Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 10:43 PM GMT on April 28, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.

When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.

The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.

Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.

Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)

Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.

This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.

Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?

A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.

r






Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice

Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 482 - 432

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

FWIW... Professor Morner's Arctic predictions... (right) versus the IPCC's Summer Sea Ice predictions (Middle).

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Morner is another non-practicing (retired) professor speaking out of his area of expertise; his primary work was in paleoseismology. (You know, ancient earthquakes. That surely makes him an expert in climatology.) Morner is also a practitioner in the long-ago discredited practice of dowsing (funny story here). And--predictably--he's a paid shill for Big Oil via speaking engagements with the "Heartland Institute" (aka. "Propaganda Arm of ExxonMobil").

Not that it will ever happen, but it would be so refreshing if just once any denialist "skeptic" would post something here (or anywhere) written by a) a practicing scientist who's b) writing in his or her area of expertise, and who c) isn't employed by Big Oil or any other industry making tens of billions of dollars in annual profits off of the current fossil fuel paradigm, and d) hasn't taken antiscience stances in other areas.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting TomTaylor:

OBVIOUSLY climate variations in the past were natural. Man wasn't around, or at least didn't have enough of an impact, to significantly alter climate before the industrial revolution.

This is entirely different from skeptics claims because in the past we are not entirely sure what may have caused an ice age, or warm period; however, now days we can measure natural things.


You are correct that man couldn't have possibly impacted the Ice Age 450 million years ago. But CO2 is CO2. Man Made or not. The effects of CO2 do not change if they come from an automobile, or they come from volcanoes. The point is, is that the increase in co2 was not strong enough 450 million years ago to prevent an Ice Age, regardless if they were man-made or not.

Quoting TomTaylor:

So far, temps have only continued up


Yes, and they were going up at the same pace when humans could not possibly have been impacting the climate.





Quoting TomTaylor:


I'm trying to tell you CO2's feedbacks are not understood well enough to outright make that claim, and additionally, there is no correlation between high CO2 levels and cooling. If anything, it's the opposite. Meaning there is no causal evidence, nor correlation evidence.


I believe we have gone over this in a previous post. The positive feedbacks that you had listed, I replied here:
----------

The Increase in Parts per Million of Methane has decreased significantly, to near no trend.



As for Desertification... that is actually a negative feedback, if what you say about the feedback of co2 causing more deserts, is true. Generally, there is more moisture for it to get warmer. Why? The moisture in the air traps heat, and thus, warms the surface faster. A popular misconception is that "deserts are extremely hot." Some deserts are bone chillingly cold during the night, since there is no moisture in the air to retain the heat. With decreasing amounts of moisture in the air, places that were warm, will then become cooler, since there is no more moisture to trap the heat.

How would co2 create deforestation? If anything, higher concentrations of co2 would make more plant life grow faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
-----------

Post 310.

Do you have any other positive feedbacks to add on, since you mentioned that "there are dozens of other feedbacks?"


Quoting TomTaylor:


But what about the other dozens of CO2 feedback loops?


Could you list some more feedbacks that co2 creates that either you or me have not listed yet?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
2. Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
3. Foul language is not allowed.
4. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
5. Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
6. No spam.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129903
And yet another nail in the so-called "Climategate" coffin (as if another one were needed):

U.K. Government: "Climategate" No Reason to Doubt Climate Change

Yet another scientific body has jumped in to the so-called Climategate fray to dispute that the leaked documents offer any reason to doubt that human activity is warming the planet.

Back in 2009, as you may recall, a number of e-mails and documents related to climate research were leaked following a server breach at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Climate skeptics, poring through the correspondence, latched on to a number of emails that they claimed undermined the scientific case for human-caused climate change, including the widely publicized assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The climate scientists, skeptics alleged, manipulated data and used underhanded methods to block the publication of conflicting research.

But those skeptical claims have been roundly debunked. First, UEA asked two independent review panels to assess the evidence. Both reviews were completed in 2010 and found no evidence for scientific malpractice. The panels' reports did make important recommendations about making climate science more transparent, but as the one of those reports concluded, "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments." The Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in turn issued two reports on the UEA reviews, broadly accepting the panels' recommendations for greater openness and transparency.

Now the U.K. government, represented by the Government Office for Science, has produced its own response. In a May 5 memo to Parliament, the government wrote: "After two independent reviews, and two reviews by the Science and Technology Committee, we find no evidence to question the scientific basis of human influence on the climate."

A broad range of evidentiary sources in a landmark 2007 IPCC report and "an almost continuous body of publications in the academic literature" all point in the same direction, the governmental memo stated, showing that "the evidence for human induced climate change continues to grow and that the perceptions of future climate risk are not diminishing."

Ultimately, it is doubtful that the governmental proclamation will have any significant influence on the debate. Those who believe the planet is warming are already supported by scientific consensus and by a wealth of climate data, and those who believe a conspiracy is afoot to suppress conflicting data will hardly be swayed by a formal statement to the contrary from a government body.

Scientific American Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting RMuller:


You see how you twist things? I said I'd like to enlarge a photo of your head and use it for target practice. Big difference than threatening to shoot you in the head. Can't seem to tell the truth, eh? That's what happens when your entire life is devoted to twisting facts and living in delusion.

As far as your "formula," it's ridiculous and would only occur in your world. Plants like warmth. As long as enough precipitation comes with the heat, then plants grow.

Okay, so you didn't wish to discuss science with civility? That's too bad; I was really hoping for something more productive. Ah, well.

(BTW, if saying you'd "like to enlarge a photo of my head and use it for target practice" isn't a threat, you should call up the U.S. Secret Service and tell them you wish to do that with the President, then let us know how that works out for you.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting RMuller:
Here's another unbelievable "warmist" story. Stanford University says crop yields are increasing, but would have increased more if not for "climate change." They determine this by using "crop models." I kid you not.

Link

Hmmm, I could've swore we discussed this just last evening (shortly before you became frustrated and expressed your desire to shoot me in the head). Here's the formula I presented then. Learn it. Know it. Live it:

More CO2 = greater plant growth.
More CO2 = greater heat.
Greater heat = lower crop yields.
Lower crop yields due to heat > CO2-caused growth.

Therefore:
CO2 = lower crop yields.

Aye preguntas?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting Snowlover123:


So you believe a natural cycle caused it, and there was no negative feedback to snuff out the warming from CO2. Okay. How this this different from what skeptics are claiming, that natural factors are the primary driver of today's Global Climate?

OBVIOUSLY climate variations in the past were natural. Man wasn't around, or at least didn't have enough of an impact, to significantly alter climate before the industrial revolution.

This is entirely different from skeptics claims because in the past we are not entirely sure what may have caused an ice age, or warm period; however, now days we can measure natural things.

Clearly in the last 50 years, earth has been hit by no significant asteroids, there have been no super volcanoes, solar output has not increased, and earth has not undergone any cycles in orbit pattern.

And yet earth is still warming. So it has to be man or a natural oscillation. However, if it were because of the PDO or AMO or some other oscillation, we would see temperatures cycle. So far, temps have only continued up

You seem to be missing my point. I have never said that the negative feedbacks will cause cooling in the co2 system. I said that the warming effect of co2 will be cancelled out by the negative feedbacks. To show proof of this, I will use a graph that MikeSTL himself presented.


I'm not missing your point at all. For CO2's feedback loops to cancel out the warming created through the GHG theory, you would need a net total effect of all of CO2's feedbacks to be cooling.

I'm trying to tell you CO2's feedbacks are not understood well enough to outright make that claim, and additionally, there is no correlation between high CO2 levels and cooling. If anything, it's the opposite. Meaning there is no causal evidence, nor correlation evidence.




Note that the lower range of the GCC feedback, is equal to the forcing from co2. I have demonstrated multiple times that the net effect of clouds is cooling, but I will do so once more.



So the negative feedback of the clouds, is equal, or even more powerful than the actual forcing of Carbon Dioxide.

I must critique the Water Vapour graph, however, and I explain from an earlier post:

--------
...Clouds and water vapour are not different feedbacks. This is what happens when there are warmer oceans- they release more water vapour- which is true. However, the AGW theory missed a key piece of the puzzle in basic meteorology.


Evaporation is caused when water is exposed to air and the liquid molecules turn into water vapor, which rises up and forms clouds.

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

The water vapour forms clouds. So most of the water vapour is lost in the process of cloud formation. The positive water vapour feedback that CAGW advocates like to throw around a lot, is not there.



h/t to cyclonebuster- this is NOAA data.

Where is the supposed increase in SH if water vapour is supposed to increase due to increased co2?
--------



The negative feedbacks would cancel the warming from the co2, so there would be no forcing from co2. Co2 would not cause cooling.


Ok, you made your point, the net effect of clouds is cooling. But what about the other dozens of CO2 feedback loops?

See what I mean, yet? CO2's feedbacks are not understood well enough to claim they cause cooling, and enough cooling to further cancel out the warming effect brought on by the GHG theory.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting TomTaylor:
Are you serious?

It could have been an asteroid, super volcano, solar fluctuation...


So you believe a natural cycle caused it, and there was no negative feedback to snuff out the warming from CO2. Okay. How this this different from what skeptics are claiming, that natural factors are the primary driver of today's Global Climate?

Quoting TomTaylor:

To even consider it was possibly co2 is very foolish because the combination of all of co2s feedbacks is not known.


You seem to be missing my point. I have never said that the negative feedbacks will cause cooling in the co2 system. I said that the warming effect of co2 will be cancelled out by the negative feedbacks. To show proof of this, I will use a graph that MikeSTL himself presented.



Note that the lower range of the GCC feedback, is equal to the forcing from co2. I have demonstrated multiple times that the net effect of clouds is cooling, but I will do so once more.



So the negative feedback of the clouds, is equal, or even more powerful than the actual forcing of Carbon Dioxide.

I must critique the Water Vapour graph, however, and I explain from an earlier post:

--------
...Clouds and water vapour are not different feedbacks. This is what happens when there are warmer oceans- they release more water vapour- which is true. However, the AGW theory missed a key piece of the puzzle in basic meteorology.


Evaporation is caused when water is exposed to air and the liquid molecules turn into water vapor, which rises up and forms clouds.

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

The water vapour forms clouds. So most of the water vapour is lost in the process of cloud formation. The positive water vapour feedback that CAGW advocates like to throw around a lot, is not there.



h/t to cyclonebuster- this is NOAA data.

Where is the supposed increase in SH if water vapour is supposed to increase due to increased co2?
--------

Quoting TomTaylor:

With regards to the total effect of co2s feedbacks, there is no causal nor correlation evidence indicating cooling. So, to say the combination of all co2 feedback causes cooling is simply false.


The negative feedbacks would cancel the warming from the co2, so there would be no forcing from co2. Co2 would not cause cooling.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:
To say that the Arctic Oscillation has been positive recently doesn't do it justice:



Most positive 3 month average in 21 years!


Another chart that needs to be rescaled upwards and not downwards I see.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting iceagecoming:


Happened before and will happen again despite all
our good intentions.


It could be a good thing as well!

A Brain for All Seasons
Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change
by William H. Calvin

One of the most shocking scientific realizations of all time has slowly been dawning on us: the earth's climate does great flip-flops every few thousand years, and with breathtaking speed. Many times in the lives of our ancestors, the climate abruptly cooled, just within several years. Worse, there was much less rainfall in many places, together with high winds and severe dust storms. Many forests, already doing poorly from the cool summers, dried up in the ensuing decade. Animal populations crashed—and likely early human populations as well. Lightning strikes surely ignited giant forest fires, denuding large areas even in the tropics, on a far greater scale than seen during an El Ni˜o because of the unusual winds. Sometimes this was only the first step of a descent into a madhouse century of flickering climate.

Our ancestors lived through hundreds of such episodes—but each became a population bottleneck, one that eliminated most of their relatives. We are the improbable descendants of those who survived—and later thrived.

And that's precisely the point we "alarmists" have been trying to raise for years anytime someone claims that CO2 levels and temperatures have risen or fallen rapidly in the past: the fossil record shows that every single one of those rapid rises in CO2 and temperature throughout earth's history has been accompanied by extinctions of a lesser or greater degree. Now, does anyone except for a few apocalypticans and survivalists really want to help usher in such an event?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Solid scientific evidence of rapid warming #729:

Climate Change Effects in Arctic More Extensive than Expected: New study reveals that the winter season has become almost two weeks shorter

The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years. As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter – in just a few decades.

In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees. "There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw", says Margareta Johansson.

Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost. "Our data shows that there is significantly more than previously thought. There is approximately double the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere today", says Johansson.

"But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this. With the knowledge we have today we cannot say for sure whether the thawing tundra will absorb or produce more greenhouse gases in the future", says Margareta Johansson.

Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic's albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.

The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.

U.S. News & World Report Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting MichaelSTL:


I thought of that, but I thought they were supposed to account for that, hence why you sometimes see damage that looks like EF4/5 be rated lower since it was found that some substandard construction was used. Of course, as I said, that is one problem with rating tornadoes, since only damage is considered and the actual winds are unknown - look at the differences between the original and enhanced Fujita scales. Also, what happens if a tornado in an open field with no damage (though apparently trees can be used to rate up to EF3, no idea about just open space though) has EF5 strength winds measured - is it rated as an EF0 because that was the damage; this could become more common with the popularity of storm chasing.

My point is that while modern-day tornado assessments are adjusted for bias due to substandard construction practices or materials, 40 years ago when the Fujita scale was new, that didn't seem to be the case--and even less so when that scale was applied to buildings that had been destroyed two decades or more earlier.

I guess the scale really is a but too subjective, or was in the earlier days of its use. Many historic hurricanes have had Saffir-Simpson numbers retroactively applied to them based on limited contemporary accounts, so while they're certainly not all in error, I've a feeling some likely are.

The whole "no damage so no rating" thing seems a bit too subjective, as well; it's as if the NHC said, "Yeah, that hurricane had a two-mile-wide eye, a central pressure of 890 mb, and winds of 200 mph--but it stayed over open ocean and didn't hit anything, so let's just call it, say, a Cat 1." ;-)

I do hope, as you say, that storm-chasers with proper instrumentation, in concert with better knowledge and understanding of tornadoes, will go a long way toward helping us get a far better picture of the things in the future.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting martinitony:


Your remarks just reinforce what I think many here already know. You use character assassination because you can't take the facts where you want to go. Doing what you do, the character assassination, makes you into a very small and pathetic person.

Again with the ad hominem attacks directed at me? I'm sorry; I thought you and I were engaged in a somewhat productive conversation.

Guess not. So my final word before I leave you to your thoughts: questioning the credibility of someone called as an expert witness is in no way "character assassination". Now, Bell lost all his climate credibility years ago when he sold it to Big Oil and Big Gas; if someone wishes to use Bell's antiscience opinions to validate their own in a public forum, I have the right--in fact, I have the duty--to highlight Bell's loss of credibility.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yes, I do "deny the accuracy of what stated in the edited article"; political nonsense, even when edited, is still nonsense, especially when it's written by oft-debunked Big Energy shills who have a long and storied history of fudging their credentials. Hey, I don't blame Ball for re-releasing his warmed-over piece; the man has to keep his pro-pollution dollars coming in, as he's no longer a practicing scientist, so he needs to pen any denialist rants he can. But I do blame those who claim to have intellectual honesty for relying solely on such tripe.


Your remarks just reinforce what I think many here already know. You use character assassination because you can't take the facts where you want to go. Doing what you do, the character assassination, makes you into a very small and pathetic person.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
What I posted already had that portion retracted. So, your post was unnecessary and stated nothing relevant to my post. Do you deny the accuracy of what stated in the edited article? I didn't think so.

Yes, I do "deny the accuracy of what stated in the edited article"; political nonsense, even when edited, is still nonsense, especially when it's written by oft-debunked Big Energy shills who have a long and storied history of fudging their credentials. Hey, I don't blame Ball for re-releasing his warmed-over piece; the man has to keep his pro-pollution dollars coming in, as he's no longer a practicing scientist, so he needs to pen any denialist rants he can. But I do blame those who claim to have intellectual honesty for relying solely on such tripe.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting Neapolitan:

I can only assume you're not aware that even the hard-right Canada Free Press website had to issue a full apology and a complete retraction of this article after it was first published back in January. The CFP's web page with the retraction appears to have been deleted (imagine that), but it's been cached elsewhere.

"I sincerely apologize...and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article." -- Dr. Tim Ball

Bottom line: Ball is another in a long line of denialists and non-practicing scientists whose views appear to have been skewed by the work they do and the money they receive as scientific advisors for and promoters of various oil and gas companies.


Here is the retraction you spoke of:

Retraction via Canada Free Press

On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1)never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.”

That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk.

CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.

CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.
REPORT


What I posted already had that portion retracted. So, your post was unnecessary and stated nothing relevant to my post. Do you deny the accuracy of what stated in the edited article? I didn't think so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


Warming temperatures are reducing yields? What a crock. With all of this talk of increasing CO2, don't plants require CO2 to thrive? More carbon dioxide is a boon to plants. I've seen satellite shots that show the green plants on the planet have increased many-fold. Of course in this "new" world where warm causes cold, simply thinking logically is now counter-intuitive. In essence, the warmists want it both ways and want to convince us that all prior known science is no longer applicable. Greenies have reinvented the scientific method.


Happened before and will happen again despite all
our good intentions.


It could be a good thing as well!

A Brain for All Seasons
Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change
by William H. Calvin

One of the most shocking scientific realizations of all time has slowly been dawning on us: the earth's climate does great flip-flops every few thousand years, and with breathtaking speed. Many times in the lives of our ancestors, the climate abruptly cooled, just within several years. Worse, there was much less rainfall in many places, together with high winds and severe dust storms. Many forests, already doing poorly from the cool summers, dried up in the ensuing decade. Animal populations crashed—and likely early human populations as well. Lightning strikes surely ignited giant forest fires, denuding large areas even in the tropics, on a far greater scale than seen during an El Ni˜o because of the unusual winds. Sometimes this was only the first step of a descent into a madhouse century of flickering climate.

Our ancestors lived through hundreds of such episodes—but each became a population bottleneck, one that eliminated most of their relatives. We are the improbable descendants of those who survived—and later thrived.


Brings up all sorts of issues
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Brett Who?


I say a discussion on "tunnels" are in order.
Where is NRA, she provided a fantasticinsight. Reading back in March you sure hit the nail on the head
on Gas Prices too. I have a coworker who is converting
his Avalanche to Natural Gas in Salt Lake City. $1.19 a gallon.

Thanks BHO.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years
by DR. TIM BALL on MAY 5, 2011

Blah, blah, blah...

I can only assume you're not aware that even the hard-right Canada Free Press website had to issue a full apology and a complete retraction of this article after it was first published back in January. The CFP's web page with the retraction appears to have been deleted (imagine that), but it's been cached elsewhere.

"I sincerely apologize...and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article." -- Dr. Tim Ball

Bottom line: Ball is another in a long line of denialists and non-practicing scientists whose views appear to have been skewed by the work they do and the money they receive as scientific advisors for and promoters of various oil and gas companies.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
A Grandstanding Attorney General: Why Ken Cuccinelli should drop his misguided case against climatologist Michael Mann

What does Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli hope to find in the files from climatologist Michael Mann’s tenure at the University of Virginia? Presumably something subtle, such as an e-mail from Mann reading, "I can’t believe Virginia was dumb enough to give me state money on the basis of that pack of lies I wrote about global warming."

It’s doubtful Mann’s files contain such a smoking gun. And from a legal standpoint, the hunt for one reveals the weakness in Cuccinelli’s case.

Recently the ACLU of Virginia and three other groups filed an amicus brief in the case. In it, they reiterate a point made by the Albemarle judge who first turned down Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s papers: "The court noted that the Attorney General’s own counsel could not clearly identify the ‘nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation’ " of the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. In short, Cuccinelli has not said how Mann supposedly broke the law.

This is no minor detail. It’s like accusing someone of murder, and then trying to find a corpse. Or asking the cop who pulls you over, "What’d I do wrong, officer?" and hearing him reply, "I dunno yet. Pop the trunk and let me have a look inside, would ya?"

Some of those who support the AG’s demand reason as follows: (1) Mann’s scientific conclusions have been questioned. (2) Mann took state money. (3) Therefore, the state may investigate Mann’s work. The skeptics seem to hope Cuccinelli will audit Mann’s entire body of work and find it flawed, thereby calling the whole theory of global warming into doubt. But the AG is not empowered to do anything like that; he is not a grand inquisitor putting all of climate science on trial. His job is to enforce the law. To that end, he should have some concrete grounds for thinking the law has been broken. Cuccinelli doesn’t.

Indeed, the AG forthrightly acknowledges that is why he has issued a Civil Investigative Demand for Mann’s papers in the first place: He wants to see if any grounds exist to bring charges. But this is like asking for a search warrant without probable cause, just on the off chance that something might turn up. That might be kosher in totalitarian states and Latin American juntas. In the U.S., the authorities are supposed to have more to go on than the fact that they don’t like the cut of somebody’s jib.

Cuccinelli’s defenders are right when they point out that waving the banner of "academic freedom" does not give professors at public universities blanket immunity. But that is a straw man. Nobody has said it does. And if Cuccinelli had reason to think Mann had spent his grant money on fast cars and loose women rather than on the research he was paid to do, then nobody would object to his investigation. That is precisely the sort of activity the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act is supposed to stop.

Global-warming skeptics are...so eager to see climate alarmists impugned that they don’t care who does it. But if they prevail in this star-chamber case, then they will have won what they profess to abhor: an increase in government’s scope.

Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years
by DR. TIM BALL on MAY 5, 2011
in ATMOSPHERE,DATA,GOVERNMENT,POLITICS
Traditionally, the older scientists held to the prevailing wisdom and were challenged by the new, skeptical graduates looking for wider answers. In climatology, the opposite has happened. The so-called skeptics challenging the prevailing wisdom are the professors who have researched and taught the subject for 30 years or longer. Their knowledge is much wider than that of the new young scientists because climate science has stagnated for thirty years. All the funding was directed to only one side of climate science, and that was the side promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and accepted as the ‘official science’ by governments.

It’s now frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming. I wrote this sentence before I saw a paper from Michigan State University that found,

Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle – an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change.

The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It’s not surprising, and caused by three major factors:

a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;
the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; and
funding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.
The dogmatism of politics and religion combined to suppress openness of ideas and the advance of knowledge critical to science.

We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education. Because of them, the public is ill-informed, doesn’t understand the problem, and doesn’t even know the questions to ask. Correcting the education process will take time, because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise. Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and the lack of qualified replacements. Even if achieved, success is unlikely because there is the massive problem of inadequate data.

Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, and deliberate loss of data were all done to predetermine and justify results. This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data. In his autobiography, Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 1972 because

…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.

The situation is worse now, sadly, due to the people at the CRU and government weather agencies.

The blame begins with the political manipulations of Maurice Strong, but he only succeeded because of the so-called climate scientists. Among them, computer modelers caused the biggest problem. They needed to know the most, but knew the least. If they knew anything, they would know there is inadequate data and understanding of the major components and mechanisms on which to build the models.

A former editor of an enlightened environmental journal said we need a committee of scientists from the many disciplines involved in climate science. Such a committee existed 25 years ago, and produced groundbreaking work. It was a joint project funded by The National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada under the title Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 Years. Each year a specific topic was considered, and scientists presented material that was published in Syllogeus. For example, Syllogeus 55 examined Critical Periods in the Quaternary of Climatic History of Northern North America. All the problems that plague climate science, such as tree rings, ice cores, circulation patterns, and proxy data, among many others, were identified and researched. In the last meeting, I was elected Chair, and in my acceptance speech I said we needed to consider, carefully and scientifically, the claims of global warming. Environment Canada cut the funding, apparently, because it challenged the political position the agency had already taken; the project died. Canada should reconstitute it, because it was producing useful and non-political science.

People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years. They should all read H.H. Lamb’s monumental two-volume set Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now (1972) and Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future (1977).

They’d learn that all issues now put forward as ‘new’ are not new at all. They only appear new because of the black hole that politicians, aided by a few climatically uneducated political scientists, have dragged climate science into over the last 30 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

Hey Brett, why don't you tell us that one about the galactic center of the galaxy again? I'm thinking a little comic relief would do us all some good.



Brett Who?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Love the swing-around personal attacks there...that's pretty low, even for you. (suggesting to use one's head for target practice? I doubt Mr. Rood is going to tolerate that.)

1. No, he is not my significant other.
2. I'm the smartest gnat of all the gnats I know.
3. I most definitely would say it in person.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RMuller:


Why did you choose to disable comments on your photo if you were receiving 20-1 support for your views? My comment would be to put a target on that giant cranium so we could enlarge the pic for target practice.


you bonehead!! NO ONE can make comments on ANY of the avatars!!!

And at least he HAS something in his cranium!!!

BLEEAAHHHH!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


What do you think it could have been, if it is not a product of a negative feedback overwhelming the warming from co2, and then a natural cycle creating cooling?
Are you serious?

It could have been an asteroid, super volcano, solar fluctuation, other gases released through any number of processes.

To even consider it was possibly co2 is very foolish because the combination of all of co2s feedbacks is not known. So there is no causal relationship. Additionally there is no correlation either as we see co2 level rising at the moment, and temps are not declining.

With regards to the total effect of co2s feedbacks, there is no causal nor correlation evidence indicating cooling. So, to say the combination of all co2 feedback causes cooling is simply false.

Unless you can prove otherwise, this means that the total effect of all of co2's feedback loops does not cancel out its warming effect created through the ghg effect.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting TomTaylor:

Co2 levels were 10x higher, but you're falsely assuming its a result of co2s feedback.


Reality is it could be any number of factors, which proves your idea that the total result of all of its feedback loops cause cooling.


What do you think it could have been, if it is not a product of a negative feedback overwhelming the warming from co2, and then a natural cycle creating cooling?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Note the uncertainty bars - all are well within the ranges for each forcing/feedback, thus we have a VERY good idea of just what their effects are. But most of all for CO2.

Only clueless people like Lindzen argue that some magical "iris effect" acts as a negative feedback to counteract warming (hmmm... I wonder how they explain past climate then?), which of course, isn't indicated as being even a remote possibility here (cloud feedback, which even at the lower end is about equal to the CO2 forcing)


Mike, I believe that you are mistaken. First of all, clouds and water vapour are not different feedbacks. This is what happens when there are warmer oceans- they release more water vapour- which is true. However, the AGW theory missed a key piece of the puzzle in basic meteorology.


Evaporation is caused when water is exposed to air and the liquid molecules turn into water vapor, which rises up and forms clouds.


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

The water vapour forms clouds. So most of the water vapour is lost in the process of cloud formation. The positive water vapour feedback that CAGW advocates like to throw around a lot, is not there.



h/t to cyclonebuster- this is NOAA data.

Where is the supposed increase in SH if water vapour is supposed to increase due to increased co2? It is lost in cloud formation, which I have gone over, has a net cooling impact.



Quoting MichaelSTL:

(hmmm... I wonder how they explain past climate then?)


Well MikeSTL, I was going to ask you that same question with the paleoclimatological ice core data. During a time in climatic history 450 million years ago, CO2 concentrations were 10X as high as they were now, but we were in an Ice Age. If co2 is the primary driver of climate, natural cycles can not overpower co2 warming, and the co2 feedbacks are all positive, how did we get an Ice Age 450 million years ago?



Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting RMuller:


Warming temperatures are reducing yields? What a crock. With all of this talk of increasing CO2, don't plants require CO2 to thrive? More carbon dioxide is a boon to plants. I've seen satellite shots that show the green plants on the planet have increased many-fold. Of course in this "new" world where warm causes cold, simply thinking logically is now counter-intuitive. In essence, the warmists want it both ways and want to convince us that all prior known science is now longer applicable. Greenies have reinvented the scientific method.

Did you not read the abstract or the article? The author wrote, "CO2 also helps rice, soybeans and wheat grow. In fact, the researchers suggest the extra CO2 boosted yields for these crops by roughly 3 percent during the period studied. Unfortunately, in the case of wheat, that wasn't enough to overcome the loss in yields resulting from warming temperatures." IOW, the researchers found that the extra CO2 is beneficial to some crops. However, those gains in growth couldn't compensate for the loss due to heat. Here's a handy formula:

More CO2 = greater plant growth.
More CO2 = greater heat.
More heat = lower crop yields.
Lower crop yields due to heat > CO2-caused growth.

Therefore:
CO2 = lower crop yields.

Simple, no?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805

Viewing: 482 - 432

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.