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: 332 - 282

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

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: 4357
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.
A spike is statistically insignificant with regards to climate trends. What really matters in that graph is the overall trend.

Quoting Snowlover123:


I would agree, if it was not the most reliable data that we have. But unfortunately, the most reliable data that we have starts in 2003, and ARGO is an extremely effective way to measure the OHC, since they are deployed all over the ocean. This is why I trust ARGO measurements, even though they have een deployed for such a short amount of time.






If you were to use the black line, yes. If you were to use the Grey line, no. You can not base conclusions on one study if there is another study that directly contradicts it.




Here is a nice Paper by Dr. William M Gray, who is a Professor of Atmospheric Science.


/QUOTE

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




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



CO2 can not and will not cause cooling. The paper I cited showed that the system's negative feedbacks cancel any warming by co2, meaning that 20th Century Global Warming all together, was not caused by co2.



The oscillations do not change the total ocean heat content, but one of their feedbacks is to rapidly warm the Arctic, which in turn would melt the Sea Ice, and allow for more Incoming Solar Energy to be absorbed by the new ocean that was once Sea Ice.



I agree that the co2 will not create net cooling, however, the negative feedbacks are enough to cancel any warming caused by co2, which is why during an Ice Age, co2 was 10X as high in concentrations as it is now.

ARGO:

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

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.


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




ALL OF THIS was taken from THEIR website link


Oscillations:

You're only looking at these oscillations when they're in one phase. In one phase, they have an overall warming effect on landmasses, but in the next phase, the result is opposite. In effect, these things balance each other out, and cause no long term climate change or variability.


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.

Ocean Heat content:





CO2 feedbacks:
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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting cat5hurricane:

No amount of science will ever override that built-in agenda of yours. Until you lose the unscientific reasoning for the rise of the global temperatures, CO2 emissions perhaps will be easier to comprehend, thus climate will become more clear to you. You already seemed to have mastered politics, at least from one side of the spectrum. :-)

I tell you, I really, really do miss our debates in Master's Blog.

So, you elected to go with "snide ad hominems" due to a complete lack of actual science that would verify your position. I see. I hoped for more, but it's about what I expected. Pity.

I'm done here for the evening, but before I go, this: my only agenda is to care for this planet and the people on it. I realize that's diametrically opposite to the agenda pushed by the pro-pollution folks, so it may be difficult for some to understand, but it is what it is.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Oh gee, I am having loads of fun now. Cool graph. Would you like to see mine? I would conclude we're at the tail end of a warming trend. If there was rapid warming as you suggest, the little neon green bar would be off the top of the chart.

Why do you persist on boring me?

Because I hold out hope that one day you'll understand the meaning of words like "rapid" where global phenomena are concerned.

Please go ahead and look at the overwhelming data--such as ever-increasing temperature readings--and "conclude" that we're at the tail end of a warming trend. Then please muster every single iota of your obviously vast climate science education, knowledge, and experience and tell us what, exactly, is going to cause a cooldown, or even a leveling off. There has to be a motivator, a forcer; what is it going to be? Because CO2 causes warming, and CO2 is rising at an unprecedented rate; what, then, in your expert and professional opinion, is going to override that very strong and undeniable mechanism? And please try to answer with solid science, not snide ad hominems or lame remarks about Al Gore.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Massive Canadian Glacier Melt
May 2, 2011; 12:44 AM ET

It's not just Greenland and Antarctica........

Glaciers on thousands of Canadian Arctic islands off the coast of northwestern Greenland are contributing massive amounts of water into the sea and increasing global sea level.

This six year study using satellite data and computer modeling techniques was performed by Alex Gardner of the University of Michigan. The study is posted in the journal Nature.

Estimates from the study show that between 2004 and 2009 the islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago shed enough water to fill Lake Erie three quarters full and added a millimeter to the height of the world's oceans, according to Discovery News.
During the period from 2007 to 2009, this Canadian region was just third behind Greenland and Antarctica as the largest contributor to adding fresh water from melting ice to the global sea level.

While six years is too short a period to establish a trend, Gardner noted, the pace of the melting accelerated dramatically during the study, at a time when temperatures rose just one degree, according to the Discovery News article.

Gardner is not sure if this rate water being released into the sea from the Canadian Arctic Archipelago will continue, but it's worrisome.



Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
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.


Correct show NOAAs graph of this?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
Quoting Snowlover123:





LOL



Much of the increase in your first graph, is due to better ways of observation, and population increase. (More people to send storm reports in).


LOL that graph is 4 years old.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Show NOAAs graph of it! LOL!


? NOAA's Graph of it........?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
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.


Show NOAAs graph of it! LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
1900 tornado warnings.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
Quoting streamtracker:


On a graph that shows a clear upward trend, the snowman makes an outrageous claim that sea-levels are lower than they have been in six years. He has no clue how to interpret these types of data-sets.


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.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Picking cherries only works if you're planning on making a pie. Here, allow me to demonstrate the magical world of "running averages":

Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442


Quoting cyclonebuster:

See what a warming climate does? Time to cool the GOM.




LOL



Much of the increase in your first graph, is due to better ways of observation, and population increase. (More people to send storm reports in).
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting cyclonebuster:

See what a warming climate does? Time to cool the GOM.






Ya'll with me yet?

BTW 2011 is no longer a question mark on this graph it had well over 850 hundred tornadoes for the month shattering the old record of 267. Oh and by the way this is just another graph NOAA will have to rescale upwards because of Mans warming.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387

See what a warming climate does? Time to cool the GOM.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
Quoting cyclonebuster:
See what a warming climate does?







Your image isn't showing up, if you did put an image in your post.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:

BR

Most significant, the scientist said, Pinatubo helped validate computer-generated climate models that demonstrate human-caused global warming.


Thank you for the link, but this is basically restating what you said, (or vise versa). How does Pinatubo prove that Man Made Global Warming exists? If anything, it proves that volcanoes have the potential to greatly alter the Climate.



Looks like Pinatubo contributed to at least part of the .4 Degree C Cooling that took place in 1993. I do not know if a La Nina also contributed to this cooling as well.

Quoting MichaelSTL:


No comment on the rest of your comment, which talks about stuff that I have no idea about, as deniers usually do.


The later part of my comment quoted an article about the person that funds DeSmogBlog.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
See what a warming climate does? Time to cool the GOM.





Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
Quoting TomTaylor:
They've only been collecting data since late 2003. Your NPR news report was issued in 2008. If anyone honestly thinks 4 years is enough time to note climate trends, they're fooling themselves.



I would agree, if it was not the most reliable data that we have. But unfortunately, the most reliable data that we have starts in 2003, and ARGO is an extremely effective way to measure the OHC, since they are deployed all over the ocean. This is why I trust ARGO measurements, even though they have een deployed for such a short amount of time.




Quoting TomTaylor:

looks like warming if anything.


If you were to use the black line, yes. If you were to use the Grey line, no. You can not base conclusions on one study if there is another study that directly contradicts it.

Quoting TomTaylor:


And you claim oscillations don't have any net change on the total heat content of the oceans, but do increase total land heat. What is your proof of this?




Here is a nice Paper by Dr. William M Gray, who is a Professor of Atmospheric Science.

Quoting TomTaylor:

Feedback loops
About climate feedbacks of CO2, you point out a negative feedback loop (graeter cloud coverage), but you leave out the fact that water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming.



A lot of the Water Vapour is lost due to condensation when clouds form.

QUOTE

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

/QUOTE

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


Quoting TomTaylor:

You also leave out many other positive feedback loops (melting arctic, methane release from deep seas, methane release from arctic tundra, desertification, deforestation, etc, etc).


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

Quoting TomTaylor:

The subject of feedback loops in climate changes is very complicated. To go outright and claim that the net effect of CO2's feedback loops is cooling is foolish.


CO2 can not and will not cause cooling. The paper I cited showed that the system's negative feedbacks cancel any warming by co2, meaning that 20th Century Global Warming all together, was not caused by co2.

Quoting TomTaylor:


In summary...

Oscillations are not proven to have any net change on the total heat of earth.


The oscillations do not change the total ocean heat content, but one of their feedbacks is to rapidly warm the Arctic, which in turn would melt the Sea Ice, and allow for more Incoming Solar Energy to be absorbed by the new ocean that was once Sea Ice.

Quoting TomTaylor:


CO2 feedbacks are not understood well enough to claim that they cause net cooling.


I agree that the co2 will not create net cooling, however, the negative feedbacks are enough to cancel any warming caused by co2, which is why during an Ice Age, co2 was 10X as high in concentrations as it is now.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Close, but no cigar. After all the belching in Master's Blog after each of the Northeast's snowstorms and Chicago blizzard signaling something beyond that region's average winter weather, you really expect me to believe that?

Here's a rag for that egg on your face. :-)


Region does not equal global.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
Quoting cat5hurricane:
Denialist's do not believe we will be cooling.

Really? So you don't read everything on WUWT, then? ;-)

Quoting cat5hurricane:
However, who said extreme world events are increasing?

Most climatologists. Many knowledgeable meteorologists. Science groups. Credible journalists. Emergency response workers. Humanitarian relief organizations. People living in the affected areas. You know, folks like them...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
Its a psychological defect that most deniers are afflicted with.

To admit what the Science World have known for decades now ,that Man is Warming and changing the atmosphere en masse globally by the burning of fossil fuels would be a personal admission of co-guilt.
Most that lean to the right arent upwardly mobile enough in thought to admit that "they" are as responsible as the next.Its not in their ideological Make-up,so they will deny, distort, refute every scientific fact to avoid that "feeling".

Many papers are available on this disorder and well,feel free to search the web for them..as well as one searches thru,"Watts up wit dat"?

Go in Peace,the rant has ended.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127355
Nah, you can hold onto it. Denialist's do not believe we will be cooling; rather they deny Anthropogenic Global Warming. Hence the word "Deny".
So from your perspective earth is warming but not because of man?

Surely you can understand man plays a role in this present warming. Even if you don't understand greenhouse gas theory, every asphalt road we lay changes the surface abledo.

To what extend we are responsible is debatable. Natural oscillations can explain climate trends on our temp graphs since we only measure surface temps, however the total heat of earth system is hardly altered by these oscillations.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Ack!, Yolk,yolk,yolk
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127355
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Close, but no cigar. After all the belching in Master's Blog after each of the Northeast's snowstorms and Chicago blizzard signaling something beyond that region's average winter weather, you really expect me to believe that?

Here's a rag for that egg on your face. :-)

In the world of climate science, there have been two very large predictions made over the past several decades:

Prediction #1: denialists have been saying the rapid warming trend will likely reverse any day now, and the world will start cooling off.

Prediction #2: scientists have been saying the warming would likely lead to extreme weather events increasing in both frequency and severity.

Only one of those predictions appears to have so far come to pass.

Want your rag back now? I haven't had to use it. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
301. Neapolitan
2:19 PM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting streamtracker:


I haven't posted here in over a year or more and I return to find one of the most laughable cherry-picked data-points I have ever seen. On a graph that shows a clear upward trend, the snowman makes an outrageous claim that sea-levels are lower than they have been in six years. He has no clue how to interpret these types of data-sets. Given how far below the previous months of data that last point is, there is clearly something odd about it. No one with any successful scientific training would make such an outrageous claim like he made in the quote above. In addition, if you look at the graph he posted there are several so called plateaus. Yet, the overall trends keeps going up. Clearly, given the nature of natural variability in sea-level change, a "plateau" of such a short duration is just part of the background noise. You'd need a plateau of a much longer duration before you could, with a straight face and any statistical certainty, say that sea levels have cased to rise.
I don't know how long frosty has been at this game, but he should take pause and consider the dozens of times in the last decades that denialists have pointed to a short-term blip and declared the end of AGW, only to see the blip be swallowed up a few years or months later by the continuing upward rise in warming indicators. I'm still waiting to hear from them how that humble pie tasted. Bitter is my guess.

Yeah, every snowstorm or cold spell is latched onto by denialists as the beginning of a prolonged cooldown, if not an outright plunge into some ice age. But as if in direct defiance of their forecasts, the temps continue to rise. And rise. And rise some more. Like a lonely cult camping on a remote mountaintop waiting for some flying saucer to come take them away to their new celestial home, one has to wonder just how long denialists will be able to keep moving back the start of their hoped-for ice age before they finally feel the floodwaters lapping at their feet and say, "Gee, maybe we really were misled by Tony Watts and the Koch brothers."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
300. streamtracker
1:58 PM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


Sea Levels are the lowest in 6 years, which solidifies the skeptic's claims of a plateu in recent years, yes, the graph does tell.


I haven't posted here in over a year or more and I return to find one of the most laughable cherry-picked data-points I have ever seen. On a graph that shows a clear upward trend, the snowman makes an outrageous claim that sea-levels are lower than they have been in six years. He has no clue how to interpret these types of data-sets. Given how far below the previous months of data that last point is, there is clearly something odd about it. No one with any successful scientific training would make such an outrageous claim like he made in the quote above. In addition, if you look at the graph he posted there are several so called plateaus. Yet, the overall trends keeps going up. Clearly, given the nature of natural variability in sea-level change, a "plateau" of such a short duration is just part of the background noise. You'd need a plateau of a much longer duration before you could, with a straight face and any statistical certainty, say that sea levels have cased to rise.
I don't know how long frosty has been at this game, but he should take pause and consider the dozens of times in the last decades that denialists have pointed to a short-term blip and declared the end of AGW, only to see the blip be swallowed up a few years or months later by the continuing upward rise in warming indicators. I'm still waiting to hear from them how that humble pie tasted. Bitter is my guess.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
299. Neapolitan
1:41 PM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
"Global Warming kills Bin Laden."

Now we can all see the benefits of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 levels were only about 370 back in 2001 and now are just over 390. We can all see the direct benefit of higher levels with the killing of Bin Laden yesterday something that might have taken millions of years without increased burning of carbon.
I

Obviously you're being facetious. But the biggest story in what you said is that the burning of fossil fuels (coupled with its attendant positive feedback effects) has caused atmospheric CO2 levels to rise roughly 5.5% in just the past decade--a rate of increase that's not been seen on this planet for at least many tens of millions of years.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13442
298. martinitony
9:39 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
"Global Warming kills Bin Laden."

Now we can all see the benefits of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 levels were only about 370 back in 2001 and now are just over 390. We can all see the direct benefit of higher levels with the killing of Bin Laden yesterday something that might have taken millions of years without increased burning of carbon.
I
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
297. HaloReachFan
3:29 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting RMuller:


As I've said before, you're very brave behind the keyboard. You'd never say it in person. Ten years to obtain a professional degree, because I was running two businesses while attending school. Are you still in high school? I'd think so judging by your comments. Still in high school and already brainwashed. Not much of a future believing all of the hype. Get a government job. You'll go far.


It's Neo so that's what you'd expect.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
296. TomTaylor
2:43 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Why are you guys letting RMuller run this blog. Not even worth the time to respond to him.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
293. TomTaylor
2:19 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting TomTaylor:

Oscillations
With regards to the 3,000 robots (ARGO project), here is a direct quote from their website

"The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.


They've only been collecting data since late 2003. Your NPR news report was issued in 2008. If anyone honestly thinks 4 years is enough time to note climate trends, they're fooling themselves.

link

But if you really think 4 years is enough time, here's the graph they produced (in black)


looks like warming if anything.

And you claim oscillations don't have any net change on the total heat content of the oceans, but do increase total land heat. What is your proof of this?

Feedback loops
About climate feedbacks of CO2, you point out a negative feedback loop (graeter cloud coverage), but you leave out the fact that water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming.

You also leave out many other positive feedback loops (melting arctic, methane release from deep seas, methane release from arctic tundra, desertification, deforestation, etc, etc).

The subject of feedback loops in climate changes is very complicated. To go outright and claim that the net effect of CO2's feedback loops is cooling is foolish.




In summary...

Oscillations are not proven to have any net change on the total heat of earth.

CO2 feedbacks are not understood well enough to claim that they cause net cooling.

Snowlover, did you miss this post? It's #234 and was in response to your post from earlier
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
291. cyclonebuster
1:44 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
"I also wonder if this "pseudo-El Nino" (El Nino-like ocean warming but with a La Nina-like atmospheric circulation) has any effect on global temperature, it also happened in 2008:"

You can bet on it MichaelSTL. How much more heat does the ocean hold than the atmosphere?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
289. cyclonebuster
1:37 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting RMuller:


Likely has more than a high school diploma? He completely refuted the bias of Masters. Master admitted he used, as his source, the temperature data that was most imcomplete. You people can't see truth through your own brainwashing. What is your level of education, Mr. Stupendous? Independent education is far more relevent than the brainwashing at universities. I fought through the brainwashing for ten years of university study.


Back at you Mr. Brainchild.

Wow! You did all that and still don't know how to spell. Is it relevent or relevant? LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387
288. Patrap
1:37 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
"cymbal crash"
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 419 Comments: 127355
285. Snowlover123
1:32 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Well, school tomorrow... Good Night.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
284. Snowlover123
1:30 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:
and even if they did, did you know that Pinatubo helped confirm that climate models are reliable?)


Could you provide evidence for this claim? I know what isn't reliable... your source.

QUOTE

So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.

One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.

There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.

But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.

That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate," he tells Mr. McKeown. It doesn't seem to bother Mr. McKeown that Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity.

/QUOTE

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/ story.html?id=2c07121b-85c2-4799-9aaf-0c2688bf5ca1 &p=3

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/01/16/us-crim e-neteller-idUSN1622302920070116

LOL great source Mike. I recommend "DenialismBlog" next... which is run by an attorney, a psychologist, and an internist. Combined, they seem very slightly more credible than your James Hoogan.

/sarc

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
282. cyclonebuster
1:28 AM GMT on May 02, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:


LOL:

When the Skeptics Cry "Global Cooling," It's Proof They Don't Know Their Ash From A Hole in the Ground

(none of the recent volcanoes have had much of an effect -- and even if they did, did you know that Pinatubo helped confirm that climate models are reliable?)


LOL is right. It has about as much as an effect as an ant peeing on a forest fire hoping to put it out.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20387

Viewing: 332 - 282

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.