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: 382 - 332

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

Quoting HaloReachFan:


That is a blatant lie.

He doesn't say anything in his article about immigration, muslim or obama.

I did a Apple F search on it and nothing came up in the article.

Well you did say elsewhere but hate to break it to ya but it wasn't him.

What other things are you lying about?

I specifically used the words "elsewhere on the page", not "elsewhere in the article". The point being, the writer hardly approaches the issue of warming with an objective scientific eye; his entire blog is driven by a certain political ideology, and that has a way of poisoning one's own well.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting Neapolitan:

He then goes on to admit that he doesn't understand how climatology works, and this is before he goes into various anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Obama, antiscience tirades elsewhere on the page.y.


That is a blatant lie.

He doesn't say anything in his article about immigration, muslim or obama.

I did a Apple F search on it and nothing came up in the article.

Well you did say elsewhere but hate to break it to ya but it wasn't him.

What other things are you lying about?
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting RMuller:
It's really amusing to see Neapolitan post max and min temperatures continuously. According to this site and NOAA there haven't been many max temps.

Link

Oh, so a guy with a B.A. in sociology and an M.S. in operations management writes a post at a now defunct blog in which he claims--without providing a shred of proof--that temperature data that shows warming has been manipulated, while data that shows cooling, or a lack of warming, is perfectly kosher. He then goes on to admit that he doesn't understand how climatology works, and this is before he goes into various anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Obama, antiscience tirades elsewhere on the page.

But I really can't blame you for posting this, given that denialists have little to support their beliefs beyond baseless right-wing rants from non-scientists. But still...

FWIW, the data I so often post is right from the horse's mouth: a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.ph p
">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.php. Now, if you're inclined to believe that any and all government data is suspect, you shouldn't even bother going there; it's just boring science facts and stuff anyway.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
I see a one month chip in ones future as well
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129848
Quit drinking the kool-aid people. Open your eyes. Inform yourselves. Don't let people do it for you. Just because you see sirmaelstrom or Cat5Hurricane say there isn't AWG or Neo or MichaelSTL saying there is don't take it from them. It is your choice to decide what is going on not their decision to decide for you. That's where they seem to think it is and by them I don't mean the first 2 people I posted.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting Neapolitan:

While your sucking on your candy machine lollipop, consider this: it's getting warmer by the day, and with no end in sight. So whether you go back one year (2010 was the warmest on record), ten years (the last decade was the warmest on record), 40 years (each decade since 1970 has been warmer than the previous one), 100 years (many modern-day temperature records began roughly a century ago, and last year was the warmest since then), 351 years (Central England has been maintaining weather records that long), 500 years (borehole measurements show that the planet hasn't been this consistently warm for as far back as such measurements are valid), a thousand years (proxy data clear show that the 20th century was the warmest of the last ten, and the 21st century is off to a heck of a start), ten-thousand years (proxy data here show that it hasn't been that warm in at least that long), or 100,000 years (ice core samples show that the earth hasn't been this warm during that time, nor has it ever warmed up anywhere near this fast during any interglacial), the result is always the same: the planet is warming, and warming rapidly.

That's a bit more than 29 years, so deny it at your peril.

Now back to your sucker... ;-)


This came from CycloneBuster at one point in time.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Seems like we've been warmer before. Without MMGW.

I know this isn't 100% right. But still gets a point across that the world has been warmer. Not because of me or you.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I'll take the Nobel Peace Prize I hear they give them out in candy machines now :)

Thanks for answering the question. Going back only 29 or so years is not AWG sorry.

While your sucking on your candy machine lollipop, consider this: it's getting warmer by the day, and with no end in sight. So whether you go back one year (2010 was the warmest on record), ten years (the last decade was the warmest on record), 40 years (each decade since 1970 has been warmer than the previous one), 100 years (many modern-day temperature records began roughly a century ago, and last year was the warmest since then), 351 years (Central England has been maintaining weather records that long), 500 years (borehole measurements show that the planet hasn't been this consistently warm for as far back as such measurements are valid), a thousand years (proxy data clear show that the 20th century was the warmest of the last ten, and the 21st century is off to a heck of a start), ten-thousand years (proxy data here show that it hasn't been that warm in at least that long), or 100,000 years (ice core samples show that the earth hasn't been this warm during that time, nor has it ever warmed up anywhere near this fast during any interglacial), the result is always the same: the planet is warming, and warming rapidly.

That's a bit more than 29 years, so deny it at your peril.

Now back to your sucker... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting Snowlover123:


Yes, it does look chilly in NY state, but that is weather and not climate.


I understand but it shouldn't be this cold this year. Felt like winter down here this morning.

Quoting sirmaelstrom:


LOL. Very familiar...Funny, at least to me...but very familiar...


YUP.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting HaloReachFan:
BRRRRRRRRRRRRR



Yes, it does look chilly in NY state, but that is weather and not climate.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting HaloReachFan:
BRRRRRRRRRRRRR



LOL. Very familiar...Funny, at least to me...but very familiar...
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Snowlover, Post 266

co2 feedbacks:


So if you agree that they're not understood well enough and are not all discovered yet, why did you claim the total affection co2s feedback negates the warming caused by the ghg theory???

Idk how you can claim that when you yourself admit there are probably feedback loops we've yet to discover, and the effect of the ones we have discovered aren't completely known.

CONCLUSION:

Clearly you can't claim the total affect of ALL of co2s feedback loops is cooling, for CO2 feedback loops are not understood well enough.

Argo


I agree they have the most reliable data. But we are discussing climate trends.5 years is not enough time. If you think it is, I have already told you many times that Argo themselves claimed OHC has been increasing. They're initial study showed cooling, but a new study that didn't include the errors of the previous study, showed warming.

ALL OF THIS is on Argo's website, if you do not believe me.

CONCLUSION:

Argo data isn't long enough to make any climate trend conclusions, however if you think it is, it shows warming. Source: they're own website


Oscillations

Oscillations do not cause any warming or cooling of the total heat of Earth. You claim feedback loops create additional warming by changing albedo levels, however, THE SAME IS TRUE, for the opposite.

Meaning when an oscillation is in its cold phase, feedback loops create additional cooling. Ex: cooling allows ice to form creating greater albedo, cooling temps in the area, allowing more ice to form, further decreasing albedo, creating more cooling.

In a sense, they balance out.


CONCLUSION: The net effects of the feedbacks cancel out, having NO EFFECT on the total heat of Earth.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting Neapolitan:

No. But before you go off on the whole "consistent instrumentation is the only way to ensure accuracy" argument, I'd suggest you take your grievance to the UK Met Office; I bet they never even considered the fact that they are using different thermometers now than they did back in the 1600s, so they'd probably give you an award or something for pointing that out to them. ;-)


I'll take the Nobel Peace Prize I hear they give them out in candy machines now :)

Thanks for answering the question. Going back only 29 or so years is not AWG sorry.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Wait are you using the same exact way of getting those temperatures every year?

No. But before you go off on the whole "consistent instrumentation is the only way to ensure accuracy" argument, I'd suggest you take your grievance to the UK Met Office; I bet they never even considered the fact that they are using different thermometers now than they did back in the 1600s, so they'd probably give you an award or something for pointing that out to them. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting Neapolitan:

The warmest April in at least 352 years. That sure doesn't sound like incipient cooling to me.


Wait are you using the same exact way of getting those temperatures every year?
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting TomTaylor:
A spike is statistically insignificant with regards to climate trends. What really matters in that graph is the overall trend.


Correct. The satellite trend shows a positive trend in Sea Level. It is just nice to keep track of how our Sea Level compares to other years, that's all.

Quoting TomTaylor:

ARGO:

In case you still haven't got the message, ARGO admitted themselves,


And I agreed with you to a degree that it has not been long enough to show trends,but is the most reliable data that we have, which is why I trust it more than anything else. According to the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, we should have been continuing to gain heat over the past 8 years.
Why have we not?

QUOTE

A recently published estimate of Earth%u2019s global warming trend is 0.63 %uFFFD 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993-2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003-200 warming/cooling rate because of a %u201Cflattening%u201D that occurred around 2001-2002. Using only 2003-2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from %u20130.010 to %u20130.161 W/m2 with a typical error bar of %uFFFD0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

/QUOTE

Quoting TomTaylor:

They're data hasn't been around long enough. Simple as that. If you use other data, here is the graph



You can not compare ARGO measurements to older data that is bound to have significant error margins in it, as the way we were measuring OHC before ARGO was significantly less accurate and precise.

Quoting TomTaylor:

In case you still haven't figured this out yet, oscillations only move around heat, they do nothing to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations.

Also, the proof is in the pudding, both Ocean heat content, AND surface temps are rising. So clearly, an oscillation is NOT to blame for the warming.


You seem to be missing the key point that I have made with the oceanic oscillations. You are correct that they move heat around, however it is a FEEDBACK that accounts for the warming and cooling impact the oceanic oscillations have- and that is the Arctic. When there are warmer than normal oceanic currents, the Arctic melts, and gains more OHC, sinc more ocean is exposed. It is as clear as day, when one looks at the Arctic temperatures.



Note that the Arctic, according to the most reliable data- the satellite data was COOLING until 1993. This is EXACTLY when the AMO turned positive.

Also note that Antarctica has slightly cooled since 1979, according to the satellite data.



When more ocean is exposed, it is harder for the oceanic oscillations to cool the Arctic, due to the open ocean already exposed by the warm ocean currents, so therefore, the Arctic, overall gains OHC.

Quoting TomTaylor:

Ocean Heat content:


Even that SkepticalScience graph can not hide that there has been no OHC gain over the past decade. Why could that be? The AGW Theory says that we should rapidly gain OHC, yet we have not gained any over the past decade.

Quoting TomTaylor:

This is the last time I will repeat this, co2s feedback loops are not understood well enough to go outright and claim the net effect of all those feedback loops is cooling. All of the feedback loops you mentioned are not just acted on by co2 and have many more profound complications then you, or any scientist is aware of. If you want to keep on insisting that they are understood well enough, I'm just going to ignore it.


I have not claimed that they are understood, in fact, I have claimed that they are not. I have mentioned a few powerful negative feedbacks that could stop CAGW from occuring. That is all. I did not claim that there were no positive feedbacks. And I believe that there are many feedbacks in Carbon Dioxide, in which we have yet to discover.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TomTaylor:
month.

Also, did you see post 330?


I did, however I had to go to school, so I did not have adequate time to respond.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:
A BBC Weather Centre spokesman said: "The UK-wide records began in 1910, but the central England temperature series goes back to 1659, making it the warmest April here for over 350 years."

The warmest April in at least 352 years?! Wow! That sure doesn't sound like incipient cooling to me.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
BRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Seems some have missed the boat on Climate Change science as it stands today..

No worry,another Ferry will be along soon and you can catch up with the rest of the scientific community.

LoL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129848
Quoting cat5hurricane:
Again, there is no definitive, empirical evidence that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that man is responsible for the recent warming trend. It does not exist currently. Period. And while forecasters warn of the potential dangers years out, we'll still quite a bit far from those time frames.



I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed my request: can you please post links to any of those thousands of signals you know of that indicate a leveling off of warming? I promise you I will read them with an open mind, as I always do--that is, the ones written by scientists and/or that don't start off with the line "Al Gore is a big fat alarmist liar". ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting MichaelSTL:
"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.

That statement makes it sound as if 2010 was cooler than the previous six years. Of course, that isn't the case:



Note also that this goes through March and the 12 month mean is still rising (unlike the last La Nina; the mid-latitude SH is also still near record highs, interesting also that the area where most people live, the mid-latitude NH, has more or less flatlined since 1995, even as other areas have continued to warm; maybe because of increased aerosols from China, or just natural(?) variability accelerating Arctic warming at the expense of southern areas).

I think that was just unintentionally ambiguous language by the reporter; 2010 was definitely a warm one in the Arctic.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting Snowlover123:


Seriously? You expect me to see that insignificant change in Sea Level without magnifying the image a lot? Maybe you're right... I do need glasses ;)
glad you think so too. If you read the end of the post I said none of this really matters because a longer period of time is used to observe climate trends, not last month.

Also, did you see post 330?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
They growl from da porch,,but alas,,they havent a "dry bone of data" to support anything.

All the Science they have well,,is in their ideology.

Pffthh,

They like a broken 45 on a record player,,"da,dump,da,dump,da,dump"..

LoL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129848
Quoting cat5hurricane:
...there are thousands--if not more--signals that the earth is at the tail end of it's warming cycle, none of which have been proven to be the result of anthropogenic effects.

Really? Would you please so kind as to show us some of those signals? Because I read tons of stuff about this, and I haven't see a single indicator that we're at "the tail end" of anything. For instance, there's this news just from this morning that would seem to indicate that no such leveling off is occurring, nor about to:

"Quickening climate change in the Arctic including a thaw of Greenland's ice could raise world sea levels by up to 1.6 meters by 2100, an international report showed on Tuesday.

"Such a rise -- above most past scientific estimates -- would add to threats to coasts from Bangladesh to Florida, low-lying Pacific islands and cities from London to Shanghai. It would also, for instance, raise costs of building tsunami barriers in Japan.

"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.

The AMAP study, drawing on work by hundreds of experts, said there were signs that warming was accelerating. It said the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice free in summers within 30 to 40 years, earlier than projected by the IPCC.

As reflective ice and snow shrink, they expose ever bigger areas of darker water or soil. Those dark regions soak up ever more heat from the sun, in turn stoking a melt of the remaining ice and snow.

"There is evidence that two components of the Arctic cryosphere -- snow and sea ice -- are interacting with the climate system to accelerate warming," it said

(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-clim ate-arctic-idUSTRE7422YQ20110503)

It's getting warmer, and it's our fault. There's no data that indicate otherwise.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
U.S. daily temperature records for April, 2011
Record daily high temperatures: 2728 (1850 new; 878 tied)
Record daily high minimum temperatures: 3123 (2137 new; 986 tied)
Total record high temperatures: 5851 (3987 new; 1864 tied)
-------
Record daily low temperatures: 675 (378 new; 297 tied)
Record daily low minimum temperatures: 1298 (884 new; 414 tied)
Total record low temperatures: 1973 (1261 new; 711 tied)
-------
High temperature record/low temperature record ratio: 2.97 to 1

----------------------------------------------
U.S. daily temperature records for 2011 Year-To-Date as of 4/30/2011
Record daily high temperatures: 6699 (4582 new; 2117 tied)
Record daily high minimum temperatures: 6422 (4373 new; 2049 tied)
Total record high temperatures: 13121 (8955 new; 4166 tied)
-------
Record daily low temperatures: 3222 (2232 new; 990 tied)
Record daily low minimum temperatures: 5275 (3957 new; 1318 tied)
Total record low temperatures: 8497 (6189 new; 2308 tied)
-------
High temperature record/low temperature record ratio: 1.54 to 1

(All temperature record data from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.php)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I know I said I was going to take a few days off, but I would like to chime in for a bit.

Neapolitan, I hate to say it, but any socialist, communist, or dictator comment you bring upon yourself bud. Your political comments and analogies that you are so known for in Master's Blog really brought upon that reputation. And thus, credibility takes a hit. It's the nature of the beast, my friend.

However, my point is that much emphasis (and not just blaming you Neapolitan) is placed on sea surface temperatures. While temperatures at or near the surface are vital in the explanation much of the globe's weather and climate phenomenon, let's not forget about the many layers--and sub-layers--of the middle or deep sea depths that also are circulated throughout over decades of time.

Moreover, as someone once said "we don't know anywhere near the amount of data we would like to in regards to the sun". This is also true, as we know solar energy drives everything. Afterall, the only reason Michael's daily graphs are indicated warming are because the sun is moving closer to the equinox this time of year in the northern hemisphere, especially the arctic, where areas there are still gaining several minutes of daylight a day.

One of the great things about living in America is that each one of us is free to believe what we want to believe. If a grown man wants to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, that's his choice and his right. If he wants to believe that the duly-elected and fully-qualified President of the United States is an illegal alien, that's also his choice and his right. And if that grown man wants to reject decades of observation and study performed by thousands of honest, hard-working, disciplined, ethical, objective, educated, and experienced scientists, he or she is certainly free to do so.

Now, of course, believing in the Easter Bunny doesn't make it real. Believing that the President is not a natural-born citizen of the U.S. doesn't make that so. And believing that the planet isn't warming doesn't make that warming go away.

The simple scientific facts are, as has been demonstrated time and time and time again, the oceans are warming and the atmosphere is warming. There are literally thousands of signals that make it clear that warming is happening, and that it's happening quickly. Every single major credible science organization on the planet is in agreement with the basic tenets of the theory of AGW (it's warming quickly, and the unimpeded burning of fossil fuels is a--if not the--primary cause). But if a man wants to ignore all that and believe instead that those tens of thousands of scientists are plain wrong, that's his choice and his right. It doesn't make him correct. But that's how America works.

Quoting cat5hurricane:

Bottom line, we still have a lot more to learn about climate science...

Absolutely true.

Quoting cat5hurricane:

...before factual conclusions can be made.

Not remotely close to being true.

Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting TomTaylor:


6 Years? Really?!?!

" src="http://i51.tinypic.com/ac6clu.png">

you will see that in 2007, the sea surface height was actually lower than it was in the latest dip you are pointing out.


So, since when did 2011-2007 = 6???????????


But does any of this really matter? Nope. It's the trend that matters.


Seriously? You expect me to see that insignificant change in Sea Level without magnifying the image a lot? Maybe you're right... I do need glasses ;)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Ossqss:


Tell us the process used for the GISS homogenization and is it 1,200 KM smoothing they use? Clear it up for us.

Edit, on second thought, don't waste the PCO2 footprint credits there Adolf -- out>>>>>

Oh, I forgot; those stupid, dishonest, socialist, agenda-driven climate scientists over at NOAA aren't to be trusted, right?

And denialists wonder why they're ridiculed so mercilessly by the science community... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting MichaelSTL:
It is also funny to see satellite maps that show cooler than average temperatures over the oceans - when the latter are warmer than average - no way they can attribute that to UHI!




(the base period for the SST map is 1983-1998, 1979-1998 for RSS)

It is obvious that there are discrepancies between the two, for example what's up with that large area of cold temperatures in the North Atlantic, when SSTs are near or just slightly below average in that area? Or around Greenland (which was supposedly very cold itself)? Or the area around Japan (which is actually warmer than average in the SST data)?


Its about oscillation and Indoctrination folks...

And gone>>> I hate smart phones :P

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:
It is also funny to see satellite maps that show cooler than average temperatures over the oceans - when the latter are warmer than average - no way they can attribute that to UHI!




(the base period for the SST map is 1983-1998, 1979-1998 for RSS)

It is obvious that there are discrepancies between the two, for example what's up with that large area of cold temperatures in the North Atlantic, when SSTs are near or just slightly below average in that area? Or around Greenland (which was supposedly very cold itself)? Or the area around Japan (which is actually warmer than average in the SST data)?
Overall, looks like they agree better than I thought they would, honestly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


LOL



Take a look at the absicssa. It is the amount of time passed. Look at the Ordinate, which shows Sea Level. Note that the y value is the lowest it has been in 6 years, which means that Sea Level is the Lowest it's been in 6 years. It's not very hard.

Not one of you have proved that the large dip in Sea Level is wrong. All you have given are your unfounded assumption.

By the way, why are none of you questioning the unusual spike in Sea Level that occured in 2000-2001? It was an even higher change in Sea Level, then this current dip.
Sorry, but a short dip like this has as much meaning as Neapo's high temperature tally. Or Mikey's discussion of any individual month. It's weather.

Doesn't begin to be climactically interesting until the trend persists for a decade. Climactically important after, say, 60 years...in order to effectively measure the effect of at least one full cycle of some of the bigger ocean cycles. (For which we haven't any global measurements for, yet, in most of our data, thus most of our trends are merely climactically interesting.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Below normal for three months running? Wow! I'm shocked! Let's see what NOAA says about these below normal temperatures of which you speak:

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2011 was 0.38C (0.68F) above the 20th century average of 12.0C (53.6F). This is the 17th warmest January on record. (Here.)

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for February 2011 was 0.40C (0.72F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.9F). This ties for the 17th warmest such value on record. (Here.)

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2011 was the 13th warmest on record at 13.19C (55.78F), which is 0.49C (0.88F) above the 20th century average of 12.7C (54.9F). This was also the 35th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average. (Here.)

Oh, wait. Didn't you say below normal?

Uh-oh...


Tell us the process used for the GISS homogenization and is it 1,200 KM smoothing they use? Clear it up for us.

Edit, on second thought, don't waste the PCO2 footprint credits there Adolf -- out>>>>>
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
So why is it the global temp has been below normal for 3 months running? A fluke also? That should not happen in a warming world.

Below normal for three months running? Wow! I'm shocked! Let's see what NOAA says about these below normal temperatures of which you speak:

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2011 was 0.38C (0.68F) above the 20th century average of 12.0C (53.6F). This is the 17th warmest January on record. (Here.)

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for February 2011 was 0.40C (0.72F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.9F). This ties for the 17th warmest such value on record. (Here.)

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2011 was the 13th warmest on record at 13.19C (55.78F), which is 0.49C (0.88F) above the 20th century average of 12.7C (54.9F). This was also the 35th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average. (Here.)

Oh, wait. Didn't you say below normal?

Uh-oh...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13802
Quoting Ossqss:


So why is it the global temp has been below normal for 3 months running? A fluke also? That should not happen in a warming world.

Tell me, linear or logarithmic is the relationship with CO2 and temp?
None of the above.

Co2 is not the only factor which acts on global temperatures. Additionally, natural ossifications constantly alter the distribution of this heat, and since we only measure temperatures on the surface of the earth (not the entire heat content of the earth), we see wide fluctuations in temperature.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting MichaelSTL:
It is funny to see the deniers still focusing on what may be nothing more than a glitch in the (sea level) data, given that the data has had such blips in the past and other sea level charts/maps that I have seen don't show such a sharp drop (plus such a rapid drop seems physically unlikely). Kind of like when the NOAA-15 satellite failed late last year and the deniers used that to claim that massive cooling was occurring - even after Spencer himself explained the failure.


So why is it the global temp has been below normal for 3 months running? A fluke also? That should not happen in a warming world.

Tell me, linear or logarithmic is the relationship with CO2 and temp?

Per your Spencer comment, April data is on us soon

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/uah-temperatu re-update-for-march-2011-cooler-still-0-10-deg-c/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


LOL



Take a look at the absicssa. It is the amount of time passed. Look at the Ordinate, which shows Sea Level. Note that the y value is the lowest it has been in 6 years, which means that Sea Level is the Lowest it's been in 6 years. It's not very hard.

Not one of you have proved that the large dip in Sea Level is wrong. All you have given are your unfounded assumption.

By the way, why are none of you questioning the unusual spike in Sea Level that occured in 2000-2001? It was an even higher change in Sea Level, then this current dip.


6 Years? Really?!?!

Let's take a closer look




The red line is a straight line across the graph from the dip that you pointed out. It shows each and every time sea height levels have reached that height. The latest time being somewhere in 2007. And if you really look hard,



you will see that in 2007, the sea surface height was actually lower than it was in the latest dip you are pointing out.


So, since when did 2011-2007 = 6???????????


But does any of this really matter? Nope. It's the trend that matters.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358

Viewing: 382 - 332

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
43 °F
Mostly Cloudy

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.