should be expanding”
    Black Flag promptly retreats and wrote:

    You are categorically insane.

    No where did I make this claim.
    No where did I infer this claim.

    You are pulling sh– out of your head – an obvious response to your position being shown to be … well .. utter crap.

    You are a liar.

    So, I guess he’s changed his mind, and warming is not abating.

    It’s progress to persuade one denier, even if they exit spouting insults.

    Like

  40. Ed Darrell says:

    Strange for you that in the 1970′s it was Global Cooling.
    Can you explain that?

    I can’t explain it, mostly because it’s not accurate. I explained earlier why it’s not accurate. Now, again without any hint of an iota of confirming sources, you claim that atmospheric scientists in the 1970s feared global cooling, and then changed their minds.

    Who told you that? Which scientists proposed the hypothesis, and where can we read their errors first hand?

    Like

  41. Scrooge says:

    If I may say so Mr Darrell you never argue with a crazy person on the street because a passerby can’t tell who’s crazy. Now trying to get through all the pure nonsense being spewed and changing arguments there may be a few that should be answered. Like a 60 year solar cycle causing the arctic to melt. No evidence to support and the evidence there is shows it to be rubbish. Trying to say CERN proves cosmic rays are the cause of the GW we are experiencing is an outright lie. Though cosmic rays do provide CCN they are so small they make a minimal contribution. And besides over the last 50 years the influx has been stable. The ocean currents are causing the arctic to melt, yep and what makes currents change is temperature and salinity. Anybody who understands sea breeze and mountain breeze understand that temp does affect wind. Even thaough in this case we are looking more at changing pattern due to warming.

    Like

  42. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    According to you, the ice should be expanding.

    You are categorically insane.

    No where did I make this claim.
    No where did I infer this claim.

    You are pulling sh– out of your head – an obvious response to your position being shown to be … well .. utter crap.

    You are a liar.

    Sorry, Ed – you are hopeless in your delusions, and no amount of science and fact will ever dissuade you.

    No one is more blind then those that refuse to see.

    C’est la vie

    Like

  43. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    So far, you have ignored physics.
    You have ignored your own sources
    You have ignored geological evidence.

    You have married statistical crackpottery.
    You have married fantasy and -at best- wholesale speculation.

    You have no scientific proof.

    I can only surmise you are a hopeless zealot.

    Like

  44. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    You’re really full of manure, you know?

    So, now the best you can provide is ad homenin.

    How quickly you resort banal insults…

    AGW hypotheses have held for the past 100 years and longer that greenhouse gases, if unchecked, would warm the Earth.

    Strange for you that in the 1970′s it was Global Cooling.
    Can you explain that?

    The difficulty we had 50 years ago — when I was active in atmospheric research, by the way — was that particulates and (surprising to us then) sulfates scattered light and heat, and counteracted the greenhouse effect.

    Strange, because sulfates do not scatter “heat”. I guess I have to ask, “what research do you have” that shows this?

    . So the cooling effect abates naturally after a couple of years, in stark contrast to CO2 which stays airborne for a hundred years or more.

    Utter bull.

    I have already posted to Pag the fallacy of this claim.

    But I hold no surprise you still parrot it.

    Consequently, the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone overwhelms the cooling effect.

    First, “greenhouse” effect is a wholly incorrect understanding – and if you had any experience in atmospheric science, you would know this.

    The Earth’s atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

    Back when we did not have laws to reduce any pollution, there was discussion about the possibility that very dirty air could cause cooling, especially were there a nuclear exchange that would put a lot more particulates up, causing disastrous cooling.

    Nuclear winter has been refuted completely – I, however, am not surprised you would believe it.

    Nuclear war would end human civilization, but the Earth and its climate – heck, it wouldn’t notice the difference of the passing of our species.

    As Edward Teller said to a stunned reporter:
    Reporter: “But nuclear war would destroy the world!”
    Teller, laughing:”Not at all, the world wouldn’t even notice it”
    Reporter: “But all of mankind would be destroyed!”
    Teller: “Oh, that may be true – but do not confuse the Earth with mankind the species. The deer and the birds and the ants will merrily continue on with no notice to the destruction of the human race.”

    .
    “Global cooling” was always understood as a result of very dirty air, and climate scientists did not reverse positions as you claim. You simply fail to understand the science, and the history.

    .

    Sorry, Ed, but it is you who fails such understanding.

    No theory of merit holds that mere “particulates” caused the the cooling of the 1970′s – if so, you hold to the same discredited and junk science that infects modern climatology regarding global “warming”.

    Like

  45. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    First, let’s get the onus straight.

    You are advocating an extraordinary hypothesis, not me.

    You need to prove it, not me.

    It hasn’t been proven, but wholly refuted, by the way,so your task is …how to say it… ‘difficult’ at best.

    As I explained earlier, your representation of the calculations is likely in error, and you offer not a single science source to back it up.

    If the IPCC is not enough for you, Ed, you are hopeless.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:

    As I said, I am not interested in teaching you physics or how to exercise a math equation.

    I’m not much interested in your misteachings, either.

    As I explained earlier, your representation of the calculations is likely in error, and you offer not a single science source to back it up.

    Then you completely misrepresent Arrhenius’s research.

    Next you’ll claim Edison invented darkness.

    Got a citation? Any at all? My advanced math skills are not great, and I trust you even less.

    See the post above. According to you, the ice should be expanding. Alas for us, reality sneaks in: The ice is shrinking year over year, much more rapidly than IPCC predicted. You claim disaster should be easy to avoid, and yet it rushes at us at increasing speed.

    Like

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    (1) We have NOT been looking hard – AGW hypothesis has been a recent claim – 50 years ago is was Global Cooling

    You’re really full of manure, you know?

    AGW hypotheses have held for the past 100 years and longer that greenhouse gases, if unchecked, would warm the Earth. The difficulty we had 50 years ago — when I was active in atmospheric research, by the way — was that particulates and (surprising to us then) sulfates scattered light and heat, and counteracted the greenhouse effect.

    Two things: One, the cooling effect of sulfates and particulates lasts only so long as they stay in the atmosphere. Even an enormous volcanic eruption can put stuff into the higher atmosphere for a relatively short period of time, about 2 years. So the cooling effect abates naturally after a couple of years, in stark contrast to CO2 which stays airborne for a hundred years or more.

    Consequently, the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone overwhelms the cooling effect.

    Back when we did not have laws to reduce any pollution, there was discussion about the possibility that very dirty air could cause cooling, especially were there a nuclear exchange that would put a lot more particulates up, causing disastrous cooling.

    BUT that was always understood as just part of the issue.

    Two, we got laws to control particulates and sulfates, and the laws worked. So the greenhouse gases won out early.

    “Global cooling” was always understood as a result of very dirty air, and climate scientists did not reverse positions as you claim. You simply fail to understand the science, and the history.

    Like

  48. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Right. Got a citation for that? That is entirely contrary to any understanding of the physics of CO2 by anyone at any time.

    Say…what??

    The math formula -for the first and most significant order calculation is on the wiki page.

    Go do it yourself.

    As I said, I am not interested in teaching you physics or how to exercise a math equation.

    Still waiting for a citation that there is a logarithmic arrangement that works to slow warming, rather than speed it.

    Then wait forever, for holding on to Co2 as any causation for “climate change” is your doom.. it simply does not exist.

    The question to you is:
    Is anything you assert based in reality?

    Like

  49. Ed Darrell says:

    The calculations of the CO2 concentration increase shows the warming to be quite literally irrelevant – we are talking a degree of warming that is not measurable.

    Right. Got a citation for that? That is entirely contrary to any understanding of the physics of CO2 by anyone at any time.

    Still waiting for a citation that there is a logarithmic arrangement that works to slow warming, rather than speed it.

    Is anything you assert based in reality?

    For example, your claim about Arrhenius is exactly contrary to the historic understanding. Spencer Weart, the guy who wrote the textbook on the issue for the America Physical Society, explained why you’re in error, way back in 2007:

    Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

    What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

    What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

    Weart also explains how CO2 continues to warm, contradicting your claim that the effect peaks out:

    Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: “As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”

    Even a simple explanation can be hard to grasp in all its implications, and scientists only worked those out piecewise. First they had to understand that it was worth the trouble to think about carbon dioxide at all. Didn’t the fact that water vapor thoroughly blocks infrared radiation mean that any changes in CO2 are meaningless? Again, the scientists of the day got caught in the trap of thinking of the atmosphere as a single slab. Although they knew that the higher you went, the drier the air got, they only considered the total water vapor in the column.

    The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s. Military officers lavishly funded research on the high layers of the air where their bombers operated, layers traversed by the infrared radiation they might use to detect enemies. Theoretical analysis of absorption leaped forward, with results confirmed by laboratory studies using techniques orders of magnitude better than Ångström could deploy. The resulting developments stimulated new and clearer thinking about atmospheric radiation.

    Among other things, the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements. Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened and overlap to a considerable extent. Even at sea level pressure, the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes, but the gaps between the spikes are fairly narrow and the “valleys” between the spikes are not terribly deep. (see Part II) None of this was known a century ago. With the primitive infrared instruments available in the early 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything different.

    Measurements done for the US Air Force drew scientists’ attention to the details of the absorption, and especially at high altitudes. At low pressure the spikes become much more sharply defined, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. Moreover, researchers had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes — indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant. The main points could have been understood already in the 1930s if scientists had looked at the greenhouse effect closely (in fact one physicist, E.O. Hulbert, did make a pretty good calculation, but the matter was of so little interest that nobody noticed.)

    As we have seen, in the higher layers where radiation starts to slip through easily, adding some greenhouse gas must warm the Earth regardless of how the absorption works. The changes in the H2O and CO2 absorption lines with pressure and temperature only shift the layers where the main action takes place. You do need to take it all into account to make an exact calculation of the warming. In the 1950s, after good infrared data and digital computers became available, the physicist Gilbert Plass took time off from what seemed like more important research to work through lengthy calculations of the radiation balance, layer by layer in the atmosphere and point by point in the spectrum. He announced that adding CO2 really could cause a degree or so of global warming. Plass’s calculations were too primitive to account for many important effects. (Heat energy moves up not only by radiation but by convection, some radiation is blocked not by gas but by clouds, etc.) But for the few scientists who paid attention, it was now clear that the question was worth studying. Decades more would pass before scientists began to give the public a clear explanation of what was really going on in these calculations, drawing attention to the high, cold layers of the atmosphere. Even today, many popularizers try to explain the greenhouse effect as if the atmosphere were a single sheet of glass.

    In sum, the way radiation is absorbed only matters if you want to calculate the exact degree of warming — adding carbon dioxide will make the greenhouse effect stronger regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.

    Your claim is based on the assumption that there is a saturation point for CO2 in the lower atmosphere, plus another assumption that we have already reached that saturation point. The CO2 measure widget in the lower right hand corner of this blog explains that your assumption is dead wrong — CO2 has been climbing dramatically for the entire period we have measured it with any great care, since the late 1950s — more than half a century. Weart again explains the dramatic damage caused if we were to rely on your error:

    But in fact, the Earth’s atmosphere is not even close to being in a state of saturation. With the primitive techniques of his day, Ångström got a bad result, as explained in the Part II . Actually, it’s not clear that he would have appreciated the significance of his result even if he had gotten the correct answer for the way absorption varies with CO2 amount. From his writing, it’s a pretty good guess that he’d think a change of absorption of a percent or so upon doubling CO2 would be insignificant. In reality, that mere percent increase, when combined properly with the “thinning and cooling” argument, adds 4 Watts per square meter to the planets radiation balance for doubled CO2. That’s only about a percent of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth, but it’s a highly important percent to us! After all, a mere one percent change in the 280 Kelvin surface temperature of the Earth is 2.8 Kelvin (which is also 2.8 Celsius). And that’s without even taking into account the radiative forcing from all those amplifying feedbacks, like those due to water vapor and ice-albedo.

    In any event, modern measurements show that there is not nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block most of the infrared radiation in the bands of the spectrum where the gas absorbs. That’s even the case for water vapor in places where the air is very dry. (When night falls in a desert, the temperature can quickly drop from warm to freezing. Radiation from the surface escapes directly into space unless there are clouds to block it.)

    So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the “saturation argument” against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

    Then you can heave a sigh, and wonder how much different the world would be today if these arguments were understood in the 1920′s, as they could well have been if anybody had thought it important enough to think through.

    See here, for example of how CO2 heats stuff up:

    And here:

    Simple experiments demonstrate the problem. You try to say the problem goes away with more CO2 gas — but that’s not what the science shows.

    Like

  50. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Assume the relationship between CO2 and warming is, indeed, logarithmic. Increases in CO2 still increase warming.

    This is true – however, the question is the relevance of such warming compared to – say – changes in cloud cover.

    The calculations of the CO2 concentration increase shows the warming to be quite literally irrelevant – we are talking a degree of warming that is not measurable.

    This is a key point – that is, the error margin in temperature readings is greater than the potential increase of temperature due to additional Co2 … in other words, we can’t tell anything from it.

    Analogy would be spitting in the ocean.
    Yes, if there are X molecules of water in the ocean and you and Z more molecules from your spit, the ocean has gone “up” X+Z molecules.

    However, that is all things being equal – and in climate, nothing ever is equal – it is a massive chaotic equation.

    No more you would claim the ocean level rises on your spit could you claim human Co2 causes the global warming/change/disruption.

    We see warming — if you were right that CO2 is not a major cause, then the mystery becomes, what is the likely culprit?

    Comic rays – and unlike Co2 causation – proven scientifically, that is, by experimentation.

    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html

    We can dialogue more on this if you’d like – it is very interesting.

    After more than 50 years of looking hard (we started in the 1950s at least, not 1980s as you suggest) there is no other likely culprit known.

    Oh, do not be so quick – science has no timeline.

    (1) We have NOT been looking hard – AGW hypothesis has been a recent claim – 50 years ago is was Global Cooling

    There has been a small, but vocal, group of people who see disaster in all human action, starting with Malthus and the Club of Rome.

    But, yet, all of their predictions have come to naught.

    We do know somethings – but we don’t know a whole lot more of most important things….

    AT this point, with the warmest decade in human history

    This is not true – again, do not fall into the trap of statistical crackpottery.

    Medieval warm period – grapes were growing in England and Greenland had farmland.

    Further, one cannot make such claims as temperature records were not kept, or if kept, lack the statistical accuracy necessary for such claims.

    It helps your cause to keep it within the known realm, and not speculate into fantasy. (Ps: It helps my cause too! TRUTH is like that – it helps everyone who holds to it…)

    You’ve got to show the real cause.

    Actually, no I don’t have to show a darn thing.

    Science is not out to prove me right or you wrong or vis versa

    It is out to discover the Universe, otherwise known as The Truth.

    (PS: did you know the “Scientific method” was first derived by a Muslim in the 1st Century … utterly amazing man and story…his belief was that God was truth, and never lied – such, what one man discovered would be the same event or effect for another man, for God would not lie to one man and tell the truth to another…
    http://www.ibnalhaytham.net/)

    You have a hypothesis based on an observation.
    Good for you, that’s an admirable start.

    But it is just a start … I urge do not get trapped into holding onto a conclusion where there is no merit to create one… you and your ilk are far, far, far away from claiming conclusions.

    Like

  51. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    *sigh*

    Here, from IPCC … I assume that they will do for you….
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_reporting.html

    “..as the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic..”

    This is know physical science, Ed – but I have no problem helping you “catch up” with the physics – but only to a point. I am not interested in running a Physics 101 class on your blog.

    Like

  52. Ed Darrell says:

    1. That does not claim that warming will be logarithmic — and, that’s isn’t in the Arrhenius paper, is it? Can you show me where?

    2. Odd that the claim at Wikipedia lacks a citation. Want to wager how accurate it is?

    But, congratulations for finally trying to back up something you claim. Unfortunate as all get out that your first citation comes from Wikipedia, and not from research — and isn’t backed by research.

    3. Assume the relationship between CO2 and warming is, indeed, logarithmic. Increases in CO2 still increase warming. We see warming — if you were right that CO2 is not a major cause, then the mystery becomes, what is the likely culprit? After more than 50 years of looking hard (we started in the 1950s at least, not 1980s as you suggest) there is no other likely culprit known.

    As Sherlock Holmes was wont to observe, after you eliminate all the things that are impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the case.

    AT this point, with the warmest decade in human history and a scary number of the ten warmest years in human history having occurred in the last decade, it’s not enough to claim CO2 doesn’t warm. You’ve got to show the real cause.

    Like

  53. Black Flag® says:

    Ed

    Not without a lot of confirming evidence of the cause-effect relationship, no.

    Good – there is hope for you.

    So, to accomplish that you need an experiment – got one in mind?

    Like

  54. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    CO2 logarithmic? Really? And for more than 200 years that escaped our notice, how?

    Ah, no, Ed, it hasn’t escaped notice – “we” have known this since 1896, experimentally observed by Svante Arrhenius – On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground (1896)

    Here is a tidy on WIki for you:
    The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

    You should read the IPCC report, too.

    Like

  55. Ed Darrell says:

    If you woke up one day, and noticed bald men – you wouldn’t claim that their baldness was due to the sudden appearance of “Glee” as a TV show.

    Not without a lot of confirming evidence of the cause-effect relationship, no.

    But then, you wake up and proclaim Glee has ended global warming, based on evidence just as flimsy. I’m not sure you understand what it is you’re claiming, and I’m certain you don’t understand evidence at all, especially evidence of global warming, and where it comes from.

    CO2 logarithmic? Really? And for more than 200 years that escaped our notice, how? And the study that shows CO2 behaves logarithmically was published where, by whom, with what experiments to back it up?

    Like

  56. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    Quick question:
    The temperature is -40.
    The temperature increases by 20 degrees.

    How much ice will melt?

    Yes how foolish of me to think that warmer ocean and surface temps would make ice melt.

    First, there is no data on what, if any, such an increase may do to ice sheets – it is circumstantial at best.

    Second, the increase in ocean temperature is due to, quote, “…. more strongly, by the increased Agulhas Current leakage, which is augmented by the strengthening of the wind stress curl over the South Atlantic and Indian subtropical gyre.”

    …in other words, wind stress allowing warmer Indian ocean water to enter.

    Now, if you hypothesis that mankind changes wind strength,……

    The temperatures in the arctic have indeed risen in recent years and ice has declined, bottoming out in 2007 but it is not unprecedented nor unexpected.

    The arctic temperatures and arctic ice extent varies in a very predictable 60-70 year cycle that relates to ocean cycles which are likely driven by solar changes. It has nothing to do with CO2, showing poor correlation and since cold open arctic ice is a significant sink for atmospheric CO2 just as warm tropical waters are the primary source.

    In 2007, NASA scientists reported that after years of research, their team had assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents driven by a circulation known as the Arctic Oscillation was largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years.

    Everything you see is not man-made.

    Like

  57. Scrooge says:

    Yes how foolish of me to think that warmer ocean and surface temps would make ice melt. And then when it is observed believe my lying eyes. Now that I think of it I remember the days of checking “thermometers” using ice water. Guess that was a mistake if temperature has nothing to do with freezing liquids. If I’m not mistaken that would render all of the temperature observations except satellite useless. Oh heck just blame AGW on pirates.

    Like

  58. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    No one claims magic here – unless it is the AGW zealots, who see every observation of nature as a negative, and therefore caused by human action.

    If you woke up one day, and noticed bald men – you wouldn’t claim that their baldness was due to the sudden appearance of “Glee” as a TV show.

    Equally, you wouldn’t make the statement “Arctic sea ice variation is due to Internet use”, simply because the beginning of the measures of sea ice corresponds to the beginnings of the modern Internet!

    So, be consistent – there are observations – and nothing more.

    Further the observations have only started – 30 years is completely irrelevant timescale in terms of geological and climatological conditions- and do note, there is still many problems with those observations – the satellites suffered calibration issues – and thus, we have no where enough data to make any thing but the most basic hypothesis, let alone any conclusions.

    Like

  59. Scrooge says:

    After looking at the GMU poll and being discouraged by how little the American public understands the science behind AGW all you can do is just keep posting things like this. If you look at the science its easy to see this is not a trend caused by magic that for some reason a certain number of people want to believe.

    Like

  60. Black Flag® says:

    So, Ed, question you should ask yourself.

    If the observation (which is questionable) has happened only over the last 30 years, what makes you think this is significant?

    How do you know this is merely a normal variation over a trend of a few hundred years, or a few thousand?

    In other words, Ed, this is merely an observation (and again, very subjective in its measures) – and not a conclusion. Any “scientist” proclaiming some conclusion is making a serious error – but common in the junk science of “Climate change”

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,155 other followers

%d bloggers like this: