New to the site. Some interesting reading here.

Perhaps you know that Breakpoint, a daily commentary done by Chuck Colson, has cross-referenced this page from http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=11046. Quite interesting considering the full “Further Reading” list. But whatever. Thought you’d be interested.

Craig
Austin, TX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
Thank you

Regards

Andy

Slightly simplified one can say there is a global concentration of CO2 which mainly is driven by the carbon flux from natural sources, and there is an anthropogeic carbon release which mainly comes from buring of fossil fuels.

I havn’t checked recent data, but the anthropogenic contributioin has for some time been in the range of approx. 3% of the natural fluxes. (This does by itself NOT mean that it is insignificant, but the information is important to remember). From Eia page (see below) 7.2 / (119.6 + 90.6=210.2) = 0.033

When referring to global CO2 level, one should remember that the unit is ppm (Parts Per Million), currently some 383 ppm http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

It is also worthwile to observe that the annual CO2 level reflects the annual growth cycle with a maximum level at the season when it is spring at the N hemisphere and fall in the S H.

Due to the large seasonal fluctuations it is adviceable to use a running mean smoothing. Observe (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the increase (until now) has varied, but been in the range from some 0.4 to 2.9 ppm. This means that since the measurements started, the global CO2 has not increased 1% a single year, (which is employed in some of the IPCC scenarios, and e.g. from 2008-2009, 1% corresponds to an annual increase by 3.83 ppm).

This should not be confused with increase in the annual anthropogenic release, which (at least before the economical “collapse” was in the range of 3 % annually)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

The real numbers are therefore an incease of 3% in the 3% that is anthropogenic. 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.0009, approximately one tenth of a per cent.

Again, I do NOT claim that this is insignificant for the climate. As you can seee at the EIA page, the carbon relaease and sequestration are approximately in balance, making the 3% anthropogenic (and correspopndingly the 0.1% increase, a possible influence)

Cassanders
In Cod we trust

The ice growth rate will slow quite quickly now. It is not at all surprising for the rate to have been so rapid this year. Don’t forget that this summer the summer ice was completely surrounded by clear water for the first time, in previous years there has always been a connection to land. If you think about it the sea ice can not spread into land! This gives the impression of a rapid ice melt due to cooler anomolous temperatures whereas the reason is simple available area to freeze. Check out this for the latest anomolies at the poles http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ You will see that the ice extent is well below the mean for this time of year.

Lazlo
“Heres the data they could have shown:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/havstand.jpg
- the truth, Just when temperatures seem to decline, so does sea level.”

If you check a more recent graph of sea level rise you will see that it is still increasing by approx 3.3cm a year. the graph you show only goes up to February 2008, this was heavily influenced by the strong La Nina. Copare that to this graph http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html where the graph includes measurements to June and you will see the rate back to where it would be expected to be. The increase in seal level can either be attributed to thermal expansion or glacial melt, both signs of a warming globe.

Mark
———————
AP • New York Times • CBS • MSNBC • USA TODAY • AP Medical • MSNBC Space

Report says Arctic temperatures at record highs
Email this Story

Oct 16, 3:24 PM (ET)

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
WASHINGTON (AP) – Autumn temperatures in the Arctic are at record levels, the Arctic Ocean is getting warmer and less salty as sea ice melts, and reindeer herds appear to be declining, researchers reported Thursday.
“Obviously, the planet is interconnected, so what happens in the Arctic does matter” to the rest of the world, Jackie Richter-Menge of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H., said in releasing the third annual Arctic Report Card.
The report, compiled by 46 scientists from 10 countries, looks at a variety of conditions in the Arctic.
The region has long been expected to be among the first areas to show impacts from global warming, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is largely a result of human activities adding carbon dioxide and other gases to the atmosphere.
“Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions,” said James Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “It’s a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways.”
For example, autumn air temperatures in the Arctic are at a record 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 Celsius) above normal.
The report noted that 2007 was the warmest year on record the Arctic, leading to a record loss of sea ice. This year’s sea ice melt was second only to 2007.
Rising temperatures help melt the ice, which in turn allows more solar heating of the ocean. That warming of the air and ocean affects land and marine life, and reduces the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer.
The study also noted a warming trend on Arctic land and increase in greenness as shrubs move north into areas that were formerly permafrost.
While the warming continues, the rate in this century is less than in the 1990s due to natural variability, the researchers said.
In addition to global warming there are natural cycles of warming and cooling, and a warm cycle in the 1990s added to the temperature rise. Now with a cooler cycles in some areas the rise in temperatures has slowed, but Overland said he expects that it will speed up again when the next natural warming cycle comes around.
Asked if an increase in radiation from the sun was having an effect on the Earth’s climate, Jason Box of the Byrd Polar Research Center in Columbus, Ohio, said while it’s important, increased solar output only accounts for about 10 percent of global warming.
“You can’t use solar to say that greenhouse gases are not a major factor,” Overland added.
Other findings from the report include:
- The Arctic Ocean continued to warm and freshen due to ice melt. This was accompanied by an “unprecedented” rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.1 inch per year.
- Warming has continued around Greenland in 2007 resulting in a record amount of ice melt. The Greenland ice sheet lost 24 cubic miles of ice, making it the largest single contributor to global sea level rise.
- Reindeer herds that had been increasing since the 1970s are now showing signs of leveling off or beginning to decline.
- Goose populations are increasing as they expand their range within the Arctic.
- Data on marine mammals is limited but they seem to have mixed trends. They are adapted to life in a region that is at least seasonally ice-covered. There is concern about the small numbers of polar bears in some regions, the status of many walrus groups is unknown, some whales are increasing and others declining.
“This is a very complicated system and we are still working diligently to sort out its mysteries,” said Richter-Menge.
In addition to Richter-Menge, Overland and Box, lead authors of the report included Michael Simpkin of NOAA, Silver Spring, Md. and Vladimir E. Romanovsky of the Geophysical Institute, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Can anyone inform this confused non-scientist (and AGW sceptic) what the relationship is between this and rapidly growing Arctic ice which looks set to catch up with every year back to 2002 at the very least.

Thanks, thats a good start, but that chart is problematic since we have ample evidence in the years that it shows summer extent at 11 million sqkm, mariners were past 80 deg north and the NW passage was navigated. That implies summer extents < 10 if not < 8 sq km.

I am really busy now but will take some time this fall to cross correlate all the stuff out there.

I think the proxies for Ice coverage will come down to whale (and others) bones found along the arctic. Bones of herbivores in the US are used to determine climate due to proxies in the bones for c3/c4 grasses – this approach should be useful for bones found in the Arctic as well.

The plot shows the that there was more ice one year ago, but the graphic shows much more ice this year. This also goes for the AMSR-E graphic for the Archipelago.

See details here

Tom

Sorry for writing so much :-) but i have to answer

Lazlo

too:

YES! you are 100% correct! Time after time you hear some “news” about warming as though it is new data! Its lying and manipulating every normal people who does not check these things out!

More examples:
We had “news” that Glaciers where shrinking, but these “news” where in fact from 2005 and back.
We OFTEN hear that SEA LEVELS are rising. But the truth is, sea levels has not risen one milimeter since 2005 !

See this example, Nasa:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#SeaLevel

They specifically write that their graph is updated!
NASA: “Sea Level Last updated 09.16.08″

But they have NOT updated their graph. They stopped updating 2´nd quarter of 2007. Why are they not updating?

Heres the data they could have shown:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/havstand.jpg
- the truth, Just when temperatures seem to decline, so does sea level.

Ok! You could say that this sea level fall COULD be “random”. But you cannot say that there is not a fine match between temperature decline and sea level decline right now.

Austin – unfortunately there’s no daily data from before 1972. This claims to be monthly data from 1870-2008, but would take a bit of scripting to get information from. This image suggests that ice coverage was pretty stable until about 1950. Don’t know how reliable those pre-satellite figures are though.