Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 14 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever

After all of the news about a minimum record ice extent last month, this is interesting. As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR. many predictied that as a result of the extra open ocean surface, we see a very fast refreeze in the Arctic. It appears they were right. In fact, this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 1979.

Here’s JAXA data plotted to show what has happened:

From the blog sunshine hours, here’s an analysis using NSIDC data:

=============================================================

Today is day 291 in the Arctic. The minimum in 2012 was on day 260 – 31 days ago.

If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!

Arctic Sea Ice Extent has increased by 43.8% since the minimum was reached.

Extents are in millions of sq km.

(And note I am using NSIDC data here and their algorithm is making the refreeze appear slow compared to NORSEX)

Year Minimum_Extent Extent Day Extent_Change Extent_Change_Pct
1979 6.89236 295 2.55691 27.1
1980 7.52476 280 0.95144 11.2
1981 6.88784 284 1.71672 20
1982 7.15423 287 2.41499 25.2
1983 7.19145 282 1.70096 19.1
1984 6.39916 291 2.08442 24.6
1985 6.4799 281 1.50769 18.9
1986 7.12351 280 1.8491 20.6
1987 6.89159 276 1.37713 16.7
1988 7.04905 286 1.76783 20.1
1989 6.88931 296 2.70935 28.2
1990 6.0191 295 3.46791 36.6
1991 6.26027 290 2.69726 30.1
1992 7.16324 282 1.67903 19
1993 6.15699 280 1.85199 23.1
1994 6.92645 279 1.1014 13.7
1995 5.98945 283 0.5189 8
1996 7.15283 285 1.77882 19.9
1997 6.61353 277 0.65032 9
1998 6.29922 291 2.35169 27.2
1999 5.68009 286 2.68723 32.1
2000 5.9442 286 2.32372 28.1
2001 6.56774 293 1.95252 22.9
2002 5.62456 287 2.41992 30.1
2003 5.97198 291 2.10126 26
2004 5.77608 294 2.37329 29.1
2005 5.31832 296 3.09221 36.8
2006 5.74877 288 1.72446 23.1
2007 4.1607 288 1.39556 25.1
2008 4.55469 293 3.33615 42.3
2009 5.05488 286 1.45951 22.4
2010 4.59918 293 2.88065 38.5
2011 4.30207 282 1.35023 23.9
2012 3.36855 291 2.62409 43.8

Source: sunshine hours

===========================================================

Here’s the NORSEX plot and NSIDC plot compared:

See all the data on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page

In other news. I’ve been in touch with Bill Chapman at UUIC/Crysophere Today to point out this bug:

It turns out to be an accidental issue, and he says:

“I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.

I’ll have it fixed by tomorrows update.”

Stuff happens, no worries.

About these ads

446 thoughts on “Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 14 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever

  1. 2012: slow to freeze, then slow to melt, then fast to melt, now fast to freeze again.

    Or: a completely typical sea ice season, of the sort happening for millions of years, given star status by satellites and a nervous world.

  2. For comparison, the NIC ice charts showed that the “Record Arctic Melt” lasted exactly 1 month, from Sept. 16 to Oct. 16. The rest of 2012 ice extent was above 2007, at times by a great amount, as the NORSEX graph shows.

    Comment by Ron C. — October 18, 2012 @ 1:08 PM | Reply

  3. It’s the fastest on a percentage basis because you have the lowest value ever in the denominator. In terms of actual ice added, 2005, 2008, & 2010 all added more ice.

  4. Not gonna be on the BBC anytime soon, southern sea ice doing nicely still, as well – cripes the world is cold!

  5. Well I hope the bug fix puts Cryosphere today back on the Greenwich Meridian.

    On a different topic, why is NSIDC the most pessimistic for Arctic sea ice content of all the agencies?

    And why do they use different graph scales for the Arctic and Antarctic which would make the casual observer think that Arctic sea ice loss is many times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain?

  6. Take a close look at the Cyrosphere Today image for this year and you will notice a perfect circular region of uniform color around the North Pole. It’s been that way for at least the last month and was that way last year too. I submit there is something wrong with either the sensor used to collect the data or the algorithm used to analyze the data since such geometric uniformity is very unlikely.

  7. This is no surprise. The energy loss with the open water will only lead to cooling.

    I mentioned this a few years ago but not many picked it up.

    This is a part of the negative feedback loop. The albedo argument for warming is and was crap.

    This may go on for a decade until the Arctic ice re-stabilises to ’79 levels.

    DaveE.

  8. alan says:
    October 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Do keep up, this has already been covered. It’s off the current links so I can’t easily find it.

    DaveE.

  9. mjk says:
    October 18, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    ‘What did you expect after the biggest melt?”

    Not what you were hoping for eh?

  10. Anthony,

    What say you to the Yale boys on their comments on Arctic vs. antarctic ice?

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/10/slightly-increased-2012-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-no-match-for-arctic-declines/

    “While there is a modest upward trend in Antarctic sea ice, that increase makes up for only a fraction of the decline in the Arctic, and global sea ice as a whole has been decreasing.

    The actual data makes it hard to conclude that those wanting to point to the Antarctic as a counterpoint to what is happening in the Arctic may simply be trying to change the subject from the recent unprecedented global sea ice declines.”

  11. It almost looks like there was a mistake in the calculation on how much Arctic ice melted this year. However, I doubt anyone would/could make a mistake on the numbers.

  12. The decline in the arctic included area loss to wind-driven ice. It should not be assumed all that ice melted. Review the arctic storms from August on. There was two weeks worth of ice movement in a matter of hours. And it happened at a time when the albedo was not much of a factor relative to LWIR radiation from the exposed ocean to space. That was, IMO, a net loss of energy to space.

  13. Gee, maybe the Arctic Ocean needs to do this every so often to purge excess heat….!
    Oh no! The travesty meter has blown a fuse!

  14. If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!

    I call Bogus! How do you write what Click & Clack say? “Bo-whoo-whoo-gus?”

    If even more arctic ice had melted, each new sq km of ice would be an even greater precentage!
    And if all the ice had melted, the regrowth would be infinitely greater.

    Typo – predictied -> predicted.

  15. teslaoxo;
    …those wanting to point to the Antarctic as a counterpoint to what is happening in the Arctic may simply be trying to change the subject from the recent unprecedented global sea ice declines.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It could just as easily be said that those pointing to the Arctic and global sea ice declines are tryong to avoid talking about the system as a whole. The fact is that the Antarctic ice is increasing, in opposition to cagw theory. More importantly, there are many other factors to consider. The arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, and hence should be expected to show much larger variation than the antarctic which is land surrounded by ocean. So a larger decline in the arctic may actually not be as significant as a record (but smaller) increase in the antarctic. Further, much of the decline in the arctic was clearly from unusual storm activity, and this is shown by the rapid reformation of the ice which will leave the average for the year much higher than 2007. Which says more about long term temps? The minimum extent for a 60 day period or the average for the year? Not to mention that the historical records make it clear that current ice conditions in the arctic are higher to this day than they were in the days of the Vikings.

    Why not discuss ALL of these factors teslaoxo? Why try focus the conversation on a tiny subset of them?

  16. The negative feedback that David A. Evans mentions makes much sense. With open water there is no ice insulation; such sea water loses a lot of energy; this continues as long as the wind blows. When the wind stops blowing the water may start freezing fast.
    The albedo difference between ice and open water is indeed small this time of the year at the arctic. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_reflectivity.jpg
    In principle the negative feedback could be big enough to create a record size ice extent this winter.

  17. alan says:
    October 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    OT:
    What the @#$% is going on in Canada??

    CONTROVERSIAL GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENT TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING DISCOVERED OFF CANADIAN COAST

    1) It’s really rude to post OT stuff within an hour of a new post.

    2) OT stuff like this is what Tips and Notes is for.

    3) THERE’S NO NEED TO SHOUT.

    4) Nothing escapes WUWT. Why didn’t you read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-environmentalist-ignores-international-moratoriums-dumps-in-the-ocean/

    5) Next time check my two week summary at my Guide to WUWT. That list provides a handy way to see what you’ve missed.

  18. David A. Evans says: “This is no surprise. The energy loss with the open water will only lead to cooling.
    If that were the case, then wouldn’t we expect that the ocean and air temperatures should be below normal by now from all that cooling? In fact, the temperatures are continuing to run above average.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=70&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=0&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

    While I agree that open water will lead to more cooling than an equivalent amount of cooler, icier surface, the simple fact is that it first must cool to the “normal levels”. But by the time it cools to normal levels, then there is not impetus to continue to cool rapidly.

  19. Oh dear, the climate hypochondriacs will not be happy !!!!! ;-)

    An interesting point will be when it peaks in Feb/March.

    Any estimates ?? I’m speculating, nearer 15 than 14.5

  20. Another myth we have been subjected to is that snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere.

    That is not what the actual data shows (so some must have been using extreme data selection on the anomaly method to show this – but it is not true).

  21. Dave;
    That uniform circle is the latitudes too high for the satellites to scan. No worries.

    Just a “visual” observation: it seems that the Arctic ice is swinging more to the extremes, and perhaps we should expect a high level of cover this winter. Sort of “feedback overshoot” at both ends.

  22. Ric Werme says:

    October 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!

    I call Bogus! How do you write what Click & Clack say? “Bo-whoo-whoo-gus?”

    If even more arctic ice had melted, each new sq km of ice would be an even greater precentage!
    And if all the ice had melted, the regrowth would be infinitely greater.

    Typo – predictied -> predicted.
    ==============================
    ==========================
    Take it easy Ric, it is not personal,
    welcome the unwashed masses, they might learn enough to turn the tide.

    [Reply: precentage –> percentage — mod ☺]

  23. Gentlemen,

    Thank you for the responses thus far on the Yale article, and might I request that someone (smarter than I) directly reply from this forum to theirs with a very detailed and measured response showing the gaps in their perspective on the issue. Thinking there may also be deficiencies in their time averaging (only 1978-present) and smoothing of the data that skew the longer term view…so to speak.

    I just wanted you to be aware of what was recently put out there,and Zeke Hausfather’s statements deserve a response.

    Thank you,
    Tesla

  24. The actual data makes it hard to conclude that those wanting to point to the Antarctic as a counterpoint to what is happening in the Arctic may simply be trying to change the subject from the recent unprecedented global sea ice declines.”

    And those who point to the global average, are simply trying to change the subject from ‘why is sea ice going in opposite directions in each half of the world?’, and hide the fact that the cause cannot be a global effect.

  25. At its nadir the ice was lacking in area however it was massively piled up against the poleward end of Greenland and nearby archipeleggo islands. It may have actually been pinned by the wind and very unstable in terms of potential energy. The combination of a sort of slow avalanche from that pile up and refreezing is now giving us something to behold.

  26. I must say I believe I hit this season pretty good. Frankly I thought the ice would be fast growing and early. This will drive the Warmist crazy. Of course they will claim it follows the models. It does no such thing. But it does seem to follow weather patterns long observed by military and Alaskan meteorologist.

  27. Tim Folkerts says:
    October 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm
    David A. Evans says: “This is no surprise. The energy loss with the open water will only lead to cooling.>>
    If that were the case, then wouldn’t we expect that the ocean and air temperatures should be below normal by now from all that cooling?
    >>>>>>>>>

    I’d think not. It is the ocean that is cooling more than normal. It must give up that heat through both conduction and radiance. As a consequence, I’d expect air temps to be higher.

  28. Natural oceanic oscillations cause heat to build in equatorial belt. Warmed oceanic pools eventually wind their way to the Arctic. Arctic cover gets melted off from this influx of warmed water and extra heat escapes to space at the pole. Slowly the system returns to a cooled state with less warming at the equatorial belt and year round Arctic ice cover begins to build up to baseline again. It’s the swing towards the other side of this pendulum that is nasty!

  29. davidmhoffer says:
    “I’d think not. It is the ocean that is cooling more than normal. It must give up that heat through both conduction and radiance. As a consequence, I’d expect air temps to be higher.”

    This graph shows your point. You can see the ocean heat escapinging into the atmospherer from day 230-260 (approx) then the dive back down to normal temps. It will be interesting to see how low the temp drops over the northern winter. If it drops to below 245K, i think we will see a very large arctic ice area at the beginning of 2013.

  30. [Laugh] It’s all in the ‘Al Gore’ rhythm method perfected by Mann .. Ah the Thumb Print of Mann.

  31. Is the NRL map on the sea ice page a five-day forecast? It seems to show more ice on the Siberian coast, and especially around Wrangal Island, than the Cryosphere map does.

  32. Predict this will be last low Arctic anomaly in our lifetime. From now on the chill will set in as the low solar effect starts to kick in over the next 1000 years LOL

  33. meanwhile, in Canberra, Australia, home to our Federal Parliament:

    19 Oct: Canberra Times: Bob Douglas: Carbon age must end or we will
    (Bob Douglas is a retired epidemiologist, a director of Australia21 and chair of SEE-Change ACT)
    During a Canberra symposium last week on ”The Future of Homo Sapiens” in a 12-hour day of presentations and panel discussions, 15 leading Australian experts from climate science, public health, theology, philosophy, politics and economics expressed their dismay at the seriousness of the human predicament.
    They bemoaned the continuing effectiveness of entrenched interests to maintain a culture of denial and inaction about the seriousness of the developing climate emergency…
    For now, the climate-change denial industry remains in the ascendancy…
    The good news is that many Australians are now acting and that the 50,000 strong Australian Youth Climate Coalition is working strategically with politicians on a number of fronts to awaken the dreamers to the reality that the threat is here and now.
    The Manning Clark conference heard from former Liberal (Conservative) leader John Hewson, who is leading an international ratings agency that is monitoring the extent to which trillions of dollars of investment and superannuation funds are being used to prop up fossil fuels rather than promote renewable technologies. This is a brilliant strategy to force investors to a reality check on how their funds are being used…

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/carbon-age-must-end-or-we-will-20121018-27tqz.html

  34. The commenter “Phil” and I have had some interesting discussions (to me at least), during prior sea-ice posts, about what became of the ice that existed before that big summer storm.

    A third commenter brought up an interesting topic, involving how different salt water is from fresh water.

    Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees F, but fresh water close to freezing actually is less dense than slightly warmer water. IE: water of 32.5 floats on water at 33, which floats on top of water at 33.5, which floats on top of water at 34. Because the coldest water actually stays at the surface, it freezes quickly.

    Salt water behaves differently. It doesn’t freeze until it gets down to around 28 degrees F, and also cold salt water simply sinks. The coldest water does not stay at the surface.

    This made me wonder how the surface can ever freeze. In theory, at least, the water would need to get to 28 degrees from top to bottom, before surface cold water didn’t sink, replaced by rising, warm water from below.

    My actual experience, from a time I lived and worked on the coast of Maine, is that when the air gets bitterly cold the sea-water gets a sort of oily look, just before it freezes. I wonder if the air gets so very cold it freezes the very topmost molecules of water, which then float in suspension with the liquid water, and don’t sink even as the coldest water does. Eventually these suspended molecules form a skim of slush, which is the beginning of the ice-cover. I’ve witnessed this.

    In any case, it is dynamically harder to freeze salt water than it is to freeze fresh water. The fact the sea refroze so quickly this year suggests it remained very cold, after the summer storm, even if actual ice was sparse.

  35. I like to witness the stae of polar ice via the “North Pole Camera.”

    Norwegan tapayers might not be too pleased, but American taxpayers saved a bit of money when the North Pole Camera drifted down to Fram Strait, but, before the ice broke up and the camera sunk to the bottom, the RS Lance retrieved it, or parts of it.

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/RVLance_Buoy_recovery_2012.html

    There is a neat time-lapse film of the RS Lance plowing about the arctic during the summer:

    http://www.npolar.no/en/about-us/lance/

  36. “I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.”

    Oh dear, Why do I feel so nervous here?

  37. I fear we are facing some hard times, and budgets in Europe and America will have to be slashed. Sadly, this may mean some of my favorite luxuries, such as the North Pole Camera, may vanish for a while.

    While I am in favor of slashing the budgets of some areas of “climate science,” which includes fellows who care more about political theory than science, my experience has been that a lot of the scientists who gather the actual data from the arctic are actual scientists. What’s more, when you contact them you don’t need to take them to court to get data, or emply the FOI Act. They are more than eager to tell you what they know and share data they have on hand. I urge people to be polite, and contact the various agencies. I was pleasantly surprised, as a Skeptic who has grown thick-skinned and who has become used to curses and abuse.

    One fellow responded with an eye-witness description of what he saw, while flying over the arctic ocean last summer. Considering I can’t afford to fly up there and see for myself, the response I recieved was one of the rare occations where I felt I was getting a lot of bang for my buck, in terms of tax dollars.

    I fear we too often leap to the conclusion that anyone with a government job is automatically a mooch and slouch. However they are not all bad.

    Perhaps some have stressed the lack of ice in the arctic as a way to get funding. I can hardly blame them, and I think we will miss them, if we need to slash funding to a degree where we get very little news from up north.

  38. tesla0x0 says:
    October 18, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    Anthony,

    What say you to the Yale boys on their comments on Arctic vs. antarctic ice?

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/10/slightly-increased-2012-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-no-match-for-arctic-declines/

    One comeback would be to say that the average daily ice cover this year is greater than 2007’s and other low years:

    sunshinehours1 says:
    October 18, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    2012 (to day 291) already has a higher average sea ice extent (NSIDC) than 2011 (which may change). And is closing in on 2007.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/2012-average-arctic-sea-ice-extent-so-far/

    I suspect the NORSEX data (if I could find it) would show 2012 higher than both.

  39. To demonstrate how you can get a good response, if you are a polite Skeptic, I’d like to share a response I got from NSIDC when I, as a nobody, emailed them with a bunch of questions.

    Background: A situation had developed where a drilling rig was threatened by an area of ice, and closed down operations. It was in an area of the Arctic Ocean maps showed as “ice free.” I could get no reply from Royal Dutch Shell, as they seemed a bit gun shy, due to the fact Greenpeace was out to destroy them. Greenpeace was of the opinion there was no ice, as maps showed the area was ice free, and the “evil oil company” was making the story up. I got curious, and sent emails to various places, who replied and also suggested I contact NSIDC. So I did, and received the following polite response: (My questions, and scientist’s replies.)
    ————————————————————–
    Hi Caleb,

    One of NSIDC’s scientists answered your questions below.
    Have a great weekend!

    Cheers,
    Shannon

    ——————————————————
    From NSIDC scientist:

    Did a 12 by 30 mile area of ice actually exist, where Royal Dutch Shell said it did?

    Yes. I wouldn’t see any reason to mistrust them. Also, in operational ice charts, which track even small isolated floes of ice, the region had been marked as having sparse ice cover.

    If it existed, could such ice actually be 82 feet thick, in one spot?

    Yes. It’s unusual, but not impossible. The region where that ice came from may have been near Wrangel Island. Sea Ice tends to get pushed up against the northeastern part of the island and it can pile up, or ridge. As winds blow the ice toward the shore, the ice keeps piling up.
    When winds reverse, that ice can break away from shore and start drifting in the ocean. These “ridges” can be quite thick – usually
    ~30-40 feet thick, but 80 feet is possible. I doubt the whole floe was 82 feet thick, but a portion of it was.

    When an area is reported to be “less than 15%” ice-covered, can it have masses of ice this large in it?

    It’s possible. The floe was 12 x 30 miles, which is ~20 x 50 km. While the grid cells of our output sea ice data are 25 km x 25 km, the actual resolution (“footprint’) of some of the input data is as low as 45 x 70 km. So the floe would make up only ~30% of that “footprint” if it was wholly within one footprint. If it is shared between more than one footprint, then it could easily be near or below the 15% threshold within each sensor footprint. Another factor is that during melt, our concentration estimates tends to be biased low. Usually this doesn’t affect the extent (>15%) much, but when there are isolated small floes present, they can potentially be missed.

    Is there someplace I could learn more about such localized areas of ice?

    Yes, operational ice charts, produced in that region by the U.S. National Ice Center and the Canadian Ice Service, are more focused on mapping specific areas of ice.
    They are not consistent over time, so they’re not suitable for tracking trends, but they are better if one is in a vessel in the Arctic Ocean.

    If possible, can you direct me to maps and/or satellite pictures that track such localized areas?

    Here is a page from the National Ice Center:

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/products_on_demand.html

    The yellow “marginal ice zone” areas are <80% ice, but often much less than 80%, often 10-30%. These areas may not be seen by our passive microwave data.

    To best track these small areas, one would use synthetic aperture radar (SAR). This has a high resolution (on the order of 10s of meters) and can "see" through clouds.

    The Canadian Ice Service doesn't really track ice in the Chukchi, but their website might be of interest as well:

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/

    How would Royal Dutch Shell identify this ice-area? Do they do it independently? Do they ask you (or other agencies) for help?

    They do it largely independently. They may look at the operational charts, but they likely purchase their own satellite data as well and they do their own analyses of the data. They also probably fly helicopter or aircraft reconnaissance flights, and probably also have a ground radar on the platform to detect ice.
    ————————————————————————

    Recieving this polite reply made me feel a lot better about the future of "climate science." Not everyone is as rude as Mike Mann.

  40. Of course the freeze rate is higher after the record minimum. Our models clearly predicted are predicting will predict that this would happen. It’s just another natural consequence of AGW. Clearly when the arctic gets colder the Earth as a whole warms up.

  41. This is like october 2008 where the ice broke up late in almost the same place as this year,the open water has had no chance to gain heat from the sun I would hypothesise The rapid refreeze in the area broken up by the storm is evidence that the new arctic minimum was as a result of the storm in my opinion.

  42. What I find weird is that this seems inconsistent with the anomaly graphs. To see where I’m coming from, a few weeks ago a new “low” was reached. At that time it didn’t trigger a new maximum anomaly, because although lower than any other low, the departure from the “norm” wasn’t bigger than other anomalies that can occur any time of the year.
    Now if refreezing has occurred at the fastest rate ever, I find it difficult to see how the anomaly could have increased in size, to the extent that weeks later, it reached a new record.

  43. If the the hypothisis of lack of heat gained from summer sun in the arctic is correct then arctic sea ice could recover quickly if the conditions were right during summer and we could see the Arctic sea ice expanding like it is in the Antarctic.

  44. It appears the current rate of recovery is greater than for any other year that has been at this extent or less. And I think too that the recent arctic wind storms gave us all a lesson in how multi-year ice is formed (by compaction) and was lost on us.

  45. If you look at the open ice-free km/day water in the Arctic Ocean, that is the water each day that can evaporate, 2012’s total was actually slightly lower than in 2011 due to the abnormally high extent of ice earlier in this season. As far as evaporation goes in 2012, it was roughly the same as in 2011, though just slightly below, same for 2007. The other years has less area/day than those three years. Seems there is a top forming.

    It’s funny how physics tend to even things out when all factors are considered.

  46. Did I read the start of this post correctly “As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”. The implications of this statement are PROFOUND. Water has an emissivity of around 1 in the thermal IR range (same as LWIR). The statement implies that ice radiates far less LWIR than does water which mans its emissivity in the LWIR much lower than 1. But the entire claim of positive feedback in the arctic is based on the supposition that ice is very reflective in the visible hence absorbs little of the incoming solar energy but has a LWIR emissivity of close to 1. Thus with ice, little energy absorption plus high emission hence cooling. Without ice same emission but more absorption hence warming.

    But if ice is a poor emitter of LWIR then the case for positive feedback collapses. The presence of ice reduces both absorption and emission. In fact, since the amount of solar energy at the poles is quite low and effectively zero for 6 months of the year whereas LWIR emission occurs year round a better case could be made for it being negative feedback.

    There is considerable evidence to suggest that ice is a poor LWIR emitter and I have argued that in the past. Here may be further evidence. I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT FOLKS.

  47. This stupid site can put a +ve spin even on diabolically bad news. Want a good laugh (or cry) read this one.
    Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 15 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever

    No mention of the inconvenient truth that the ice cover is still only a little above ½ of long term average. Wont it be wonderful when it all melts in summer and we can slap ourselves on the back about the infinite % increase in cover as it freezes in autumn.

    As long as the autumn freezing % keeps increasing there surly cant be a problem.
    How devoid of intellectual rigor can a blog be and not be called brain-dead?

  48. Could someone please plot a graph of the average radius of arctic sea ice extent over time.
    The formula is to divide the area by pi then take the square root of that value, then plot that value.
    I am curious what such a graph would look like, as I have a hunch that the closer you get to the pole, the harder it is in an exponential fashion to melt the ice. The warmists seem to be calculating a linear trend when predicting the no ice condition even though the area of concern sits on a sphere.

  49. Hee hee. The high rate of change is just a simple mathematical consequence of the very extreme depth of the fall in ice extent in the first place.

    Someone in warmists land has been reading Anthony’s mind apparently, because they predicted that this trend argument will be a favorite one, once the peak had passed. I now count two uses of the “record trend” argument.

  50. This is a really positive thing, the sea ice increase attemp[ts to return the sea ice to its balance.
    @Hammer That could very well be important, more research might do good though, because there could be many reasons that are not intuitive with such a small knowledge of the particular system.

  51. Would not the more relevant measurement be the annual integrated ice extent (the area under the graph each year?) Seems to me that there would be a different energy ranking sequence if each year was summed day by day. Spread over a year, the minimum extent date and area seem to depend on several variables, some of which act in light and some in darkness, some months away from where the minimum extent happens. It’s not area that is the primary focus, it’s energy. including that difficult wind energy component & direction over a year.

  52. The Cryosphere today graph would indicate the sea ice area anomaly is getting larger. This means that while as a percentage the ice growth may be quick, in real terms it is not as quick as the long term mean.

  53. Ice and water have basically the same emissivity (very near to 1) between 4 and 11 µm.
    Beyond 11µm where is a bit more than a half of the total radiated energy for temperatures near freezing point, the emissivity of ice drops below the one of water – water decreases slowly towards 0.98 as the wavelength increases while ice quite brutally drops towards 0.94.

    So yes ice emissivity is is below water (for the wavelengths above 11µm) but the difference is not SO huge – about 4 %.
    And as it bears only on half of the energy, the ice radiates roughly 2% less than water.
    Now even if this is not a big number, it can not be neglected as it represents some 6 W/m² less emission for the ice.

    See https://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/staff/pplassma/MedImaging/PROJECTS/IR/CAMTEST/Icewater.htm

  54. ” As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”
    Can anyone explain to me why open water should radiate more than ice ? The emissivity of ice and snow is very close unity in the infrared, making it a near perfect blackbody. It also increases the Earth’s albedo by reflecting incoming sunlight. So the implication that open water would have a greater cooling effect that ice cover is not obvious. Can anyone provide evidence or logic for that statement?

    Thanks MB

  55. … and, one summer when the Arctic has melted out completely (in only a few years or decades from now), the instant the first ice crystals form during the autumn refreeze, then the recovery will be INFINITY PERCENT IN A MILLISECOND.

    Berk.

  56. John Marshall:

    At October 19, 2012 at 2:13 am you say of the rapid Arctic refreeze

    Interesting but not ground breaking news.

    But it is disappointing news.
    I had hoped for an ice-free Arctic ocean with all the resulting benefits for trade and shipping.

    And nobody has managed to tell me of any problems likely to derive from an ice-free Arctic ocean (although some people who know nothing about polar bears think the bears would not like it).

    The rapid refreeze implies we may not get the benefits of an ice-free Arctic ocean. It is a matter for regret.

    Richard

  57. TomVonk says:
    October 19, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Thanks Tom, I didn’t see your post at the time, you seem to have answered most of my question – nice link too. Do you or anyone happen to know what the albedo of water is? Especially at oblique incidence angles experienced by the Arctic Ocean?

  58. Tom Vonk at 2.07 am. Hi Tom, I accept that ice probably has high emissivity but the same may not be the case for snow. Most diffuse scattering comes about from repeated rapid changes in refractive index in this case air to ice to air to ice etc. This also occurs of course in a cloud but In a cloud the water droplets are around 2 microns so visible light is scattered (wavelength 0.4 to 0.7 microns) while thermal IR simply diffracts around the droplets (wavelength 8 to 50 microns). This is why red light (and IR even better) penetrates a fog better than blue light. I am sure you know that already. But in the case of snow the ice crystals are far larger. Large enough to scatter even thermal IR which means I at least would predict that snow would be very reflective both in the visible and in the IR. If it is highly reflective (ie: absorptivity is low) then more or less by definition emissivity must be similarly low since emissivity must equal absorptivity.

    Thus very clean ice ie: black ice would have high emissivity but ice which has a crazed surface or is covered with snow might well have a very low IR emissivity. All the photos I have seen of sea ice shows it as intensely white, meaning that the surface is strongly scattering. A smooth clean ice surface does not look intensely white.

  59. Don’t you think that arctic sea ice is toast and it’s just a matter of a short time before the arctic is ice free? Pointing out a record refreeze isn’t going to save sea ice. Sea ice insulates the heat in an ocean, so it’s keeping heat from escaping into space during the early part of the ice formation season. That first year ice isn’t going to survive a melt. Don’t confuse insulation with insolation! Parts of that arctic aren’t getting sunlight, so why would someone bring up albedo, which isn’t important when sunlight isn’t direct, like in the summer? Anyone who has made an honest effort to study arctic sea ice knows it’s toast, so what’s with the games?

  60. tesla0x0 says:
    October 18, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Anthony,

    What say you to the Yale boys on their comments on Arctic vs. antarctic ice?

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/10/slightly-increased-2012-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-no-match-for-arctic-declines/

    ………………………..
    The actual data makes it hard to conclude that those wanting to point to the Antarctic as a counterpoint to what is happening in the Arctic may simply be trying to change the subject from the recent unprecedented global sea ice declines.”

    I can’t be bothered to go over there but do please let them know that the bolded phrase is a lie of unprecedented proportions. ;-)

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F ;-)

  61. Ooops! I forgot the bolding.

    “The actual data makes it hard to conclude that those wanting to point to the Antarctic as a counterpoint to what is happening in the Arctic may simply be trying to change the subject from the recent unprecedented global sea ice declines.””

  62. Lesson learned : A variable with a lot of natural variability is a doblededged sword, use against your oponenents with caution and accept it will eventually cut both ways.
    Any chance we will ever get arctic ice volume data, extent and cover feel so distribution dependent?

  63. Michael Hammer

    I accept that ice probably has high emissivity but the same may not be the case for snow.

    See

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00120992?LI=true

    Snow has actually a higher emissivity than ice (around 0.97) as this paper shows.

    Problem when one talks about emissivity is that it depends on the wavelength. The paper quoted studies the interval 8-13 µm where you have only about 1 third of the total radiation.
    It is rare to find a study which gives a curve (instead of a single value) of emissivities function of wavelength.
    However even if IR emissivity does vary with wavelength, it never varies dramatically for solids or liquids because they are not gazes.
    So it is safe to say that that water under all its non gazeous forms at 0°C and for all wavelengths has an IR emissivity which is approximately 1.
    Ice being lowest and the difference to water is about 6W/m² radiation less.
    Snow being nearer to ice than to water.

  64. @ TomVonk, October 19, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Possibly more important than the emissivity difference is the ability of open water to transport heat to the surface in order to radiate it. With ice cover, the energy has to rely on the lwo thermal conductivity of ice to transport it those last few metres. With open water it can get there by conduction, convection and turbulent mixing.

    Ice is (obviously, or it would be water!) also constrained to be radiating at or below its freezing point, whereas open water is (obviously – or it would be ice!) constrained to be radiating above its freezing point. Combine those factors and open water almost certainly radiates far more than ice cover under the same conditions.

    Perhaps someone could do the sums for us?

  65. Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 3:23 am
    “Anyone who has made an honest effort to study arctic sea ice knows it’s toast”

    Gary, Trends in sea Ice go up and down, it’s the nature of Ice. If you think 30 years of data is all that’s needed to understand what the Arctic sea ice is doing in the long term then your not fit to be discussing it in a sensible manner, splash some cold water on your face and come back when your not so childishly hysterical.

  66. I think the cyclone that broke the sea ice up has dispersed the ice in smaller chunks not seen by satellite and consequently seeding the Arctic ocean making it quicker and easier for ice to grow when temperatures began dropping again.

  67. @MikeB “Can anyone explain to me why open water should radiate more than ice ?”
    Ice insulates because it is solid: heat has to be conducted upwards to the surface before it is radiated away. Open water is liquid, so heat is transported to the surface by means of convection.

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

    Paradoxically, because of the insulation air temperature will be lower above an ice surface (as compared to open water), while the heat below the surface does not escape that fast.

  68. MikeB says:
    October 19, 2012 at 2:40 am
    ” As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”
    Can anyone explain to me why open water should radiate more than ice ?

    Because of differences in salinity, the upper level of water in the Arctic can be cooler than deeper water. When there is continuous ice cover these levels are less likely to mix. Without the ice cover, the fetch and therefore the height of waves increases, leading to greater mixing of the layers and a warming of the surface layer. Warmer water radiates energy to space much more than cooler water leading to an overall reduction in the energy held by the ocean.

  69. @Gary Lance
    No games here Gary,just facts,fact is the oceans are losing heat and losing it fast and the heat system of the planet might not be topped back up to same levels for a few years.In the mean time the Arctic ice will make its slow recovery back.Add in the solar minimum, and cooler oceans what do yoyu think will happen to the earth global temps over coming decades!!?thephrase global warming will no longer be used, it will be all climate change as those with an agenda will continue to push it.

  70. My actual experience, from a time I lived and worked on the coast of Maine, is that when the air gets bitterly cold the sea-water gets a sort of oily look, just before it freezes. I wonder if the air gets so very cold it freezes the very topmost molecules of water, which then float in suspension with the liquid water, and don’t sink even as the coldest water does. Eventually these suspended molecules form a skim of slush, which is the beginning of the ice-cover. I’ve witnessed this.

    IIRC as it freezes, it does so by separating out fresh water (which freezes) while leaving behind more concentrated salt water (which sinks through the new ice, leaving tiny pores, to rejoin the sea. This process of differential accretion/distillation of freshwater ice proceeds to produce freshwater sea ice.

    The same sort of precipitation/distillation functions for water-alcohol mixes (and probably other stuff as well). The freezing point of alcohol is well below that of water. When a water-alcohol mix starts to freeze — think beer in the freezer — it does so by first nucleating tiny flecks of low-alcohol ice (which then grow) creating a slush where the ice is progressively higher in alcohol content and the remaining liquid is “distilled” into a higher alcohol concentration. The process (which I’ve oversimplified) is described here:

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

    rgb

  71. What you guys need to understand is that it’s worse than we thought. It’s worse than the climate models predicted and it’s because of man’s extra co2.

    “The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard- of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface…………..Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted.”

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    November, 1922
    Monthly Weather Review

  72. ” As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”

    Heat transfer from the ice free ocean to the atmosphere is primarily by evaporation. The global average near surface atmosphere is 1.7 C cooler than the ocean surface, and presumably this represents the equilibrium where ocean heat gain from solar irradiance equals heat lost to the atmosphere, leaving ocean temperatures constant.

    What’s different about the Arctic is post the autumn equinox (now). is when atmospheric temperatures get very much colder, and we must be seeing large scale heat loss from ice free areas.

    In comparison, Antarctic sea ice is 500 to 800 kilometers closer to the equator – Antarctic sea ice has reached almost the same latitude as London this year. This matters because the closer the ice gets to the equator the greater the increased albedo (cooling) effect.

    So, we have large scale heat loss from open Arctic Ocean and large scale heat loss from Antarctic sea ice albedo.

  73. MikeB:

    At October 19, 2012 at 2:40 am you ask

    So the implication that open water would have a greater cooling effect that ice cover is not obvious. Can anyone provide evidence or logic for that statement?

    I will give it a try.

    Heat is transferred towards the poles by ocean currents. The tropics are a net absorber of radiation and the polar regions are net emitters of radiation.

    Therefore, the Arctic ocean radiates energy which it obtains from warmer regions. But ice acts as an insulator over the surface of the ocean: heat energy in the water has to conduct through the ice if it is to radiate from the surface. And ice is a very good insulator.

    Remove the ice and the insulation is removed so heat radiates from the Arctic Ocean more rapidly and, therefore, the rate of cooling of the ocean increases.

    I hope that is clear.

    Richard

  74. The reason that the water radiates more heat away than ice even when they have the same emissivity is due to the heat transfer from the bulk ocean. In the case of seawater the surface radiates and therefore cools, the density increases and so it sinks to be replaced by warmer water from below. So the temperature of the water remains fairly constant until ice forms. In the case of ice when the surface cools heat flows from the underlying water via conduction which is much less efficient, therefore the ice surface cools rapidly. The radiation depends on T^4 so the radiation from the surface decreases. The water can’t go below -2 whereas the ice can easily drop below -20.

  75. Tim Folkerts says:
    October 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    David A. Evans says: “This is no surprise. The energy loss with the open water will only lead to cooling.
    If that were the case, then wouldn’t we expect that the ocean and air temperatures should be below normal by now from all that cooling? In fact, the temperatures are continuing to run above average.

    The temperatures will remain higher than normal in a fast refreeze due to the latent heat of fusion being radiated away. Once the surface is frozen then the temperatures should start following the average curve of the DMI graphic..

  76. How does a change of 2.62409 from 3.36855 equal a 43.8% difference? I get about a 78% increase. All of the percentages computed by sunshinehours1 are wrong. Of course it still is irrelevant, as someone pointed out above if the ice had completely melted this summer any recovery would constitute an infinite increase. And what is so special about day 31 after the minimum?
    What has reformed is very thin first year ice. The volume is still at record lows:

  77. “Hee hee. The high rate of change is just a simple mathematical consequence of the very extreme depth of the fall in ice extent in the first place. ”

    And your point is, Lazy Teenager?

  78. Since big melting slide ended in 2007 the oscillatory mode has re-established

    We are entering the positive (faster freezing) part of that cycle. There will be some noticeable recovery over the next couple of years.

    WARMISTA WARNING: this plot was generated by looking at ALL available data not just the September minimum, so may be misleading.

    I predict it will touch the 30 average first week in December.

  79. Gary Lance says
    Don’t you think that arctic sea ice is toast and it’s just a matter of a short time before the arctic is ice free?
    Henry @ Gary, Richard C.
    No. That is not going to happen.
    looking at the right graph (NOT A MODEL)

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    we are on a curve. It will take at least another 4 years before we have bottomed out.
    Roughly speaking, comparing weather, you could count back about 88 year which brings us to about 1924. (2012-88)

    Now, read this newspaper report from November 1922 (almost 1923). Do take the effort to read the original newspaper clip….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    Sounds familiar?

    Stop worrying about the carbon. Start getting prepared for the cold.

  80. As others pointed out earlier, a lot of the ice wasn’t melted, but instead turned to slush, which the satellites can’t pick up well. It makes sense that the slush would re-freeze very quickly.

  81. What I’ve always found interesting about the Arctic Sea Ice Extent graphic is how little variation there is at max compared to the wide variation at minimum.

    Mike.

  82. Gary Lance says: Anyone who has made an honest effort to study arctic sea ice knows it’s toast, so what’s with the games?

    Which clearly you haven’t.

    Enjoy your toast.

  83. The fast melt of the Arctic sea ice was a major story on the BBC by their so-called Environment Correspondent, David Shukman.
    Oddly, there is no matching feature about the fast re-freeze…
    BBC..? Biased Broadcasting Corporation….

  84. R Korbs says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:25 am
    —————————————————————–

    Much ado about nothing! Lovely acronym, where have I seen that character sequence before?

  85. Geoff Sherrington says:
    October 19, 2012 at 1:48 am
    >>
    Would not the more relevant measurement be the annual integrated ice extent (the area under the graph each year?) Seems to me that there would be a different energy ranking sequence if each year was summed day by day. Spread over a year, the minimum extent date and area seem to depend on several variables, some of which act in light and some in darkness, some months away from where the minimum extent happens. It’s not area that is the primary focus, it’s energy. including that difficult wind energy component & direction over a year.
    >>

    Valid comments but it’s hard to evaluate energy without the thickness. Ice area is probably a better index than 15% extent that depends heavily on how it gets spread or compacted by wind.

    The main thing to do if one is interested how it’s changing is to look at rate of change rather than trying to guess how change is varying from the day be day data.

    Once you look at rate of change and apply a one or two year filter you start to see the big picture and it’s quite surprising what you see, http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png

    I’m not aware of any of the major Cryo sites that are even examining this nor anyone who has noticed that the big slide has actually ended.

    Perhaps Anthony should put this plot on his sea ice page ;)

  86. Some AGW proponents have argued that less ice cover at the end of the melt season, which causes quite a bit of heat to escape from warmed Arctic waters, adds water vapor to the atmosphere which leads to catastrophic snow in the surrounding land areas. So we will see if snow is worse this year. That’s one issue.

    Here’s the other one. This event can be explained by intrinsic oscillations better than anthropogenic causes. Why? CO2 cannot explain the warmer currents that entered into the Arctic (LWIR really sucks when it comes to heating water). But ENSO events can and do explain the warmer water entering the Arctic polar region. The same can be said for the teleconnection between oceanic conditions and atmopheric systems. So even the storm that broke up Arctic ice has natural causes.

    The null hypothesis has yet to be refuted as a cause.

  87. How about this:
    1) The open water provides additional heat [over ice covered water] to warm the vacuum of space via radiation.
    2) This heat acts as an insulating barrier that slows heat transfer from the equator.
    3) The open water, as it evaporates [losing heat], increases water vapor in the atmosphere.
    4) Increased water vapor will provide the “fuel” for increased snow.
    Results:
    1) More snow in the northern regions.
    2) Northern Pacific/Atlantic stays warmer for an increased time.
    3) Snow melts faster due to warmer northern Pacific/Atlantic.
    4) Open water heat transfer to space will result in increased freezing [after enough heat is dissipated].
    5) Ice will melt faster in the spring/summer due to warmer Pacific/Atlantic.

    Questions:
    1) What supplies the heat to warm the Pacific/Atlantic at the equator?
    2) What supplies the heat to cause the El Nino?

    Comment:
    After 350 years of warming, the Sun is in a what appears a long term [50 year] reduced output cycle. Won’t it be great to be able to enjoy the “good old days” when the Thames River froze over!

  88. @Harold “a completely typical sea ice season”.
    Please proceed! This denier humour is killing me!

  89. The start of the post says when seas lose their ice cover they lose a lot of heat due to LWIR, but if new sea ice is clear and transparent, doesn’t the sea still lose heat due to LWIR at near the same rate as it did before the sea froze? Once the ice becomes thick or loses its transparency then I can see how LWIR drops to near zero.

  90. Yeah, Anthony, but all that horrible, rotten melting that lasted a whole month or two dealt the Arctic a permanent, mortal blow from which it can never recover. /sarc for the clueless

  91. @ sunshinehours1:

    October 18, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    2012 (to day 291) already has a higher average sea ice extent (NSIDC) than 2011 (which may change).

    And is closing in on 2007.

    I suspect the NORSEX data (if I could find it) would show 2012 higher than both.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Is this what your after:

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

  92. ****
    richardscourtney says:
    October 19, 2012 at 2:52 am

    But it is disappointing news.
    I had hoped for an ice-free Arctic ocean with all the resulting benefits for trade and shipping.

    And nobody has managed to tell me of any problems likely to derive from an ice-free Arctic ocean (although some people who know nothing about polar bears think the bears would not like it).

    The rapid refreeze implies we may not get the benefits of an ice-free Arctic ocean. It is a matter for regret.
    ****

    Seconded. The further we are from glacial conditions, the better. And nobody yet has given a reasonable explanation why more ice is “better”. Not a one.

    You’d think LT or Gary Lance would try, but maybe even they’re not that clueless…

  93. I agree with Gary. The 30 year trend is clearly downward. I understand the cyclical- negative feedback- and reversion to mean- thinking, however it seems to me that those things happen over a longer timespan than a few years.
    Whether Mann and Lewandowsky are arrogant, or whether CO2 climate theories are wrong, the only sensible bet would be that next year’s arctic ice is below the 1990s average again. Maybe less than 2012, maybe more than 2012, but definitely below 1995.

  94. Can we please see the CO2 level in the vicinity of the freeze? Freezing ocean water expels CO2. That means the CO2 concentration in the area should rise faster than eh-vah. Yes or no?

  95. The argument that some make regarding the % being higher because the extent got so low is interesting, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. 2012 – 43.8%; 2007 – 25.1%. That puts 2007 at 16th on the list. Furthermore, if you look at km^2 refreeze per day, 2012 is 8th, while 2007 is 28th.

    By the way, why would this blog writer have used refreeze as a percent of the end of the 31 days and not refreeze as a percent of the minimum?

  96. We can play all the games you want about the arctic sea ice recovering, but it isn’t going to recover. In a few years, you’re going to run out of things to cherry pick, because that arctic sea ice isn’t going to be there in the summer and will be absent during a longer period each year. Most of the thick multi-year arctic sea ice is gone and what remains is starting to find new exits through the Canadian Archipelagos, like it has recently been exiting through the Nares Strait after the ice bridge collapsed. Spreading out ice volume with extent only looks good on paper and just means the sea ice can melt faster.

    That arctic sea ice had a minimum area in 2012 about the size of Greenland, so think of them as two large areas far to the north with a high albedo, preventing warming. By June, the snow cover loss in the Northern Hemisphere was three times the area of that arctic sea ice, further south and with plenty of time to cause heating during the summer. This trend in losing snow cover is even more recent than losing arctic sea ice and may have contributed to that 97% melt on Greenland.

    Specifically what I mentioned was looking for hope in a fast refreeze ignores the fact that sea ice insulates the heat in the ocean from the atmosphere. You could actually make more sea ice at this time of year by breaking up the ice and allowing the heat to escape. Only first year ice that gets lucky with drift can make it through a season.

  97. “So the implication that open water would have a greater cooling effect that ice cover is not obvious. Can anyone provide evidence or logic for that statement?”

    Liquid water is warmer than ice, it will radiate more energy even if they have the same emissivity.
    Ice is much more likely to drop with air temps, water will continue to radiate excess heat for as long as there’s enough turnover to replace cold water with warm(non-freezing).

  98. Gary Lance says:

    “We can play all the games you want about the arctic sea ice recovering, but it isn’t going to recover.”

    The planet is already proving you wrong. How do you explain that?

  99. Sunshinehours1 said:
    “Still the fastest in percentage terms.”

    Who cares? The percent increase of sea ice extent at day 31 after that year’s minimum is a number without any significance. As the minimums approach zero the percent increases will approach infinity. If there were no ice at minimum, any ice that formed afterward would constitute an infinite percent increase. This is all a way to fool people into thinking that the ice is just fine, and that the volume of ice is not still at a record low (since May).

  100. Gary Lance:

    At October 19, 2012 at 8:38 am you predict

    In a few years, you’re going to run out of things to cherry pick, because that arctic sea ice isn’t going to be there in the summer and will be absent during a longer period each year.

    Although I am certain you are wrong, I sincerely hope you are right.

    My hope is explained in my post at October 19, 2012 at 2:52 am. Perhaps you could address that by expressing your rejoicing at the good news which you predict is imminent?

    Richard

  101. Sure, glaciers, snow cover, arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets and permafrost are all in retreat, but you think getting an antarctic sea ice maximum, because of extra wind and precipitation, means something besides it’s all going to melt away.

    Tell me why there are two Patagonias, when there used to be one with the third largest ice sheet in the world!

    The world will keep melting and when it runs out of ice, it’s going to start really heating things up in the arctic, lowering the temperature difference between the equator and the arctic. That will change the jet stream and exceptional weather will become a new reality.

  102. vukcevic says:
    October 18, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    “Big (fresh water) ice melt = large volume of fresh water added
    large volume of fresh water present = faster freezing”

    Exactly – fresh water from the mainland melt is floating on the saltier sea surface as well as the snow accumulation which is also fresh water that when melted floats on the sea surface.

  103. The low value doesn’t mean anything at all, not if it recovers/refreezes to a ‘normal’ range. The so-called worry/claim seems to be that at some point there won’t be any Arctic ice at all. And that is a LONG way from ever happening.

    If it dips low at any time in the cycle but then comes back, none of this matters at all. The low point – whoop dee freaking doo. It’s a tempest in a teapot that has no significance.

    Steve Garcia

  104. Crispin in Yogayakarta says:
    October 19, 2012 at 8:16 am
    Can we please see the CO2 level in the vicinity of the freeze? Freezing ocean water expels CO2. That means the CO2 concentration in the area should rise faster than eh-vah. Yes or no?

    Check out what happens at Point Barrow in Oct-Dec (below)

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/barrsio.co2

  105. I can address the fact that you have to look at the full picture when wishing for the world to not have arctic sea ice and if your climate changes for the worse and does so rather quickly, then maybe you don’t live in Greenland, upper Canada or Siberia.

    There is enough positive feedback in our warming trend to make major climate changes, like turning our bread basket into a Dust Bowl. The warming will continue for years.

  106. Phil. says:
    October 19, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Crispin in Yogayakarta says:
    October 19, 2012 at 8:16 am
    Can we please see the CO2 level in the vicinity of the freeze? Freezing ocean water expels CO2. That means the CO2 concentration in the area should rise faster than eh-vah. Yes or no?

    Check out what happens at Point Barrow in Oct-Dec (below)

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/barrsio.co2

    CO2 low is when there’s the most open water. Cold water, which arctic water is, absorbs more co2 than warm water or I have to assume than ice and snow do. That’s why co2 rises as more and more of the arctic turns to ice, blocking cold water from absorbing co2.

  107. Gary Lance says
    There is enough positive feedback in our warming trend to make major climate changes, like turning our bread basket into a Dust Bowl. The warming will continue for years.
    Henry says
    that is not going to happen, unless it happens because of global cooling.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1113982

    Otherwise, here on wuwt we challenge scientists to actually show their results, or, at the very least, show us the results of someone you believe in, so we can have a look at those, and challenge their conclusions, made from those results.

    I have not seen anything from you, Gary?

  108. Rob Murphy: “Who cares? The percent increase of sea ice extent at day 31 after that year’s minimum is a number without any significance”

    I care. The refreeze has been fast. In terms of area 8th fastest. In terms of percent, the fastest.

    Part of the reason for the post was to mock the NSIDC excuses for Antarctica.

    You don’t care because your ilk kept quiet about the recovery in the Arctic Maximum in 2012 so you focus on the irrelevant minimum caused by the cyclone.

  109. Thanks Phil. There is clear evidence in spring and fall/winter that the ice melt is absorbing the CO2 and expelling it again when it re-freezes. I am amazed that I have never read anything about this. So, obviously this feeds into my calculation that if the ice on Greenland (3.5 m cu km) and surrounding lands melts, it will absorb roughly 320 ppm CO2. Without repeating the details on this thread, that is about as much CO2 as mankind ever emitted. Based on the ice available – about 25 m cu km – the CO2 concentration is self-levelling. As CO2 causes ice to melt (they claim) then that meltwater absorbs CO2 with no effort on our part at all, and I am talking about thousands of gigatons.

    Let’s see the alarmists weasel their way out of that one.

  110. Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 9:20 am

    “I can address the fact that you have to look at the full picture when wishing for the world to not have arctic sea ice and if your climate changes for the worse and does so rather quickly, then maybe you don’t live in Greenland, upper Canada or Siberia.”

    “There is enough positive feedback in our warming trend to make major climate changes, like turning our bread basket into a Dust Bowl. The warming will continue for years.”

    Funny how our “warming trend” is so scary, worrisome, etc., yet this interglacial period has seen much warmer times in the past with a consequence that assisted our ability to flourish. Furthermore, is there evidence that during those periods of warmer temperatures that the mid-west US was a dust bowl? Keep in mind the driest desert on the planet is located in Antarctica and warmer air holds more moisture…and when to all the floods happen in the mid-west? ( http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/?n=ms_flood_history ) I believe if you check, there is no lack of mid-west flooding during the WARM period of the 1930’s. If anything, you will maybe see less flooding during colder periods.

    Additionally, warmer or colder is not a change in climate. The northern hemisphere generally has air flow from west to east. That is the primary maker of the northern hemisphere climate, followed by where oceans in relation to continents. As pointed out previously; climate is tropical, subtropical, dry continental, marine, polar and so forth. Being warmer or colder is not climate change. The seasons exhibit temperature changes in weather which are a result of the air masses from which climate drives.

  111. R Korbs says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:25 am

    Wont it be wonderful when it all melts in summer and we can slap ourselves on the back about the infinite % increase in cover as it freezes in autumn.

    Not likely, because:

    garymount says:
    October 19, 2012 at 1:10 am

    I have a hunch that the closer you get to the pole, the harder it is in an exponential fashion to melt the ice. The warmists seem to be calculating a linear trend when predicting the no ice condition even though the area of concern sits on a sphere.

  112. “I care. The refreeze has been fast. In terms of area 8th fastest. In terms of percent, the fastest.”

    But it doesn’t mean anything. In a week it might be the 5th, or the tenth. Next month it might be an average recovery from the minimum. What matters is the minimum is trending down, and fast. As is the volume -it’s still at record low volume and has been since May. This years minimum volume is about 80% lower than what it was 30 years ago. As the minimum extents approach zero, the “percent increase” after the minimum will approach infinity. The ice that has come back is a thin layer.

    “Part of the reason for the post was to mock the NSIDC excuses for Antarctica.”
    It looks more like you are mocking “skeptics” by having them fall for such a silly claim. I really thought you were pulling people’s legs with this, but I sadly see you were serious.

    “You don’t care because your ilk kept quiet about the recovery in the Arctic.”

    It isn’t recovering in the Arctic. I think you meant to say Antarctic. The “recovery” lasted a day or two and is insignificant.

    “so you focus on the irrelevant minimum caused by the cyclone.”

    The Arctic minimum is far more important than the Antarctic maximum. It was probably going to be a new record this year with or without the storm that came through anyway.

    Your post shows the desperation that “skeptics” feel. I pity you.

  113. @MICro

    “CO2 low is when there’s the most open water. Cold water, which arctic water is, absorbs more co2 than warm water or I have to assume than ice and snow do. That’s why co2 rises as more and more of the arctic turns to ice, blocking cold water from absorbing co2.”

    I am pretty sure the ocean is in balance with the partial pressure of CO2 within a few minutes. The ice is not blocking uptake, it is expelling CO2. Let me put it this way:

    CO2 low is when there’s the most melted water. Cold water, which arctic water is, warms in summer when the ice melts expelling CO2 but the absorption my melted water overwhelms it. That’s why co2 rises as more and more of the arctic turns to ice, as sea ice has zero CO2 in it. The same applies to snow and ice all over the northern hemisphere. When it melts in spring, the CO2 is re-absorbed, and very rapidly. The ocean is not an endless sink for CO2, it rapidly equilibreates at 320 ppm.

  114. The minimum is trending down slow because of the AMO.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/amazing-graph-of-amo-vs-arctic-sea-ice-vs-antarctic-sea-ice/

    The maximum did recover in 2012. For about 50 days it was 97/98% of the 1980’s average.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/arctic-ice-2012-a-little-perspective/

    Have a little perspective. The cyclone skewed 2012.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/great-arctic-cyclone-2012-caused-the-record-low/

    I pity you. You and your kind are like chicken little, forever proclaiming the sky is falling.

  115. Gary says, There is enough positive feedback in our warming trend to make major climate changes…The warming will continue for years.

    Well I’m sure you’re sincere in all these comments , this is the panic mode western media and a good proportion well-meaning, “concerned” scientists have been feeding us for the last 20 years.

    The good news is : you are misinformed.

    Here’s what you don’t see on the evening news (or anywhere else that I’ve seen).
    Rather getting obsessive about one day out if the Arctic year if we look at all 365 days of data we get a more honest look at what is happening.

    Take the length of the melting season from winter max to summer minimum:

    That would indicate there was a turn around in 2005, pretty clear it isn’t positive feedbacks, tipping points and run away global warming.

    Atlantic temps and cyclone energy level off at the top of the 60y cycle that has been going on as long as we can detect it.

    the big slide in Arctic ice extent has stopped

    Look at that in rate of change as well, a very clear change of mode in 2005 and a period of actual recovery (positive rate of change):

    rate of change of lower tropo air temp. there’s a clear down ward drift since 2000

    MiCro says:
    October 19, 2012 at 8:40 am

    “So the implication that open water would have a greater cooling effect that ice cover is not obvious. Can anyone provide evidence or logic for that statement?”

    You are right it is not obvious and vague arguments either way are not very informative. So take a look a some data. Take a look at rate of change of Arctic sea ice in relation to AMO (North Atlantic sea temps)

    Warmer waters have caused a lot of ice to melt , sea temps (inverted in this plot) have turned the corner and ice has stopped the accelerating decline we saw from 1997-2007. It seems to have reached a new equilibrium with the warmer water.

    It’s still a bit early to be sure about where the new mode will settle but current evidence of such an equilibrium suggests the newly exposed water has a countering effect.

    I’m not saying that is firm proof but you asked if there was any evidence and logic for such a proposition and there you have some.

    One thing is certain in all that is the message is getting clearer and it is not saying positive feedback , run away warming and catastrophic melting of the Arctic.

  116. HenryP says:
    October 19, 2012 at 10:39 am
    Phil. says
    “Check out what happens at Point Barrow in Oct-Dec (below)
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/barrsio.co2
    Henry says
    Come on, Phil.
    that data goes only until 2007.

    So what, the question was, “Can we please see the CO2 level in the vicinity of the freeze? Freezing ocean water expels CO2. That means the CO2 concentration in the area should rise faster than eh-vah. Yes or no?”

    That dataset answered the question perfectly, there’s no reason to suppose that freezing water no longer expels CO2.

    Where is the rest?
    i.e. the rest. from 2007-2012, must show cooling,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1113982

    i.e. a decrease in CO2,
    which they all keep hiding…..(to try and save their jobs?)

    Must it Henry, you’re sure about that?
    Hiding it in plain sight apparently!

    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/flask/month/co2_brw_surface-flask_1_ccgg_month.txt

  117. “henry says
    Your post shows how little you understand of the real physics (that will make make more ice)”

    I understand it just fine. Certainly I wouldn’t make the mistake of using a made up statistic like “percent recovery of the ice at day 31 since minimum” as in indicator of well, anything. It means nothing. It’s a desperate attempt to pretend that the ice isn’t melting fast, and has been for a while now. If the extent had been 1 million km^2 at minimum and it added 2 million km^2 by the 31st day, that would have been a 200% increase. That would make it clearly the biggest “recovery” on record! The ice is just “fine” so-called “skeptics” would say. If the ice had melted completely, and there was 1 million km^2 by day 31 after the minimum, the percent increase would be infinity! Can’t get more of a recovery than that!

    The statistic is useless, except for fooling gullible people.

  118. It’s a joke to ask for a scientist to point out that arctic sea ice has volume, so extent isn’t what is melted. Sea ice has an extent when 15% of an area is sea ice over a five day running average. That means 85% of that area can be liquid ocean. The amount of heat that is needed to melt ice at 0 degrees C to water at 0 degrees C is enough to warm 4 times that amount of 0 degrees C water to 20 degrees C. That means when there is no ice to melt, that heat can rapidly change temperatures and climate.

    There is evidence throughout the world of obvious warming, so what feedbacks can prevent it? Adding more greenhouse gases isn’t a negative feedback to warming and it’s already calculated we have added 7% more water vapor. I pointed out 2012 had nearly 6 million square kilometers less snow cover in June and that is nearly three times the minimum sea ice area or area of Greenland. That much albedo change is significant positive feedback and permafrost loss increases methane releases. Aerosols don’t last long in the atmosphere and the trend is to remove them, which will also cause warming. Lossing ice from sources that were year round ice means that heat doesn’t have to melt ice that isn’t there to melt.

    The signiture for greenhouse warming is the arctic and troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling. The signiture of denial is to ignore the obvious and isn’t being skeptical. The signiture of climate change is to be totally indifferent to what someone believes, so thinking it isn’t happening will never save you. A drought doesn’t check a person’s ideology to determine which crop to ruin and the consequences of climate change aren’t something in the future. Putin was welcoming climate change saying it would help his northern country and that year a scientist checked the weather in Moscow and it said smoke. We don’t know where the excessive weather will strike, but we know it will strike and become the new norm.

    People who deny climate change are in their last few years just like that arctic sea ice. Neither have a future.

  119. Rob Murphy says:
    October 19, 2012 at 10:52 am

    “Being warmer or colder is not climate change.”

    “It sure as hell is. What a silly thing to say.”

    …right…the difference between day time highs and night time lows is climate change…climate is the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place, warmer or colder is only one aspect of climate. Example: Desert is dry regardless of being a warm desert or a cold desert, still the climate is desert. :)

  120. Rob Murphy,

    Like Gary Lance, you avoid the fact that the IPCC’s prediction was for both hemispheres to lose ice. That has not happened, thus the conjecture is falsified. But by all means, continue moving the goal posts. It is amusing to true scientific skeptics watching you turn your failed arguments into pretzels.

  121. Crispin in Yogayakarta says:
    October 19, 2012 at 11:06 am

    “I am pretty sure the ocean is in balance with the partial pressure of CO2 within a few minutes. The ice is not blocking uptake, it is expelling CO2. Let me put it this way:”

    The surface of the ocean may be in balance, but it’s already depleted some of the co2 near the water (reducing measured concentrations during the summer). Come winter, ice which doesn’t absorb co2, stops depleting surface air of co2.

    “CO2 low is when there’s the most melted water. Cold water, which arctic water is, warms in summer when the ice melts expelling CO2 but the absorption my melted water overwhelms it. That’s why co2 rises as more and more of the arctic turns to ice, as sea ice has zero CO2 in it. The same applies to snow and ice all over the northern hemisphere. When it melts in spring, the CO2 is re-absorbed, and very rapidly. The ocean is not an endless sink for CO2, it rapidly equilibreates at 320 ppm.”

    Ice can contain dissolved gases, that fact that you can freeze a can of pop sort of disproves this “sea ice has zero CO2″. But ignoring that.
    The deep oceans at the temperature they are, can absorb 2,000-3,000 x the Co2 of the entire carbon cycle. Cold arctic waters laded with co2, sink transporting at least some of that co2 down to the colder deep water.

  122. Just two simple reasons for the refreeze graph this year: (1) The sun vanishes from the Arctic lands the same each year — where the sun is gone, the freeze happens. Less ice = more refreeze. (2) There is an old-ice relic north of Wrangel Island — the last piece left from the Siberia-Alaska ice bridge which melted out in the very last melt days of September. This ice has grown back out and joined the main ice cap — and that configuration means a lot of extra ice perimeter and consequently ice growth. If the Alaska end of the ice bridge had survived, the growth would have been even faster.

  123. “…right…the difference between day time highs and night time lows is climate change…”

    That’s not what was being discussed. The change in average temps over time is climate change. Of course diurnal changes are not climate change.

    “climate is the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place, warmer or colder is only one aspect of climate.”

    So you agree that the average temps in an area are part of its climate after all. If those average temps change, than by definition the climate changed.

    “Example: Desert is dry regardless of being a warm desert or a cold desert, still the climate is desert. :)”

    The climate of a desert includes more than just its average precipitation; it includes its temperature as well. Temperature doesn’t define an area as a desert, but it certainly is a component of every desert’s climate. That’s why we call some “warm” deserts and others “cold” deserts. Antarctica doesn’t have the same climate as the Sahara even if both are “deserts”.

  124. “Like Gary Lance, you avoid the fact that the IPCC’s prediction was for both hemispheres to lose ice.”

    They have. Sea ice is only a small part of Antarctica.

    “But by all means, continue moving the goal posts.”

    This thread is a perfect example of moving the goalposts, using a made up irrelevant statistic and pretending it means something.

  125. Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 11:35 am
    “People who deny climate change are in their last few years just like that arctic sea ice. Neither have a future.”

    Odd how some people who have no respect for others or other opinions resort to name calling or mean spirited condescending remarks. As a matter of consideration even appear to threaten. Hurray for you. I read somewhere that there are people who are pathologically narcissistic, they tend to be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others’ needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen. I am sure your comment is not a reflection of such behavior is it Mr. Lance?

  126. Post the IPCC prediction that the antarctic would lose sea ice! The best data we have is both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. Antarctica actually has two ice sheets and the WAIS is losing mass. We’ve lost ice shelves there that have been there for around ten thousand years. Have you ever looked at the satellite history of antarctic sea ice? There is a little bit of multi-year sea ice in the gyres of the Weddell and Ross Seas and there used to be areas near the shore that kept some sea ice, but all those areas show a history of being flush out when the weather is right. Remember Shackleton’s crew being left with the ship and the sea ice taking them all the way to Elephant Island? That was quite a journey for that sea ice. The antarctic sea ice minimum is not showing a trend of being larger and warming will permit more snow fall in a desert too cold to snow.

  127. highflight56433,

    The central fact that Murphy and Lance refuse to admit is that there is nothing unprecedented happening. Natural variability explains 100% of all observations. The rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 is not causing any measurable global warming. The entire ‘carbon’ scare is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: planet earth.

  128. Gary Lance:

    At October 19, 2012 at 11:35 am you say

    There is evidence throughout the world of obvious warming

    I suggest that you provide this “evidence” to the IPCC as a matter of urgency because they have failed to find any such “evidence” despite seeking it for decades and they would like to put it in the AR5.

    Oh, and could you copy it to us, please, because we would like to see it to.

    Richard

  129. P.Solar says
    …the real physics and about curve fitting and about how and why you construct a model to fit to data.

    Don’t be so derisive of others.

    Henry says
    Which part of where I said:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    is NOT A MODEL

    did you not get?

    If you try to put the original data into any kind of other fit (like a binominal with r2=0.998),
    the predicted cooling only becomes worse…….

    see here where the original data comes from

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/

  130. Rob, this is where I part ways with your definition: That’s why we call some “warm” deserts and others “cold” deserts. Antarctica doesn’t have the same climate as the Sahara even if both are “deserts”.

    Climate of the Sahara is desert, and the climate of the Sahara is desert. One is cold, the other is warm, both have a desert climate. The west North American climate is driven the the prevailing wind. The portion from approximately California and north is Pacific marine climate where by it draws generally from the Pacific. South of California the air is dry from passing westward across Mexico and further south becoming sub-tropical. Those are climates.

    If the Siberian tundra changes to sub-tropical, then that is climate change. As for now, is has not changed anymore than has Greece, which is Mediterranean climate. It appears by your definition of climate, that any given location the summer is one climate while the winter is another climate.

  131. Gary says: “We don’t know where the excessive weather will strike, but we know it will strike and become the new norm.”

    Right , we “know” because gore made a film and won a Peace Prize.

    Gary says: “People who deny climate change are in their last few years just like that arctic sea ice. Neither have a future.”

    Those who are currently in denial are the catastrophic warmists like yourself. I posted several graphs all drawn from official data sources on air temps, Arctic ice , sea temps all showing things are not shaping what we thought they were in the 1990s.

    You have not even commented on that , yet continue your diatribe of misinformed assertions about climate. The evidence is presented and you close your eyes to it rather than heave a huge sigh of relief that the future is not a horrible as you had thought.

    Being in denial is the psychological refusal to accept bad news despite the evidence. Paradoxically, for you, the bad news is that it’s not that bad.

  132. “Climate of the Sahara is desert, and the climate of the Sahara is desert.”

    That’s only a partial definition of their climate. If you drop the temperature component, which you already admitted was a part of climate, you have given only partial information. Clearly the climate of the Sahara and Antarctica is not the same.

  133. “The central fact that Murphy and Lance refuse to admit is that there is nothing unprecedented happening. Natural variability explains 100% of all observations.”

    Argument by assertion is no argument at all. “Natural variability” explains nothing; you might as well say invisible pink leprechauns explain 100% of all observations.

  134. Rob says: “…Antarctica doesn’t have the same climate as the Sahara even if both are “deserts”.

    Actually, they just don’t have the same weather, one is warm dry weather, and the other is cold dry weather. By defining a desert climate, the weather is dry (cold or warm). The climate is desert.

    D. Boehm says: “The entire ‘carbon’ scare is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: planet earth.”

    Unfortunately there are more sheep than watch dogs and some wolves are more ravenous. For some odd reason Jones Town comes to mind. “Now then, everyone drink some Kool-Aid.”

  135. “Actually, they just don’t have the same weather, one is warm dry weather, and the other is cold dry weather.”

    No, they have different climates. By your definition, you could just as easily say their climates are hot and cold, and one is dry hot weather the other is dry cold weather; that precipitation is just “weather” and temperature is what matters. They both are part of the definition of a region’s climate.

    “By defining a desert climate, the weather is dry (cold or warm). The climate is desert.”

    Climate isn’t just how much precipitation falls.

    This attempt to decouple temperature from climate is silly. This is basic geography.

  136. “Rob Murphy,

    Obviously you know nothing of the null hypothesis.”

    Sure I do. It doesn’t mean “natural variability explains everything”. Just saying “natural variability explains everything” actually explains nothing. It’s a cheap hand-wave.

  137. P. Solar

    I’ve never seen Al Gore’s film, but I’ve been on enough political sites to know the Gore argument is weak. Scientists don’t listen to politicians.

    I know the facts about climate data and I’m not interested in your pseudo-science games. I didn’t even open the wrapper, because I’ve seen it all before. Skeptics don’t cherry pick data and denialists with an agenda do.

  138. richardscourtney

    A scientist should know the difference between warming and surface temperature. Since when is a planet a surface? Since when have we had the ability to measure the surface of our planet?

    A scientist knows it takes heat to melt ice and a lot more heat than to raise temperature.

  139. Rob Murphy says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    “you might as well say invisible pink leprechauns explain 100% of all observations.”
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    And the difference between your claim about carbon dioxide and invisible pink leprechauns is what exactly?

  140. “Fastest refreeze EVER” seems diificult to claim as truth in the title – “fastest refreeze in the recent instrumental record” or something to that effect seems more truthful and fact based. Otherwise one commits the same sin as exaggerating alarmists.

  141. How old is the planet we live on? How long has man/woman been studying climate change/ artic ice loss/ antartic ice loss/ global weather patterns etc? Common sense tells me to at least wait a while, a long while!

  142. Rob Murphy says:
    October 19, 2012 at 10:48 am
    “….The Arctic minimum is far more important than the Antarctic maximum….”
    There is considerably more sea-ice in the south. 19 million square kilometers versus 14 million kilometers. The antarctic ice extends towards the equator to a degree that would put sea ice around Scotland, if the north did the same. Also Antarctica is far bigger than Greenland, and reflects far more sunlight. And it isn’t important?

  143. Rob Murphy,

    The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. Natural variability is sufficient to fully explain the current climate. There is no need to invoke an extraneous variable like CO2.

  144. I’m sorry I can’t be there in person to observe the sea refreezing; but I will make the following prediction; valid during the time that sea water is freezing to form floating sea ice.

    As the sea water gives up its 80 calories per gram, of latent heat during the phase change, the Temperature will NOT increase above the ambient water Temperature near the ice growth interface.

    The release of latent heat does not raise the Temperature above the phase change Temperature.

    In other words, if the release of the latent heat causes the Temperature to rise above that of the phase change, the phase change process CEASES.

    And if I could float up to the atmospheric zones where moist air falls to the dew point temperature, and clouds form; the Temperature will not rise above the temperature of the moist air that has risen to that altitude. The phase change does not take place, until the latent heat has been removed from the water vapor, by transferring it to a cooler material; the higher colder air; that being the direction that the second law allows a net transfer of heat; sans any work being done. If that air were to increase in Temperature the phase change would cease.

  145. Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    >>
    P. Solar

    I’ve never seen Al Gore’s film, but I’ve been on enough political sites to know the Gore argument is weak. Scientists don’t listen to politicians.

    I know the facts about climate data and I’m not interested in your pseudo-science games. I didn’t even open the wrapper, because I’ve seen it all before. Skeptics don’t cherry pick data and denialists with an agenda do.
    >>

    Well, if your earlier post and not commenting on actual data that I present wasn’t enough, you underlined my point nicely.

    Without giving it any consideration or “opening the wrapper” you know it’s “pseudo-science” and know that you’ve seen it all before.

    You state that whatever evidence is presented, you will dismiss it out of hand and refuse to consider it if you think it may challenge what you “know”.

    That is about as clear an admission of being in denial as I can imagine.

    You are a self confessed DENIER.

    Still, they say the first stage to curing this sort of condition is to accept that you are doing it. Since you have no problem acknowledging that you refuse to look at the evidence I’d say your half way there already. Good look.

  146. Gary Lance:

    At October 19, 2012 at 1:19 pm you say and ask me

    richardscourtney

    A scientist should know the difference between warming and surface temperature. Since when is a planet a surface? Since when have we had the ability to measure the surface of our planet?

    A scientist knows it takes heat to melt ice and a lot more heat than to raise temperature.

    Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
    Heating consists of adding heat.
    Heating can occur without warming because the heat can create a phase change (e.g. melting or evapouration).
    Every scientists knows this and I note that you say you don’t.

    Global warming refers to the surface temperature of the Earth.
    Global warming does not refer to the bulk of the planet. The bulk of the planet is molten.
    I wonder why you make so many posts here when you do not know this.

    We have been measuring the surface of our planet for millenia. If you want to know when we acquired the ability to measure the surface temperature of our planet then the International Geophysical Year (IGY) decided it was 30 years before its date in 1958.

    Are there any other elementary questions you want answered to remove more of your great ignorance of the subject on which you choose to pontificate?

    Richard

  147. Caleb

    Minimums are always more important, because of insolation. The Earth doesn’t warm with sea ice sitting the dark. The antarctic sea ice doesn’t have a Gulf Stream directed towards it. It doesn’t make sense to compare two very different polar regions. The antarctic sea ice minimum is some sea ice protected in gyres or it would be ice free in it’s summer.

    Getting back to the point of this thread, if right now you took an ice breaker down to the antarctic sea ice, you’d be destroying it, but if you took one up to the arctic, you’d be creating sea ice. It doesn’t have to be that cold to make sea ice, but it takes time to remove the heat from a column of ocean. Sea ice is a very dynamic thing in it’s increases and decreases. It’s not a one dimensional temperature factor to make or destroy sea ice.

    The arctic sea ice is in a death spiral, because it has lost it’s protection and it’s thick multi-year sea ice. I’ve been following sea ice for a long time and the exits for arctic sea ice to warmer waters has changed. High pressure over Greenland speeds up the Fram Strait and it’s becoming more common. The Nares Strait doesn’t have ice bridges preventing sea ice exiting the arctic like it once did and the Canadian Archipelagos have started to leak and melt multi-year sea ice. Unless sea ice is caught in the Beaufort Gyre, it’s doomed if it wanders into all that open ocean. The gyre feeds the transpolar current, which sends the sea ice towards the Fram and Nares Straits.

    There isn’t a physical force keeping all that sea ice bunched together, it’s bunched together because that’s the only place left to survive. Some have hoped the summer melt would slow as the “circumference” became smaller, but the headlines will soon read that the North Pole is ice free. The last of the sea ice will hang around northern Greenland and the Canadian Archipelagos, but it won’t be like the old days when it could pile up and be protected. There are too many exits now to send it to warmer waters.

  148. Gary Lance,

    Arctic ice has wide natural variability. And there is no scientific evidence that the current decline is caused by human CO2 emissions. Just so you know.

  149. Mr. Lance, there you go again with attacks and acusations: “I know the facts about climate data and I’m not interested in your pseudo-science games. I didn’t even open the wrapper, because I’ve seen it all before. Skeptics don’t cherry pick data and denialists with an agenda do.”

    Your reputation is preceeding you:
    Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    [snip. Referring to others as deniers violates site Policy. — mod.]

    Since you know the facts and you have seen it all before, I am not sure why you waste your precious time here. We will be sure not to waste our time reading your comments since we are well beneath the level of your superior understanding.

  150. P. Solar says:
    October 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    That is about as clear an admission of being in [snip] as I can imagine.

    You are a self confessed [snip].

    Mods- what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

    Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    [snip. Referring to others as deniers violates site Policy. — mod.]

  151. P. Solar

    What you presented as links wasn’t data or science.

    I believe when I see pictures of several hundred glaciers that are melting that heat is involved and the same thing with sea ice. Let me know when the ice I can see stops melting, because I don’t have to believe it’s melting to know for a fact that it is! What is the climate around Patagonia going to be like when all that ice is gone? You might also want to consider the fact that the ice isn’t infinite and the heat will be around when it’s gone. Temperatures and CO2 don’t have to increase to melt all of those glaciers, ice sheets, sea ices, snow covers or permafrosts. Positive feedback will do it with time.

    The truth is scientists have understated the warming, because feedbacks are hard to estimate and scientists don’t like to go out on a limb. There is nothing in the cards to make the arctic stay cooler in the future and the Northern Hemisphere where most of the people on Earth stay is going to experience extreme climate change.

  152. highflight56433

    What about the reputation of calling someone a warmist or warmista to their face, but objecting to that person using the term denialist in a general sense?

    [Reply: Read the site Policy page. ‘Denialist’ is a deliberate pejorative, which refers directly to Holocaust deniers. If you post it again your entire comment will be deleted. — mod.]

  153. We’ve known for at least 40 years what our position on Milankovitch Cycles was and the radiative forcing to produce cooling can be calculated. Both warming and cooling have feedbacks that amplify, but the one with the most force gets the feedbacks. To warm a cooling Earth, all you have to do is overcome the force of a cooling trend with a force of a warming trend and it switches those feedbacks to your side.

  154. Wow. So many errors in concept and physics. Where to begin – can’t possibly cover them all. MiCro, basically that is not how it works. Yes, I see you have been reading. The CO2 in the Barrow area is dominated by water => ice expelling CO2, we have discussed this briefly before and the chart going back a few years was not about the total level, it is about the local CO2 concentration v.s. ice/snow cover (snow also expels CO2 when forming). Ice contains no CO2 – look it up. Snow pack contains tiny bubbles of air which contain CO2 which is in turn sampled by scientists. It is not ‘absorbed in the ice’ in case anyone thinks that is the mechanism.

    @Gary Lance ” …and it’s already calculated we have added 7% more water vapor.” Sorry, but that is simply not so. The globe is no warmer now than it was 16 years ago (not detectably, anyway) and the water vapour content of the important part of the atmosphere (where we live) is the same all the time. The moisture in the stratosphere has been dropping for years. Because you are well-informed you knew that, right?

    “I pointed out 2012 had nearly 6 million square kilometers less snow cover in June and that is nearly three times the minimum sea ice area or area of Greenland.” Area, of course, is not mass. I see the pea, I am not falling for the switcheroo. CO2 is about total mass, ice/snow cover could be discussed in terms of both. Delta mass means it melted and absorbed CO2 (the mass of frozen => meltwater involved.) The total mass of ‘all frozen water’ increased in toto – get the ice mass on Antarctica + ROW and see. To show the implications of this look at the local CO2 in Barrow during the coming months. It will rise. Is it because of all those traditional Inuit-owned seal blubber-fired power stations? Probably not.

    “That much albedo change is significant positive feedback and permafrost loss increases methane releases.’ This postulation is in error. First, removing the cover means far greater vertical IR loss – BIG one. Second, methane from ‘melting permafrost’ is not at all the same as losing snow cover – apples and oranges. But since you raised it, plant growth on any newly thawed permafrost greatly exceeds in CO2 drawdown compared with the effect of tiny amounts of methane. Also the age of the permafrost greatly affects the amount of methane released, plus much of it eaten by bacteria before it leaves the ground. Tree growth is just waiting to happen as soon as it is warm enough. There used to be forests on what is now permafrost. How much CO2 will removed by that? Do the math. CO2 is not a dominant driver of polar climate.

    “Aerosols don’t last long in the atmosphere and the trend is to remove them, which will also cause warming.” As a person who measures aerosols, I do not agree. Aerosols can ‘last’ for centuries or days. Depends on their size. Removing diesel PM will cause cooling. Removing woodfuel PM will increase temps. Forest fires cause net cooling. The Moscow fire was located right next a brutally cold summer from Khazakhstan to Mongolia. Do the research then the sums then post comments on the world’s most popular science blog.

    “Lossing [sic] ice from sources that were year round ice means that heat doesn’t have to melt ice that isn’t there to melt.” What are you trying to say? Old sea ice is like, what, 7 years old? The open area moves around depending on the sea currents pouring heat into the Arctic basin and the local weather conditions (viz this year a storm broke up a lot of the ice). You imply a warmer cllimate melted the ice. Not so. The sea ice is mostly not not melted by the sun, it is continuously melted from below by imported heat. When the ice is broken up or stops cooling fast enough it melts. With the ice out of the way the sea can cool properly. The increased solar radiation x the albedo is a red herring, Do the math. It is not hard. Do it well and you can get a grant.

  155. What is wrong with this statement?

    “The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years”

    Source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049444.shtml

    Hint: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

  156. Gary Lance,

    From your link:

    “…The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years… Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability…”

    There is nothing wrong with that statement.

    And the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified.

  157. Crispin in Yogayakarta developing aerosol measuring protocols

    What am I trying to say? I said ice and that means all ice. Permafrost doesn’t go all the way to the surface in the summer in many places, so removing it doesn’t increase IR loss from what it originally was. Permafrost can be a hundred feet thick in some locations.

    If you look at that snow cover chart for June, you will notice losing large amounts of snow cover is a recent trend. The second image shows you where it was lost and that’s important because the snow cover in forested areas has a different albedo change than areas of tundra, barren or wetlands.

    Glaciers or alpine areas are limited when compared to snow cover near six million square kilometers in June.

    Polar areas are important in the summer and once that arctic sea ice is gone, that heat will be around to warm the Arctic Ocean and the land surrounding it. Eventually, there won’t be sea ice present in June.

    If that snow cover remains near the 2012 level next year, expect to see another 150 year Greenland meltdown.

    Aerosols are hard to accurately estimate for their radiative effect, but most of our aerosols are gone in a week and are only there because they are constantly replaced. According to the EIA, we were down to 36% of our electricity being produced by coal in their last reported month and 38% for the last 12 months. We have the EPA wanting pollution standards enforced and natural gas is much cheaper to use as a fuel. It isn’t that hard to convert a boiler from coal to natural gas. The trend for aerosols in the US is in decline and that means more warming.

    Antarctica and Greenland are both losing mass, but the albedo changes are nothing like losing 6 million square kilometers of snow cover. The antarctic sea ice minimum goes back to the same each year and that’s were the albedo effect is important.

    CO2 is important in the long run and it’s hard to remove from the atmosphere, but the additional forcing caused by emissions is small compared to all the other forcing. We already have enough to mess up the world.

  158. D Böehm

    There is nothing wrong with the statement, according to you, except there is no data in the entire time of before 4,000 years and up to more than 5,000 years where data shows less that 30 degrees.

    The GISP2 data starts at 95 years before present and present is defined as 1950. I’ve seen Greenland ice core data compared which has yearly rings and is available in some locations. The temperature data varies from location to location by a large amount. The temperature data is a O18 proxy, so how can someone accept it to even make such wild claims?

  159. Gary Lance,

    You don’t agree with R.B. Alley because his conclusions do not support your belief system. Typical of the alarmist crowd’s ‘catastrophic AGW’ religion.

    This simple animation puts the current global temperature into perspective:

  160. D Böehm

    BTW, this chart you posted says it’s before present (2000) and deceptively uses a red line to record data contained in the Alley, R.B report, but that red line actually connects the latest sample analyzed at 95 years BP and BP is 1950, so the chart ended in 1855 and not 2000.

    Here again is the data:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    Here is how you can find all NOAA Paleoclimatology Ice Cores Data Sets:

    http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:2659353468376959:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:

  161. D Böehm says:

    “You don’t agree with R.B. Alley because his conclusions do not support your belief system. Typical of the alarmist crowd’s ‘catastrophic AGW’ religion.”

    Alley, R. B. doesn’t agree with you. His take is the temperature on Greenland varied a lot over time, much like the dates commonly claimed to be the MWP, LIA or any other period of interest.

    If you had a good point using GISP2 data, why does everyone doctor the charts? There are about 20 different bogus charts for GISP2 and anyone who has discussed climate change knows it. If you know it, why do you use it?

    I gave you a link to all Paleoclimatology Ice Cores Data Sets. Do I have to go to NOAA and get a comparison of yearly ice cores for the present, I was just looking at them yesterday? I told you why I didn’t accept the data and it’s because the present day O18 data from ice cores doesn’t match to a couple degrees, so why should one ice core be accepted as gospel? If you can’t get the present temperature to match using O18, why should the thousands of year old samples be accurate to a degree of temperature? You said the present temperature for the last decade was 29.9 C and that’s lower than the entire Medievel Warm Period. Do you know what was used to get present day data? I know they analyzed many modern ice cores, which could be accurately dated to the year, with visible rings and fallout. It’s not like the data after 1855 does exist and the data has to be better with more samples to average. Between 2000 and 2009, there was probably instrument measurements for that data.

  162. Gary Lance,

    There has been no statistically significant warming since before 2000, so it doesn’t matter what happened between 2000 and 2009.

    Next, ice cores from both hemispheres are in agreement.

    Finally, the planet itself is falsifying all the catastrophic AGW nonsense. Who should we believe, the alarmist crowd? Or Planet Earth?

  163. Rob Murphy says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm
    “Like Gary Lance, you avoid the fact that the IPCC’s prediction was for both hemispheres to lose ice.”

    They have. Sea ice is only a small part of Antarctica.

    If you were keeping up with the latest measurements you would know the most recent data from ICESat shows Antarctica adding 47 GTs of land ice per year in addition to the record sea ice.

    You were saying?

    In addition, as mentioned earlier the sea ice is most important in terms of albedo. It reaches the lowest latitudes and hence has the greatest cooling effect. The small amount of changes in land ice have no impact on albedo. Neither do changes in ice volume but we constantly hear whines from alarmists about ice volume.

    I’m quite disappointed in the level of knowledge of our latest alarmists. They don’t even know the very basics of their own side’s arguments.

  164. D Böehm

    Do you know what the true meaning of statistically significant warming is and how it’s possible to apply it to a decade? All the warmest years on record are the last years and ice is still melting. When that ice is gone, that heat will start significantly raising temperatures.

    I’m not an alarmist, because I have enough sense to know the days of pretending global warming doesn’t exist are near the end. What people think doesn’t matter much, the important thing is what governments think. Governments know there is global warming and Russia, the US and UK have had nuclear submarines under that arctic sea ice, so there is thickness data going back much further than satellite data . Heat melts volumes of sea ice and not sea ice extent.

    So what environmental groups do you think collect that NSIDC and NOAA data? Perhaps you have guessed it, because the whole world knows what great environmentalist the United States Navy and Department of Commerce are! You should know about the Navy, because people try to use NIC data that is only gathered to give immediate advice to their shipping interests, before it’s properly analyzed.

    “Finally, the planet itself is falsifying all the catastrophic AGW nonsense. Who should we believe, the alarmist crowd? Or Planet Earth?”

    The planet behaves like it had a strong El Nino in 1998, then a string of La Ninas and the next strong El Nino will crush that record data if a La Nina doesn’t beat it to it. The planet behaves like it can warm without showing consistent yearly increases in surface temperature, which aren’t even recorded all over it’s surface. The planet behaves like it’s burning up ice, like we burn up fossil fuels and guess what, it’s going to run out of ice before we run out of fossil fuels?

    I have studied what makes planets function, before there were global warming concerns. We aren’t going to get away with a 2 degree C rise in temperature when this is done without geoengineering. The feedback mechanisms haven’t all kicked in yet. A planet mostly covered with water can easily hide warming.

  165. I know when that sea ice volume runs out, there is no extent. I also know the albedo of slush is different than the old sea ice extent.

    The latest data I’ve seen has Antarctica losing mass. WAIS will be having problems in the near future.

  166. Gary Lance says:

    “All the warmest years on record are the last years and ice is still melting.”

    Well, all my tallest years are the most recent years. And…

    “I have enough sense to know the days of pretending global warming doesn’t exist…”

    I have never said there is no global warming. The planet has been naturally warming since the LIA, along the same long term trend line. Global warming has not accelerated. The long term warming trend has been the same, whether CO2 is low or high. Therefore, CO2 does not have any measurable effect.

    And you have no scientific evidence showing that it does.

  167. D Böehm

    I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that adding greenhouse gases to a planet heated by the sun and back radiation will cause warming. Pretend you are on Mars, Mercury or the Moon, I don’t care. Governments have better sense and they will figure out when they have gone too far.

    I expect another watered down IPCC report and the world will have it’s share of misery if it spends 5 more years for a reasonable analysis. If they blow their feedback calculations like they blew that arctic sea ice free estimate, it will be Hothouse Earth. As it is, I don’t see anything natural for negative feedback, except the chance of a large volcanic eruption.

    “And you have no scientific evidence showing that it does.”

    You have the calculations on radiative forcing and greenhouse gases don’t have much error. Back radiation can be measured and it isn’t a theory, it’s a fact.

    China’s health problems will cause them to reduce aerosols. Paying people to build scrubbers is easier than building cities without populations.

    Things don’t naturally warm without a mechanism to make it warm. Nature is a word and concept that behaves according to the laws of Physics. You posted a chart that ended in 1855, which claimed it ended in 2000. There is obviously an effort to distort science, but with the majority of scientists on the payroll of industry, can you explain why they can’t discover this natural mechanism to warm a planet? Big oil has it’s share of Geologists and you have to take a course in Physical Geography to be a Geologist. Don’t you think it’s odd all those Geologists can’t discover a natural mechanism for our present climate change, like they have for past climate change?

    The problem with your analysis is, scientists have looked at everything and greenhouse gases are the only thing they found. The equivalent of setting off 400,000 Hiroshima bombs each day sounds like a lot energy to me.

  168. Gary Lance says:

    “You have the calculations on radiative forcing and greenhouse gases don’t have much error. Back radiation can be measured and it isn’t a theory, it’s a fact.”

    Wrong. If you believe you have measurements showing that CO2 causes warming, post your chart here. Post it right here, instead of your baseless opinion.

    The fact is that you have no such chart. There is no scientific evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. NONE. But there is ample evidence proving that ∆T causes ∆CO2.

    The alarmist crowd has cause and effect completely reversed; that is clear from empirical [real world] evidence. No wonder you arrive at the wrong conclusions. You people are running off in the wrong direction, as the scientific evidence proves. That is why your Belief system is being falsified by Planet Earth. Because you are operating on a religious belief instead of science, you will not change. You do not see it, but that is a fact.

    Nothing unprecedented or unusual is occurring. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. And the “carbon” scare is based entirely on money, not on science. Word up, because that is reality.

  169. @Gary, Rob et al:

    Serious question – why does the minimum extent matter so much?

    The lower albedo of open water can’t have any warming effect because, by the time it’s reached, the sun ain’t shining up there and won’t be again until march next year. So there is NO sunlight to be reflected. Albedo means nothing when it’s dark.

    From the point of view of thin v thick ice, thin ice is pretty much as reflective as thick so, as long as the cover extent (NOT volume) has returned by the time the Arctic sun rises again in March, there isn’t any positive feedback to worry about.

    In fact, because the open water in those initial dark months is better at radiating heat (because it’s warmer and has better heat transport properties than ice does), a low minimum extent will have a net cooling effect provided it recovers by next March (when the sun rises again).

    If you look at the annual graph, you’ll see that’s exactly what keeps happening. Regardless of the minimum, by the next spring equinox (when the polar sun rises), the cover is invariably back very close indeed to it’s long-term average.

    If there’s a flaw in my logic there then please explain where it is? Remember, this is a SERIOUS question and I’m quite willing to be convinced that I’m wrong if you can put your case as (hopefully) clearly as i’ve put mine. Please note that appeals to authority, sarcastic comments and personal attacks are NOT “putting your case”.

    I’m not a climate scientist, just a lowly computer science BSc who mends clocks and watches for a living, so I’d prefer a clear, step-by-step logical argument as I’ve offered you. There’s a long-standing tenet that I’ve always subscribed to: if you really understand what you’re saying, you should be able to distill it in this way for non-experts to grasp. Please demonstrate and share your understanding!

  170. So you want to use science to prove that back radiation isn’t caused by greenhouse gases and that’s why it’s called pseudo-science. Increasing greenhouse gases has to increase back radiation and can be proven whenever the humidity changes. Back radiation is a fact that can be measured, because water is a greenhouse gas that is variable in the atmosphere and those variations can be measured. Those measurements for solar irradiance and the Earth’s energy budget are averages of many measurements. How do you explain back radiation being nearly twice the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface? Science isn’t science is not an explanation! The same energy budget was in college textbooks 40 years ago, before global warming concerns and no one was objecting to greenhouse gases then.

    Just how do you explain Venus being the hottest planet with it having such a high albedo, that it’s called the Morning and Evening Star? What besides greenhouse gases could cause that Earth size planet to get so warm, when so much of it’s sunlight is reflected?

    The margin of error in estimating the radiative forcing of global scale, high LOSU greenhouse gas is very small and measuring aerosols isn’t.

    Climate change isn’t something that can be put off for the future and it will be at your door whatever you believe. Climate change isn’t weather, it’s changing the world you have to live in and it will make itself known. There is no place you can live in America and avoid it.

  171. I would take that as a slight positive for the 2012 Arctic melt season. If the freezing area of 2013 even approaches that of 2012 there most likely will be much less open water per average day in the next season, probably along the lines of 2006, 2008 and 2010.

  172. Gary Lance:

    Concerning the AGW scare, at October 19, 2012 at 9:25 pm you write to D Böehm saying

    What people think doesn’t matter much, the important thing is what governments think.

    It is pleasing to see you are at last starting to get a clue.

    Governments abandoned the AGW-scare at the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009.

    I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.

    Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.

    Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.

    As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

    Richard

  173. Joe says:
    October 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm
    —- —-
    The following description may be helpful when thinking about polar regions and albedo (surface reflectance) / insolation (sunlight)

    The Arctic / Antarctic circle is that region that is entirely cast in darkness at the point in time of the winter solstice. The 24 hr/day shadow then grows smaller for the next 3 months as the leading edge slowly moves its way toward the pole. The pole itself sees 6 months of continuous darkness, and as you move away from the pole the amount of complete darkness reduces in length till you have reached the arctic circle where it will have only had a moment of darkness, if you will. (Did I just say the same thing twice?).

    I can describe the summer condition as well, but I think it becomes obvious what happens in the polar regions when you think enough about it.

    An helpful program that I used to use, and have just downloaded it and installed it once again is a program called HomePlanet that shows the current shadow on a map of the earth:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/homeplanet/

    For Windows. Source code is even provided for your use as you please if you like.

  174. Phil. says:
    October 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    >>
    P. Solar says:
    October 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    That is about as clear an admission of being in [snip] as I can imagine.

    You are a self confessed [snip].
    >>

    There is no policy forbidding use of the words deny , denial or other derivatives thereof. The ban is on using denier as an offensive slur with implicit connotations of holocaust denier.

    My whole point , that I state clearly in such terms is that Gary Lance is displaying clear evidence of being “in denial” in the true psychological sense. ie refusing to confront the evidence that may challenge what he believes.

    In his reply he does it yet again:

    Gary Lance says:
    October 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    >>
    P. Solar
    What you presented as links wasn’t data or science.
    I believe when I see pictures …
    >>

    Well, sure looks like data. All from official sources.

    Sorry, I don’t do “pictures”.

  175. Joe says: Albedo means nothing when it’s dark.

    No. Albedo (reflectivity) is the complement of absorptivity (a=1-r) and at a specific wavelength, absorptivity is equal to emissivity. So what reflects less absorbs and emits more. That does matter during the 6 months of the polar night.

    What is also important is that open water evaporates. Both those effects will act as negative feedbacks to a reduction in ice cover caused by warming of the Arctic environment.

    One of the graphs I’ve linked is interesting in this respect:

    It shows the increase in North Altantic SST (inverted in this graph) was accompanied by an accelerating change in ice cover. Now that the AMO has levelled out the big slide has stopped an returned to it’s previous oscillatory mode.

    Thus rate of change is again oscillating around zero change but with a much reduced ice coverage.

    This is not formal proof but is evidence of a net negative feedback, not the positive feedback a lot of people are suggesting will happen. There is NO evidence of tipping points etc in this data, what we see here is an adjustment of sea ice cover to he warmer sea temps.

    That does not preclude Siberian permafrost melting , belching massive methane reserves etc. in the future but the evidence of current climate change in the Arctic is one of a stable system controlled by negative feedback.

    Now if the media continue to focus on one day per year and ignore the data of the other 364.25 days we should not be surprised if a lot of people flip out and believe irrecoverable runaway processes are already happening.

    That is the aim of such propaganda.

    Anthony’s one day per year presented here is no more or less valid than the minimum. I think that is his point in posting this.

    The graphs I have produced here use ALL the available data. The result, not surprisingly, is much more informative

  176. Gary Lane: “The latest data I’ve seen has Antarctica losing mass. ”

    Hence proving you are completely out-of-touch with the current data. It appears you don’t even understand that the IPCC predicts the Antarctic will initially gain ice volume so you are completely out-of-touch with your own sides claims.

    However, don’t get all excited now as the reason there has been ice gain is not in line with the IPCC’s claims.

  177. Mpemba effect ?

    The increased ice melt which is largely driven by warmer Arctic currents, then re-freezes at a faster rate. Are we seeing the Mpemba effect in action here ?

    Whilst we have figures for Arctic air temperature and graphs for sea ice extent and area, we seem to lack data for Arctic water temperatures to allow a fuller discussion of future Arctic behaviour.

    With warmer Arctic currents set against a background of solar cooling we may see wider oscillation between record low ice extent in summer and increasing (perhaps record) ice extent in winter.

    The Mpemba effect is where warmer water will freeze before the same amount of cooler water. An experiment easily carried out at home, and one for which it is claimed that no scientist has yet satisfactorily explained.

    From Wikipedia;

    The effect is named after Tanzanian Erasto Mpemba. He first encountered the phenomenon in 1963 in Form 3 of Magamba Secondary School, Tanganyika when freezing ice cream mix that was hot in cookery classes and noticing that they froze before cold mixes. After passing his O-level examinations, he became a student at Mkwawa Secondary (formerly High) School, Iringa, Tanzania. The headmaster invited Dr. Denis G. Osborne from the University College in Dar Es Salaam to give a lecture on physics. After the lecture, Erasto Mpemba asked him the question “If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?” only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Dr. Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba’s finding. They published the results together in 1969.[4]

  178. From Gary Lance on October 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm:

    I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that adding greenhouse gases to a planet heated by the sun and back radiation will cause warming.

    Which is a good thing, as the Earth is not heated by back radiation. The source of the heat is overwhelmingly the Sun, with the contributions from human energy generation and that released from the Earth itself negligible. Our planet is heated by the Sun, period. The back radiation from the greenhouse effect comes from a slowing of the loss of energy to space, it does not heat the planet.

    From Gary Lance on October 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm:

    How do you explain back radiation being nearly twice the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface?

    Better still, how can you explain it? The solar radiation delivered is primarily visible light and short-wave infrared. Back radiation is long-wave infrared, with said LWIR generated from the absorption of visible light and SWIR.

    So how can back radiation possibly be twice the amount of energy absorbed from the Sun? Let us say the Sun delivers 10 Joules which is absorbed. From this, 10 Joules are released as LWIR. That is 10 Joules that can be returned to the surface by an impossibly-perfect greenhouse effect as back radiation. You are telling me that 20 Joules are returned instead. Where did the extra 10 Joules come from?

    At 10:33 pm again:

    The problem with your analysis is, scientists have looked at everything and greenhouse gases are the only thing they found. The equivalent of setting off 400,000 Hiroshima bombs each day sounds like a lot energy to me.

    Yes, it was quite amazing. Their imaginations ran out of possible reasons, they programmed computer models to show warming from GHG’s, primarily CO₂, and voila, the models showed there was warming from GHG’s, primarily CO₂.

    It seems you need a firmer grounding in GHE theory. Ira Glickstein PhD wrote a nice accessible series for WUWT, Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” that explains it very well.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/

    The effect is real, and frequently misunderstood.

    That said, CO₂’s future contribution is highly overstated by such as you. Its GHE response is logarithmic, and evidence is mounting CO₂’s effect is saturated. Any further increases from current atmospheric concentrations, in any range or rate of increase possible by mere mankind, would yield a negligible temperature increase at best, easily overwhelmed by natural forces.

    Moreover, the very first 20ppm accounts for over half of the GHE resulting at pre-industrial CO₂ levels. Anything beyond the “absolute minimum” ~180ppm levels of the recent glaciation episodes to current amounts is practically negligible.

    So when someone on this site says ‘CO2 doesn’t cause warming’, it’s likely they are not denying that CO₂ is a GHG, they are saying increases will not cause significant warming at the expected levels.

    Now back to the imagination-deprived scientists.

    Do you agree that the Sun is the ultimate source of warming? What possible reason could account for modern warming other than GHG’s? Less solar radiation being rejected thus more being absorbed, of course. D’oh!

    Start here, where it is noted:

    As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out his book,

    “The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

    With constant incoming energy, whether there is cooling or warming is changed by how much of the energy is allowed in, which is controlled by cloud cover. Spencer posited a mere 1-2% variation accounts for most to all of the warming blamed on “anthropogenic” causes, namely increased CO₂. At the linked piece, a peer-reviewed paper examining China reported “Significant decline in cloud cover with trend of −1.6%per decade during 1954–2005 was derived.” The authors also found the decrease wasn’t related to man-made aerosols thus likely a natural phenomenon.

    Which leads to this piece: Some confirmation of Spencer’s cloud hypothesis – it is getting less cloudy and warmer at the same time:

    A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent as shown in the figure below:
    [graph]
    The period of the study is from 1971 to 2009. The authors say that:

    “Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of 0.4% per decade.”

    Taken together, global cloud cover decreased and average of 1.56% over this 39 year period.

    Reduce the cloud cover, more solar energy is absorbed, global warming happens.

    You might want to read this short piece by Dr. Spencer, A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change. Very informative.

  179. Even w/all the embarrassing hand-wringing on this thread by a few ice-alarmists, there still isn’t a single reasonable explanation of why less ice is harmful. Remarkable. It’s like stepping back into the Dark Ages. Ghosts & goblins.

  180. richardscourtney

    You just don’t get it do you? Governments aren’t going to be giving the AGW-scare, they’re going to be getting it along with everyone else. The days of living in a world with weather as usual are over and a few years of it will convince governments it isn’t going to get better.

  181. P. Solar

    If you want to discuss data, post original charts with sources and not more of those tampered charts with cherry picked data!

    Try to keep in mind the physics of warming a planet involves more than surface temperature! Think of it like a well insulated house filled with hugh blocks of ice! Are you trying to say a warming event in that house has to immediately show up always as a yearly temperature increase and melting those hugh blocks of ice isn’t showing warming? Why isn’t melting an average of 800 cubic kilometers of arctic sea ice away during the sea ice minimum a sign of warming? Why isn’t having all those arctic temperature anomalies as predicted a sign of warming? How much warming can be hidden in our oceans that could never be detected within the accuracy of global temperature measurements?

    Try this litmus test! When ice throughout the whole world stops melting and starts increasing in volume, let us know about it. Don’t try cherry picking data for a super cold desert and claim added precipitation is inconsistent with warming! When a space craft can measure water underground in an aquifer, don’t dismiss it can measure ice sheets above ground. There is plenty of data including pictures of losing ice shelves in WAIS and glaciers speeding up, to suggest mass loss is presently happening in Antarctica, but the fact is Antarcitica is so cold that warming it enough should increase the chance of precipitation and add mass. Ice sheets don’t usually melt from the top, they melt from the sides. They are so large, they influence their own climate. Ice definitely has fluid properties and I’ve seen glaciers move quickly enough to keep people busy staying ahead of them.

  182. Sooo, if there is extra heat energy in the Arctic, why is the ice recovering? If that extra energy has escaped to the atmosphere why is it not showing up on the AMSU charts or DMI? If it has flowed into the oceans, either Pacific or North Atlantic why is it not showin up as both are cooling. So where’s the heat?

  183. P. Solar

    The albedo effect is a large scale effect of changing the reflectivity of the surface and how that surface handles solar radiation. It isn’t about cosmic rays in the dark or a neutrino happening to strike it.

  184. Richard M

    Why should I ignore satellite data the IPCC didn’t have and take the observations of scientists projecting the arctic sea ice would melt in 2100 seriously? Grace is the best system we have to measure ice sheets and the most recent data has WAIS losing mass, EAIS gaining mass and the net Antarctica losing mass. You don’t want to accept the data, because you want to cherry pick what you think suits your position. The fact is and you have been told, increased antarctic mass isn’t inconsistent with global warming. You’ll see the signs of Antarctica losing mass, because the ice shelves buttressing glaciers will break away first. You would think losing Larsen B that has been there at least 10,000 years would tell you something. The glaciers that fed Larsen B are behaving like all glaciers do when the lose what is blocking them. They always speed up.

    You have to be desperate to try to use Antarctica to refute AGW. Look at all the recent changes in the Antarctic Pennisula! Look at the changes in it’s nearest continental neighbor! Patagonia, the third largest ice sheet on Earth is quickly melting away and so are those Andes glaciers. The Southern Hemisphere just has much more water to buffer global warming, but it still shows signs.

  185. kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    It very simple how back radiation can be nearly twice as much as incoming solar energy absorbed by the surface of the Earth, because it’s been measured.

    If you can’t accept that as science and that the total amount of energy has nothing to do with it’s wavelength, then you don’t know anything about the science of electromagnetic waves.

    Without back radiation from greenhouse gases, this Earth would be frozen solid.

  186. Gary Lance:

    I copy your post to me at October 20, 2012 at 5:50 am so everybody can get the laugh again. It says to me

    You just don’t get it do you? Governments aren’t going to be giving the AGW-scare, they’re going to be getting it along with everyone else. The days of living in a world with weather as usual are over and a few years of it will convince governments it isn’t going to get better.

    If the AGW-hypothesis were a scientific issue then it would have been long-forgotten by now. $billions have been spent each year for decades in attempts to find some – any – evidence of AGW. But no evidence of AGW has been found and much evidence which refutes the AGW-hypothesis has been discovered.

    From its very beginning the AGW-scare was always political. And governments abandoned the scare at Copenhagen in 2009. The AGW-scare is an “ex-parrot”.

    The Earth has been refusing to warm for 16 years and no unprecedented weather has happened. But you claim of AGW that we are all “going to be getting it”. No, we are not “going to be getting it” unless the the Earth stops refusing to obey your imaginings, and there is no reason to think the Earth will change in response to your imaginings.

    You and the others who tried to spread the AGW-scare have lost. The scare is fading away and it cannot be recovered. But some minions of the major scaremongers have yet to recognise how they have been misled and misused so they continue to rant while the Earth refuses to warm.

    It seems you are one such minion. I feel sorry for you.

    Richard

  187. If the Arctic is entering a period of oscillation from record low extent in summer to (record) high extent in winter, could this presage a phase change, perhaps to a glaciation ?

    The Gary Lance’s of this World are wrong. Too many people want to oversimplify the World they live in. The chance that one single factor, co2 in this case, can dominate a system as complex and long lived as climate is simply not credible.

    Oceans and Ice Caps have considerable inertia and can show warming / melting for a time even though the background situation has shifted to a colder regime.

    co2 does not generate heat, we survive on this planet courtesy of the sun, and the sun has shifted to a colder phase, temperatures are currently buffered by inertia in the system from the previous high solar cycles which remains with us, we are also at a solar peak, though a low one, the outlook is increasing cold.

    Which means that the Gary Lance’s of this World will still be able to happily worry about temperatures, just the opposite of the one they currently expect.

  188. Gary Lance says:
    October 20, 2012 at 7:09 am

    Why should I ignore satellite data the IPCC didn’t have and take the observations of scientists projecting the arctic sea ice would melt in 2100 seriously? Grace is the best system we have to measure ice sheets and the most recent data has WAIS losing mass, EAIS gaining mass and the net Antarctica losing mass.

    Sorry, repeating incorrect information does not make it true. Grace has been shown to be wrong. The latest paper released in July 2012 analyzes ICESat data and computes an increase in overall ice mass. This paper is from NASA and was covered on WUWT last month IIRC.

    So, given that you won’t accept the most recent data why should anyone believe anything you say? It appears you are the one that loves to pick and choose the data that fits their belief system and ignore everything else.

    In addition, the southern ocean has been cooling as has the Antarctic for many years. I see you also ignore these facts in your desperation. This is the real reason for increased sea ice. Once again it appears the facts do not support your belief system.

  189. beng

    It’s been spelled out to you many times on this thread. Life as we know it in the Northern Hemisphere is dependent on have that sea ice in the arctic. The temperature difference between the arctic and the tropics determines the jet stream.

    The first point is that arctic sea ice is toast without geoengineering to keep it around. Toast means it’s gone in the summer, but even before it’s gone, the climate of the Northern Hemisphere has changed. If you think it hasn’t been that bad, you haven’t seen anything yet. Extreme weather has become the new norm.

    The timeline is something like this. In 2015, the arctic is ice free in the summer and each year that period of being ice free gets longer. If we are lucky and weather helps us out, it’s in 2020, but that five years isn’t going to help. Long before then, including past years, the jet stream begins to meander further south and north, often freezing itself over an area causing repeated weather. The results are droughts, floods, heat waves and when cold waves get fixed during a winter, you can claim there isn’t global warming, by ignoring the simple fact that an equal amount of warm has penetrated the higher latitudes. Those 150 year Greenland melts become yearly events.

    Winter in the Northern Hemisphere has snow cover that covers most of China, Siberia, Europe and the US, but that snow cover starts going away sooner each year. Warm air masses are roaming the Northern Hemisphere earlier each year and are willing to spend that warmth on any ice they find. All the glaciers are in massive retreat. As growth spreads to the northern latitudes, the more southern latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere become arid. Eventually Illinois has the climate of Louisiana.

    It’s possible that warming permafrost can cause massive methane releases, but we don’t know how much methane is there and how fast it can be released. We do know there is a major chance of losing a bread basket, it could be us, Russia, China or Europe. The relationship between large scale climate change and desert formation is well established. People will be starving before their major coastal cities are drowned, but the UK and the US will need a new capital.

    That is the warning of someone who studies science and doesn’t ignore it. The data to prove this is happening now is available for people wanting to see what is truly happening in their present world.

  190. “beesaman says:

    October 20, 2012 at 6:33 am

    Sooo, if there is extra heat energy in the Arctic, why is the ice recovering? If that extra energy has escaped to the atmosphere why is it not showing up on the AMSU charts or DMI? If it has flowed into the oceans, either Pacific or North Atlantic why is it not showin up as both are cooling. So where’s the heat?”

    The heat is in the ocean where it likes to be and quickly forming extent sea ice is just sea ice rapidly forming to trap that heat. It takes -1.8 degrees C to form sea ice and that isn’t very cold for an arctic winter.

    What part of volume gets so confusing to people on this site and what part of having sea ice with nearly no sunlight is confusing? People who study the arctic sea ice used to pay little attention as it refreezed, but many are watching it now. People who study arctic sea ice know a quick refreeze with large drift will make that sea ice more vulnerable next melt. If the sea ice traps heat, that heat can melt away sea ice that has survived to become thicker, so sea ice lucky enough to survive the summer melt is mixed in with some of that new sea ice that doesn’t have a chance of surviving next year’s melt.

    Sea ice extent is not going to preserve the volume of arctic sea ice. There is no good news in this years refreeze, be it extent, drift or salinity.

  191. gary lance posted this “Without back radiation from greenhouse gases, this Earth would be frozen solid.”

    think about that please, you are saying the direct sunlight does NOT warm the earth at all it is “back radiation” that does the warming……..CLUE = without the earth warming first from the sun there would be NO radiation to be reflected back, which doesnt happen anyway.

    there is NOTHING in co2 that would make it reverse the flow of IR from the surface towards space.

  192. richardscourtney

    I’ve said all along I don’t care what you people think, because what you think isn’t going to prevent what will happen. The days of thinking climate change are something you can avoid in the distant future are over and we all are going to have to live with it now.

    Scientists have done the people a favor by warning them and what favor have you done the people by pretending science isn’t science? You tried to save yourself a nickel by sabotaging policies to prevent climate change and costed yourself a dollar or more to do it. You made the choice to spend years being on the wrong side of an issue, so live with the consequences!

    The governments will wake up when they realize the new world’s game is making them spin the wheel of misfortune. If you think 2012 was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.

  193. Gary Lance:

    For the first time in this thread at October 20, 2012 at 8:41 am you write something that is true; i.e.

    There is no good news in this years refreeze, be it extent, drift or salinity.

    Indeed, so. The refreeze suggests we will NOT be getting the ice-free Arctic ocean which would have been such a blessing.

    As you say, not getting an ice-free Arctic ocean is not good news. It is very bad news.

    Richard

  194. Gary Lance:

    In your ludicrous rant addressed to me at October 20, 2012 at 9:02 am you say to me

    If you think 2012 was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.

    I don’t “think 2012 was bad” (although it would have been better without the financial crisis).

    2012 has been good so far. More people and less starvation than ever before. The usual minor wars around the world, but no global conflict. The usual minor natural disasters, but no major ones such as a Hurricane Katrina, a ‘Boxing Day’ Tsunami, or a Pompeii-type volcanic eruption. No pandemics. etc.

    Why do you “think 2012 was bad”? If you can answer that then perhaps your answer will explain the cause of your delusions about AGW.

    Richard

  195. Gary Lance. What is your point ?

    Are you saying that we should stop being such naughty people putting co2 into the atmosphere ?

    The fact is that nothing you or anyone else says is going to stop that, so I suggest you take whatever measures you think you need to take to adapt to the future you think is going to happen and move nearer the North pole.

    Myself, I think that temperatures are going to go down relentlessly and I will be moving nearer the equator.

  196. Kadaka KD Knoebel says
    Reduce the cloud cover, more solar energy is absorbed, global warming happens.

    henry says
    It is here where I think a few of may have got it the wrong way around. I am not saying that you are not right about needing some kind of cosmic particles to start a cloud. But first, to start a cloud you also need cooling.
    My analysis of the results on maxima coming from 47 weather stations shows that maximum temps have been dropping. In fact the best fit that I can make for it is a sine wave, wavelength 88 years.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    (this is not a model, but a logical conclusion from 47x365x38=651890 measurements; i.e. where else must the blue curve go, but to drop further down? Also note that the average change in energy-in over 88 years is simply 0.0 degrees K per annum, does everybody get that?)

    Before they started with this carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly, to explain an apparent 100 year weather cycle, if you study the height of the flooding of the Nile over time. See here.

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    To quote from the above paper:
    A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    (The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)

    So, indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) during and at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding during and at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more), it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain). At the same you would also have more clouds, naturally, so to speak.

    Now put my sine wave next to those dates?
    1995 end of warming – minimum
    1950 end of cooling – maximum
    1900 end of warming – minimum

    Not too bad, heh?

    Why all climate scientists keep looking at the average global mean temps. also puzzles me.
    Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetation, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc.
    On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, depending on whatever. Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor.
    So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing.
    Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in. There must be some lag between energy out and energy in, so I am more inclined to believe in a 100 year cycle consisting of 2 x 50 year cycle (44 + ca.5 ; remember 7 x 7 + 1 jubilee year?)

    So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.

    Hope this helps a few people.

  197. “J Martin says:

    October 20, 2012 at 7:38 am

    If the Arctic is entering a period of oscillation from record low extent in summer to (record) high extent in winter, could this presage a phase change, perhaps to a glaciation ?”

    Why is that, because you can just say so?

    The arctic sea ice doesn’t have a good place to expand and there is no data showing the maximum extent will be larger. The maximum extent doesn’t matter anyway, because it all melts away. The antarctic has two large gyres which usually protect a minimum of sea ice, but the arctic just has northern Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Archipelagos (CAA). The CAA has been falling apart and it really collapsed in 2012. All those straits are leaking sea ice and they are leaking the multi-year sea ice necessary for the arctic sea ice to survive. The only way we could buy that arctic sea ice some time would be to plug up the CAA and Nares with ice bridges and prevent the escape of multi-year sea ice. That obviously isn’t going to happen this refreeze season and I don’t anticipate the governments being proactive enough to do anything about it in the near future.

    Amplification isn’t something easy to quantify and it’s hard for people without a scientific background to understand. Our planet has feedbacks that were slowly making it colder, until a force overwhelmed the cooling trend and gained control of those feedbacks. The force doesn’t have to be strong, because the radiative force of cooling from Milankovitch Cycles is very weak. Any warming force strong enough to match it and then some gains control of the same feedbacks that were assisting it.

    Nature requires a mechanism to work and there is no mechanism to reverse the present trend. Can you see these June snow cover anomalies and picture the magnitude?

    Greenland doesn’t have quite 2 million square kilometers of ice sheet. If we continue to lose that much snow cover in June, Greenland is going to regularly melt like it did in 2012.

    Our present warming is like a sigmoid function that starts slowly and accelerates. That past 30 or so years where we saw all those rapid changes is the last stages of the slow beginning of that function. The time series starts back around a 13 degree C global temperature Earth and ends with a 22 degree C Earth. The ice free arctic is just a road sign letting you know the speed limit has changed.

    The only thing nature has to stop that function is man geoengineering his way out of it, while it is still within his power to do so.

  198. Richard M

    I don’t accept cherry picked data and I’ve told you over and over the antarctic ice mass has nothing to do with global warming. When a scientist looks at data, they look at all the data. When a scientist sees someone posting charts that deceive or flat out lie about dates, then they know the person isn’t interested in science. Science is the sum of knowledge about a subject and it doesn’t exclude data. If I wake up from a coma and are told we have a strong La Nina, I know the SST has declined and so has sea level. I don’t need to look at the data to make that conclusion or the opposite conclusion for an El Nino. Unless someone is willing to look at the whole history to discern long term trends, they are being deceptive to cherry pick certain starting points and presenting long term trends that way.

    “The latest paper released in July 2012 analyzes ICESat data and computes an increase in overall ice mass. This paper is from NASA and was covered on WUWT last month IIRC.”

    You claim you have recent IceSat data and IceSat collected data for 7 years, before it shutdown in February 2010. The consistent trend reported for Antarctica shows mass increase in EAIS and decrease in WAIS. The latest report is a mass reduction for the whole. Ice sheet data also includes fly overs.

    It’s too cold in Antarctica to snow, so the more it warms, the more likely it will be to gain precipitation and mass, as long as the glaciers don’t remove the mass. I’ve told you Antartica has two ice sheets and the WAIS is the one that will melt. If Antarctica helps us a little on sea level rise, then so what? The world will starve to death before it will drown.

    Is there anyone on this site who has taken college courses about the Earth, like a Physical Geography course that explains all the Earth’s features? Where is the logic in opposing greenhouse gas legislation and claiming that back radiation doesn’t exist, or that the scale has been tipped to cause warming instead of cooling? Since when is rejecting nearly 200 year old established science called science? When you see Greenland melting again in the coming years, don’t worry about drowning your coastal cities in the future, worry about the world of hurt you are going to have to deal with in the now! These aren’t going to be the Happy Days.

  199. Sooo, if the heat is in the Arctic ocean, why the huge refreeze? Funny sort of heat, maybe it’s that sort of heat that produces the snow and cold that we were never going to see again?

  200. From HenryP on October 20, 2012 at 9:49 am:

    Kadaka KD Knoebel says
    Reduce the cloud cover, more solar energy is absorbed, global warming happens.

    henry says
    It is here where I think a few of may have got it the wrong way around. I am not saying that you are not right about needing some kind of cosmic particles to start a cloud. (…)

    You can stop right there. While things like Svensmark’s galactic cosmic ray theory (hypothesis?) have a certain allure, I’m not going that far. By Dr. Spencer the late 20th century global warming can be explained by cloud cover variations without invoking CO₂, whose GHE is saturated anyway, the required amounts of cloud cover variations have been found, and that’s where I’m stopping, which is far enough.

    Mechanisms for the cloud cover variations can wait for later, and I doubt it’ll be any specific one. Likely there’ll be several possibilities, with interconnections… And it can be written off as within “natural variability” once we look at timescales longer than the professional career of a grant-seeking climate scientist.

  201. “Bill Taylor says:

    October 20, 2012 at 9:01 am

    gary lance posted this “Without back radiation from greenhouse gases, this Earth would be frozen solid.”

    think about that please, you are saying the direct sunlight does NOT warm the earth at all it is “back radiation” that does the warming……..CLUE = without the earth warming first from the sun there would be NO radiation to be reflected back, which doesnt happen anyway.

    there is NOTHING in co2 that would make it reverse the flow of IR from the surface towards space.”

    First of all I said solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the Earth and you changed it. Here is the image:

    It’s the same concept of Earth’s energy budget that predates global warming concerns. Now, because you want to fight against a carbon tax, you reject science that is older than when most people had their ancestors immigrate to America. Your agenda doesn’t change reality.

    Don’t you know all the scientists who study the planets know that without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, this would be a frozen planet? Nitrogen and oxygen can’t make this Earth warm enough to keep CO2 a gas, because the gases are transparent to the longwave radiation leaving the Earth’s surface. There are places in Antarctica where it is cold enough to form dry ice, based on instrumental records. It works the same on Earth as it does on another planet. There is no scientific debate about the greenhouse effect. Your model of the Earth is like Mars which has such a slight atmosphere, it’s almost like not having one.

    The surface of the Earth absorbs 168 watts per square meter from incoming solar radiation and it absorbs 324 watts per square meter from back radiation. An energy balance requires the amount entering the whole Earth to be the same as the amount leaving it and the same applies to the surface. Warming or cooling comes from changing the amounts and that’s why adding greenhouse gases change back radiation. The change only has to be enough to counteract the long term cooling change of our present position in Milankovitch Cycles and anything more will cause warming that is amplified by feedback.

    That isn’t a model, it’s data.

  202. Gary Lance and other co2 converts,

    will nothing ever change your mind ? How much cold will it take ? If we get something close to a Maunder minimum, is that enough ? or will you still say it was caused by co2 and call it another sign of global warming ?

    The effects of co2 are logarithmic, co2 has done it’s best or worst and can provide no further significant warming.

    If Livingston and Penn turn out to be correct, sunspots will be history round about 2020, the last time that happened we had a frozen Thames in London. Finland lost between one third and one half of it’s population, over a million people died in France, harvests failed throughout the Northern hemisphere.

    The Arctic ice has been melted from below, not from above where temperatures have remained below zero C for most of the year. Ocean currents can take years, sometimes hundreds of years to meander. Side effects of an ice free Arctic in the summer will be beneficial not some disaster as you imagine. Increased snow in the Northern hemisphere will happen, but that will not have been caused by the Arctic, since the Arctic will be frozen as usual during the winter.

    Runaway warming cannot happen, runaway cooling is just a matter of time, and quite likely we will start to see that within the next 5 to 10 years.

    Are you aware that the sun is behaving in a way never previously witnessed by science ?

    co2 is merely a symptom, the Sun is the cause.

  203. “richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Gary Lance:

    For the first time in this thread at October 20, 2012 at 8:41 am you write something that is true; i.e.

    There is no good news in this years refreeze, be it extent, drift or salinity.

    Indeed, so. The refreeze suggests we will NOT be getting the ice-free Arctic ocean which would have been such a blessing.

    As you say, not getting an ice-free Arctic ocean is not good news. It is very bad news.

    Richard”

    The problem with that is you obviously never checked the data on salinity, drift, SST, weather and all the other common data on a daily basis to have an informed opinion. I did and I was doing it long before the minimum.

    What you are being told is the patterns aren’t good for making good sea ice that will last a melt. The salinity is too high and all you have to do is check the archives back a couple years to see it. The drift was mixing up multi-year sea ice and I already was watching for a quick refreeze to keep it mixed up. You can check archives of that too. A quick refreeze locks the multi-year sea ice in place while it’s scattered, so it isn’t a good sign for things to come. Much of that multi-year sea ice drifted away from the CAA and if it’s caught in the Beaufort Gyre, there is a good chance of it going to open water and melting next year. If it makes it through the gyre, it still has the Fram and Nares Straits to deal with.

    I also pointed out a quick refreeze can trap heat and if multi-year ice is mixed in, that heat can melt the depths of that thicker multi-year sea ice. It’s better for the heat to vent to the atmosphere, because it won’t be around next year.

    If you want to know what happens to sea ice, you have to look at all the factors and not just the surface extent. Sea ice that is just putting on a surface show will be wiped out next year.

  204. “richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Gary Lance:

    In your ludicrous rant addressed to me at October 20, 2012 at 9:02 am you say to me

    If you think 2012 was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.

    I don’t “think 2012 was bad” (although it would have been better without the financial crisis).

    2012 has been good so far. More people and less starvation than ever before. The usual minor wars around the world, but no global conflict. The usual minor natural disasters, but no major ones such as a Hurricane Katrina, a ‘Boxing Day’ Tsunami, or a Pompeii-type volcanic eruption. No pandemics. etc.

    Why do you “think 2012 was bad”? If you can answer that then perhaps your answer will explain the cause of your delusions about AGW.

    Richard”

    It sounds to me like your whole world is only you.

    Where were you when the exceptional drought hit in 2012 or when the financial crisis hit, five year ago? You don’t remember the Mississippi running dry or all those forest fires, this year, crop failures, people selling off all their livestock, because they couldn’t find feed? Maybe you will remember it when you have to pay for it in the grocery store and we all will.

    I remember this old woman in Arkansas who took years building her herd of cattle and I think those cattle were more than money to her, when she had to sell them all off, because she didn’t have grass and couldn’t buy hay.

    I don’t know how many farmers I saw showing off their pathetic corn.

    Now, imagine a spin of the wheel of misforturne makes next year a drought for them, again! A good piece of our bread basket still has exceptional drought, so it isn’t over. Two years in a row will put a lot of farms under, like the Dust Bowl days. The country isn’t going to starve from it, but it will pay for it and those on the front line will pay the most, which could be all they own.

    I don’t have delusions that I didn’t warn people about climate change and there is a link between exceptional weather and climate change. You’ve been told exceptional weather is going to be the new norm, but you didn’t listen. These facts have been documented, so the record of these predictions exist.

  205. Kadaka KD Knoebel says
    Mechanisms for the cloud cover variations can wait for later, and I doubt it’ll be any specific one.

    Henry says
    I showed you the mechanism. Looks to me you doubt it.
    Priceless:
    to find I am the only one who made the connection.

  206. From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 7:21 am:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    It very simple how back radiation can be nearly twice as much as incoming solar energy absorbed by the surface of the Earth, because it’s been measured.

    That is the mewling of a science simpleton. You can’t explain why it could be true, but a measuring device gives you that reading, so that’s your explanation why it is true. I wouldn’t trust you to take voltage measurements, you’d be certain a 120V AC line has 170V spikes.

    If you can’t accept that as science and that the total amount of energy has nothing to do with it’s wavelength, then you don’t know anything about the science of electromagnetic waves.

    As I said, 10 Joules from the Sun are absorbed, 10 Joules are emitted from what did the absorbing, you’re saying there’ll be (nearly) 20 Joules of back radiation. What do those amounts of energy have to do with their wavelength?

    Meanwhile people who actually know science look at the energy emitted by the planet. Energy out equals energy in, once equilibrium has been established. No one who actually knows science would claim the back radiation is really twice the amount absorbed, when the amount absorbed is the amount emitted into space.

    But if you had looked at even the first Ira Glickstein article I linked to, you would have known why it appears to be true.

    Without back radiation from greenhouse gases, this Earth would be frozen solid.

    If you would have bothered to look at the logarithmic response link, you would have noticed that, yes, without GHG’s the Earth would be about 30°C colder, even 30K colder. But the overwhelmingly predominant GHG is water vapor. All the CO₂ in the atmosphere only provides about 3°C of warming.

    I’m sorry, but your vociferous ranting is quite tiring. You are going on and on about the catastrophic consequences of global warming, and how you are expecting those consequences very soon, some within a few years.

    But you are terrified to admit the next stop of your thought train, that it is already too late to do anything about it. By the thermal inertia of the world’s oceans, if more atmospheric warming will cause cataclysms within mere years, then that heat must already be absorbed into the oceans, and will be released, those cataclysms will happen. It is inevitable.

    The rate of atmospheric CO₂ increase will not be noticeably reduced for decades at least. There is no worldwide carbon limiting treaty currently in the works. If one is passed, there will be decades of carbon credit trading with little effective reductions, if any. The excess CO₂ in the atmosphere alone will require many decades to be absorbed. And the warming oceans will release more CO₂, and the melting permafrost will release potent methane which will become more atmospheric CO₂. ETC.

    If you think we must act NOW to avoid catastrophe, we have only a few years left, then you must admit it is already too late.

    From you on October 20, 2012 at 11:42 am:

    The surface of the Earth absorbs 168 watts per square meter from incoming solar radiation and it absorbs 324 watts per square meter from back radiation. An energy balance requires the amount entering the whole Earth to be the same as the amount leaving it and the same applies to the surface.

    And there you have just said the surface of the Earth absorbs 492 watts per m² total. And only one third of that is coming from the Sun, which is THE source of energy for Earth’s climate. You might as well be saying you put gas in your car’s tank at a rate of 30 miles per gallon which yields 90mpg.

    You must be having lots of fun accusing us of being anti-science, which you make easy on yourself by ignoring the real science we’re trying to present. If you bothered to pay attention, you might even notice we’re accepting science that you are SCREAMING that we are denying.

    As it stands, if we wanted to point at a moron who can’t even be bothered to get the science right before proclaiming HE KNOWS IT ALL and EVERYONE ELSE HERE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE KNOWS…

    Heh heh. You put on a real funny show for a Saturday, I’ll grant you that.

  207. “J Martin says:

    October 20, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Gary Lance. What is your point ?

    Are you saying that we should stop being such naughty people putting co2 into the atmosphere ?

    The fact is that nothing you or anyone else says is going to stop that, so I suggest you take whatever measures you think you need to take to adapt to the future you think is going to happen and move nearer the North pole.

    Myself, I think that temperatures are going to go down relentlessly and I will be moving nearer the equator.”

    We should have been working to fix this problem over 30 years ago and there were solutions, like Thorium MSRs.

    Temperatures don’t go down based on someone’s will without action. If you want to reverse the warming trend, you have to push the Earth towards cooling and remove that carbon from the atmosphere or the Earth will switch back to warming on it’s own. It will take years of effort to remove that CO2. If we let that arctic go ice free and wait, we may not be able to get the sea ice back during the summer.

    We could stop the cooling trend with stratospheric sulfate aerosols, but we run the risk of the Earth double downing us with a large volcanic reaction and those consequences. Another major problem is we would have to keep using aerosols until the CO2 is removed.

    We could plug up the exits for sea ice at the Nares Strait and the CAA. We could pump ocean water to the surface in the refreeze to make thicker sea ice. We could even destroy some first year ice forming during the refreeze with ice breakers to allow the heat to escape the ocean. It would take a massive effort to save that arctic sea ice.

    We could remove carbon with biochar and use it in fields to increase crop production.

    We are heading down the road to cause mass extinction and it isn’t just going to be species we wipe out. Maybe people should check the details of past mass extinctions and stop trying to imitate it!

  208. “beesaman says:

    October 20, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Sooo, if the heat is in the Arctic ocean, why the huge refreeze? Funny sort of heat, maybe it’s that sort of heat that produces the snow and cold that we were never going to see again?”

    Do you have a clue what you are saying?

    How thick is first year arctic sea ice and how far below the feet of someone standing in the arctic do you have to go to find a warmer temperature, when sea ice is forming?

    Sea ice forms when a column of water is sufficiently cooled to allow ice to form faster than the heat below melts it. Once the sea ice forms it insulates the ocean. If it snows on the sea ice during the formation process, the snow can insulate the sea ice from the colder air and make thin sea ice. If it snows too much and it weighs down the sea ice, ocean water can flood the snow and make thicker sea ice. That doesn’t usually happen in the arctic, but it’s been know to happen often enough in the antarctic.

    If you want ideal conditions to make sea ice, try a temperature of below -10 degrees C and wind to remove heat.

    Sea ice will lose it’s salt as it ages, but not as quickly as some here have said. Young sea ice is much more flexible than aged sea ice, because of the salt, but older sea ice is more durable. Older sea ice is also thicker, unless it’s been put in conditons to melt it.

  209. Gary Lance:

    I am answering your two posts to me at
    (a) October 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    and
    (b) October 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm.

    In (a) you say you cannot think of any problems from an ice-free Arctic ocean and you do not dispute the benefits it would provide but – for some reason – you think it would be a bad thing.

    It is a strange world which your mind inhabits where ‘good’ is ‘bad’. I am glad I inhabit the real world and not the fears of your imaginings.

    Indeed, in (b) you say to me

    It sounds to me like your whole world is only you.

    I cannot imagine how you could have gained that idea, but – on the basis of your writings in this thread – I suppose it is possible to find anything in the surreal world your mind inhabits.

    You assert that the banking crisis was induced by global warming.
    No. I will just say, no.

    And you claim the normality of weather events with nothing exceptional in 2012 makes 2012 a ‘bad’ year.
    Oh dear! You really do have some strange ideas. Nothing is perfect at any time. And there are people who struggle at any time. But you don’t provide any evidence to support your assertion that 2012 has been worse than usual: in fact, so far 2012 has been a good year.

    I suggest you ‘take a dram’, sit in an armchair and relax. All your unfounded fears about what AGW “will” do must be causing you distress. Everybody has real problems they need to address and worrying about the silly AGW-scare can only be distracting you from yours.

    Richard

  210. Gary Lance,

    Again you completely ignore the fact that the sun provides ALL our heat and is in the process of taking it away again, instead you seem to think that co2 magically generates heat. Sunspots are declining and in the past that has always led to cold periods, sometimes severe cold. Some sort of cold period is already inevitable over the coming 20+ years.

    I know the mass media have brainwashed themselves, the politicians and a lot of unfortunate people that co2 will deliver runaway warming, but the effects of co2 are logarithmic and so co2 has done most of the warming it can do, what’s left is about half a degree C to come.

    The World is not going to see runaway warming and didn’t even when co2 was at several thousand parts per million.

    The suns magnetism is declining and sunspots could be gone by 2020, today we are at a solar high, except that that solar high is only half the height of recent highs. Despite the solar high and co2, temperatures have remained flat, so as the solar high soon declines to an extended low the inevitable result will be long term cooling.

    The state of the Arctic is an irrelevant side show to the real issue, namely how will mankind fare if we get another Dalton, Maunder or worse.

    Your passionately held views are derived from a very narrow viewpoint and consequently are the complete opposite of reality.

    You are currently completely off your head. You have many hundreds of hours of reading ahead of you. Please move house to the North Pole and soon.

  211. Gary Lance, you said
    “Temperatures don’t go down based on someone’s will without action. If you want to reverse the warming trend, you have to push the Earth towards cooling and remove that carbon from the atmosphere or the Earth will switch back to warming on it’s own.”

    Full of inconsistencies and nonsense. “Earth will switch back to warming on it’s own.”, really ? so what then is stopping it from warming now ?

    The answer is the sun,

    co2 has failed to drive temperatures upwards whilst the sun has climbed to its current level and co2 has failed to drive temperatures upwards whilst the sun has remained at a steady level and so it follows that co2 will be powerless to stop temperatures from declining as solar activity declines to the next minimum.

  212. Gary

    I think you need a broader historic perspective when talking about droughts. Droughts, floods, great heat and severe cold are a fact of history.

    Can I respectfully suggest you broaden your climate horizons and read a book such as ‘Climate History and the modern world; by Hubert Lamb-first director of CRU.

    If you are especially concerned with Drought read Emmanuel le roy laduie’s book ‘times of feast times of famine’ Chapter 2 deals in great detail with grapes and wheat and the climate that has affected them over the last 1000 years. Looking at the past it is clear that we live in benign-not harsh-times
    tonyb

  213. “J Martin says:

    October 20, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Gary Lance and other co2 converts,

    will nothing ever change your mind ? How much cold will it take ? If we get something close to a Maunder minimum, is that enough ? or will you still say it was caused by co2 and call it another sign of global warming ?

    The effects of co2 are logarithmic, co2 has done it’s best or worst and can provide no further significant warming.

    If Livingston and Penn turn out to be correct, sunspots will be history round about 2020, the last time that happened we had a frozen Thames in London. Finland lost between one third and one half of it’s population, over a million people died in France, harvests failed throughout the Northern hemisphere.

    The Arctic ice has been melted from below, not from above where temperatures have remained below zero C for most of the year. Ocean currents can take years, sometimes hundreds of years to meander. Side effects of an ice free Arctic in the summer will be beneficial not some disaster as you imagine. Increased snow in the Northern hemisphere will happen, but that will not have been caused by the Arctic, since the Arctic will be frozen as usual during the winter.

    Runaway warming cannot happen, runaway cooling is just a matter of time, and quite likely we will start to see that within the next 5 to 10 years.

    Are you aware that the sun is behaving in a way never previously witnessed by science ?

    co2 is merely a symptom, the Sun is the cause.”

    You have a load of fantasy in that post.

    It doesn’t make a difference if our present additions of CO2 cause that much warming, because there is already enough to get the benefit of positive feedback. The logarithmic math works in reverse, too, and it’s easier to put CO2 into the atmosphere than remove it, which has to be done to get back to square one.

    Do you need data about the differences in solar output based on sunspots? Here is your solar activity differences:

    That’s 1365.5 to 1366.5 watts per square meter, which needs to be divided by a quarter to calculate incoming solar radiation. That’s a quarter of a watt per square meter for your Maunder minimum and CO2 is causing 2 watts per square meter of warming. Greenhouse emissions have that covered 8 times over with aerosols and more than 12 times over without.

    I happen to know something about history and the LIA was predated with large albedo changes in Europe with cutting down forests. A field in the winter is much colder than a forested area, plus the albedo of snow cover in forests is different than a snow covered field. I’m sure the cold had positive feedback to cut down more forests to stay warm.

    That story about crops failing involves the year without a summer, which had a volcanic cause. To say otherwise is misrepresenting known facts.

    The side effects of an ice free arctic are not going to be beneficial. You aren’t going to be able to maintain an ice free arctic and not flood every coastal city on Earth. There is no benefit in placing Washington DC passed it’s half life. We are already disrupting weather patterns and causing exceptional events.

    ” Are you aware that the sun is behaving in a way never previously witnessed by science ?”

    I’m aware of the differences in solar radiation and we know the sun isn’t the cause of our warming.

    Who said it was run away warming, but you? I said it’s warming between global average temperatures of 13 to 22 degrees C. That sounds great until you find out what a 22 degrees C world looks like. The aligators in the arctic will like it, but people won’t.

    There is no natural negative feedback to prevent global warming, outside of a massive super volcanic eruption causing a nuclear winter.

  214. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    What part of absorbed by the surface can’t you figure out? It’s that place where we take the temperature measurements for the Earth.

    It amazes me how someone can think they are talking about science and not believe in the greenhouse effect. It’s like not believing in gravity.

  215. “richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Gary Lance:

    I am answering your two posts to me at
    (a) October 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    and
    (b) October 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm.

    In (a) you say you cannot think of any problems from an ice-free Arctic ocean and you do not dispute the benefits it would provide but – for some reason – you think it would be a bad thing.”

    No wonder you are confused, I quoted you and you read your own remarks without noticing the quotation marks.

    Pass a course in Climatology and then explain how good an ice free arctic is! It will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed. The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.

  216. richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    You brought up a financial crisis in 2012 and said 2012 wasn’t a bad year. Did you forget what you said? I told you the financial crisis was five years ago and we still have large areas of our bread basket having exceptional drought. 2012 was a bad year for many reasons and it should be a wake up call to people who don’t believe in global warming. You may be able to get by with that every 150 year story for the Greenland melt, but how many times will you be able to play that card? This is the beginning and not the end.

  217. From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm:

    We should have been working to fix this problem over 30 years ago and there were solutions, like Thorium MSRs.

    Come on! Thorium molten salt reactors never got beyond an experimental version that dumped the heat to the air. But we could have built out the nuclear power plants until ALL of our electricity was from nukes. Sure, back then we’d have needed some “peaker” plants as nuke was baseload only. But now we have newer designs, like the latest CANDU variants, that can do load following. If we had started then, we could be all-nuclear now.

    But the Greenies nixed the idea, told everyone nuclear was TEH EVIL and wanted it dead. So now it is THEY who are getting what they deserve.

    If you want to reverse the warming trend, you have to push the Earth towards cooling and remove that carbon from the atmosphere or the Earth will switch back to warming on it’s own.

    I realize your religion forbids you from acknowledging this, but the warm periods of this interglacial have been getting less warm. The current period of “unprecedented” warmth is less warm than the Medieval Climate Optimum, which wasn’t as warm as the Roman Climate Optimum that preceded it, etc. And this interglacial is relatively long in the tooth. Any deliberate attempts to tip the planet into cooling are risking the reward for hubris.

    It will take years of effort to remove that CO2.

    Again you don’t appreciate the timescales involved. It will take many decades to stabilize the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and then many decades to enact a reduction faster than what Nature alone can provide.

    If we let that arctic go ice free and wait, we may not be able to get the sea ice back during the summer.

    Which would be a problem because…?

    We could stop the cooling trend with stratospheric sulfate aerosols, but we run the risk of the Earth double downing us with a large volcanic reaction and those consequences.

    You’re recommending Acid Rain? Are you barking foaming mad?

    Another major problem is we would have to keep using aerosols until the CO2 is removed.

    Perhaps A Century of Acid Rain? Besides risking sliding the planet into glaciation?

    And you still haven’t addressed how to remove the CO₂.

    We could plug up the exits for sea ice at the Nares Strait and the CAA.

    You have truly grandiose ideas about what human engineering can accomplish. We can just make ships that can slowly get through a few meters of sea ice. How will we stop hundreds of thousands of tonnes of it from going where it wants?

    Don’t forget whatever is done must be reversible. Blasting all of Canada’s mountains to small chunks to build levees is frowned upon.

    So what should we do? Hang steel cables three meters thick across the gaps to restrain the ice? Where do we anchor them? Or are you going to anchor the ice itself, with real anchors and cables, affixing them to the floor of the Arctic Ocean?

    We could pump ocean water to the surface in the refreeze to make thicker sea ice.

    Keep massive pumping equipment working at freezing temperatures in the Arctic? When the goal is to have so much ice that it’ll be impossible to bring in replacement parts? Where would you get the energy?

    You also have no clue as to the sheer size of the operation you suggest. Consider pumping enough water from the Gulf of Mexico to flood Texas.

    We could even destroy some first year ice forming during the refreeze with ice breakers to allow the heat to escape the ocean.

    And likely get more than a few icebreakers frozen in place for the winter.

    Why not combine some ideas? Have pumping stations that spray the ocean water into the air as a mist, then the evaporative cooling will cool the air and promote faster ice growth.

    It would take a massive effort to save that arctic sea ice.

    And would cost massive fortunes over many years to do so. Thus no country is willing to pay for it. Without the sea ice there is cheaper quicker transportation, and accessible oil and gas resources. It’s far more beneficial to the governments of the world to be rid of it.

    We could remove carbon with biochar and use it in fields to increase crop production.

    Which is a good idea to reduce fertilizer usage and irrigation requirements. Conceivably it could be profitable for farmers to do it, by the forces of ordinary capitalism rather than the enforced mandates of governments.

    We are heading down the road to cause mass extinction and it isn’t just going to be species we wipe out. Maybe people should check the details of past mass extinctions and stop trying to imitate it!

    And what do we really learn from the past? The old gives way to the new. Species that cannot adapt enough are replaced with those that can.

    The mandate of evolution is clear. If we humans cannot adapt to global warming and its consequences, to not just survive but to prosper, we do not deserve to exist.

  218. Gary Lance:

    At October 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm you say to me

    Pass a course in Climatology and then explain how good an ice free arctic is! It will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed. The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.

    Oh Wise One who knows so much more climatology than me,
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.

    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?

    And, O Wise One, you tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.” Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    O Wise One, I need to know more. I beg you to provide me with the knowledge I seek.

    Richard

  219. From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm:

    It amazes me how someone can think they are talking about science and not believe in the greenhouse effect. It’s like not believing in gravity.

    It amazes me how You can be as dumb as a tree stump. I link to articles describing the greenhouse effect, I try to converse with you on the greenhouse effect. And you’re trying to say I don’t believe in the greenhouse effect?

    Beyond the pedantic quibble that faith requires believing, science only requires acceptance, thus the greenhouse effect does not require belief, that is.

    Never mind, I take it back. Tree stumps have a long historical record of being smart enough to function as anvil stands and tables. Given that you’re just automatically throwing off any knowledge that’s being dropped on your head, you’re not even good enough to be a tree stump.

  220. “J Martin says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Gary Lance,

    Again you completely ignore the fact that the sun provides ALL our heat and is in the process of taking it away again, instead you seem to think that co2 magically generates heat. Sunspots are declining and in the past that has always led to cold periods, sometimes severe cold. Some sort of cold period is already inevitable over the coming 20+ years.

    I know the mass media have brainwashed themselves, the politicians and a lot of unfortunate people that co2 will deliver runaway warming, but the effects of co2 are logarithmic and so co2 has done most of the warming it can do, what’s left is about half a degree C to come.

    The World is not going to see runaway warming and didn’t even when co2 was at several thousand parts per million.

    The suns magnetism is declining and sunspots could be gone by 2020, today we are at a solar high, except that that solar high is only half the height of recent highs. Despite the solar high and co2, temperatures have remained flat, so as the solar high soon declines to an extended low the inevitable result will be long term cooling.

    The state of the Arctic is an irrelevant side show to the real issue, namely how will mankind fare if we get another Dalton, Maunder or worse.

    Your passionately held views are derived from a very narrow viewpoint and consequently are the complete opposite of reality.

    You are currently completely off your head. You have many hundreds of hours of reading ahead of you. Please move house to the North Pole and soon.”

    Try provng what you say, like was the LIA from 1350 to 1850 or from 1550 to 1850? The Maunder Minimum was from 1645 to about 1715, so how could it start the LIA?

    No sunspots is 1/4 watts per square meter less than maximum sunspots or 1/8 watts per square meter less than the average of a sunspot cycle. Our greenhouse gas emissions and other anthropogenic changes is estimated at 2 watts per square meter and 3 watts per square meter, if we remove aerosols.

    The albedo change in Europe caused by cutting all those forests was as much of a factor in cooling as the Maunder Minimum. Mankind wasn’t adding more CO2 than the oceans could handle in those days, so the Milankovitch cooling was also in effect.

    Your Maunder Minimum is less than natural variablilty of cloud cover. It’s 0.0365% less than average solar radiation and it couldn’t start the LIA without a time machine.

  221. Gary Lance says:

    “The feedback mechanisms haven’t all kicked in yet. A planet mostly covered with water can easily hide warming.” The ARGO buoys show oceans are cooling.

    And:

    “I’m not an alarmist” [heh]

    And:

    “The problem with your analysis is, scientists have looked at everything and greenhouse gases are the only thing they found.”

    That is a textbook example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium, the argument from ignorance: “Since we can’t think of what else it could be, then it must be because of CO2.”

    Gary Lance has never responded to my comment that showed CO2 lagging temperature. In fact, CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. However, there is no empirical evidence showing that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature.

    So once again I challenge Mr Lance to post a similar chart, but which shows that a rise in CO2 causes a subsequent rise in temperature. I have provided solid empirical evidence showing that changes in CO2 are a function of changes in temperature. If Mr Lance wants credibility, he needs to post a chart showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. I don’t think he can post any such information. But we will see.

  222. Re Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm:

    Oh, by the way:

    …what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so…

    You still believe in gravity? How anachronistically Newtonian of you!

  223. “J Martin says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Gary Lance, you said
    “Temperatures don’t go down based on someone’s will without action. If you want to reverse the warming trend, you have to push the Earth towards cooling and remove that carbon from the atmosphere or the Earth will switch back to warming on it’s own.”

    Full of inconsistencies and nonsense. “Earth will switch back to warming on it’s own.”, really ? so what then is stopping it from warming now ?

    The answer is the sun,

    co2 has failed to drive temperatures upwards whilst the sun has climbed to its current level and co2 has failed to drive temperatures upwards whilst the sun has remained at a steady level and so it follows that co2 will be powerless to stop temperatures from declining as solar activity declines to the next minimum.”

    The answer is, you don’t know what warming is. You think warming stops when you say so. The Earth has spent plenty of heat melting sea ice that used to be in the arctic for many years. The Earth has no rules demanding heat to be located in the areas of the surface we monitor for temperature. If the heat is in the air you read the temperature and if it melts ice, it doesn’t raise the temperature of water enough to even show it’s there.

    Here is your future! We are going to have one temperature record after another broken and you’re going to claim it isn’t warming. You will claim the sea ice will recover until the arctic is ice free and then claim you are right every winter.

  224. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    You might as well be saying you put gas in your car’s tank at a rate of 30 miles per gallon which yields 90mpg.

    No more like a hybrid car the engine of which consumes fuel at 30 mpg but overall achieves 50mpg. Feedback!

  225. “climatereason says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Gary

    I think you need a broader historic perspective when talking about droughts. Droughts, floods, great heat and severe cold are a fact of history.

    Can I respectfully suggest you broaden your climate horizons and read a book such as ‘Climate History and the modern world; by Hubert Lamb-first director of CRU.

    If you are especially concerned with Drought read Emmanuel le roy laduie’s book ‘times of feast times of famine’ Chapter 2 deals in great detail with grapes and wheat and the climate that has affected them over the last 1000 years. Looking at the past it is clear that we live in benign-not harsh-times
    tonyb”

    I said such exceptional conditions will be the new norm and have never said they didn’t exist in the past.

  226. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 20, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    The government wanted nuclear reactors to provide materials for nuclear weapons. Weinberg wanted to use thorium to make reactors that couldn’t meltdown and for a host of other intelligent reasons.

    You aren’t going to find private investment for nuclear reactors.

  227. Being wrong about everything else, now Gary Lance tackles droughts.

    And where is that mythical chart showing that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature? The alarmist crowd is wrong about the science because they have cause and effect reversed.

  228. “richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Gary Lance:

    At October 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm you say to me

    Pass a course in Climatology and then explain how good an ice free arctic is! It will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed. The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.

    Oh Wise One who knows so much more climatology than me,
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.

    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?

    And, O Wise One, you tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.” Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    O Wise One, I need to know more. I beg you to provide me with the knowledge I seek.

    Richard”

    You can start by learning to read what is said. I said it was related to the Earth.

    A child born today is not going to live in an America without rapid climate change and you think the world can just pick up and move to Canada. That child is going to find out people can’t adapt as quickly as the changes and also discover that the whole thing could have been avoided with mitigation.

  229. Gary Lance:

    I still await the education concerning your assertions to me which I requested from you in my post at October 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm.

    You claim to know more climatology than me, and I am always willing to learn, so I am avidly awaiting the education which you say you can give me.

    And I will keep asking.

    Richard

  230. Gary Lance says:
    October 20, 2012 at 6:30 am
    >>
    P. Solar

    If you want to discuss data, post original charts with sources and not more of those tampered charts with cherry picked data!
    >>

    Well that’s twice you have accused me of using “cherry picked” data. You’d better explain now how using ALL the data in a dataset set is “cherry-picking”.

    I don’t do “charts” , I think that is probably something to do with spreadsheets and Excel. All the graphs I have shown indicate the source of that data so you can go and check for yourself if you think they have been “tampered” with.

    Unless you are able to say why you think they are “tampered” you had better shut up with the false claims and look at what the data is telling you. Your pathetic claims that data is cherry picked or tampered are absolutely meaningless unless you can back up such a claim. Which of course you can not.

    <>

    I never mentioned cosmic rays nor neutrinos. What on Earth are you talking about ?

    I have presented solid scientific evidence of what is happening in the Arctic and you refuse to look at it and arbitrarily dismiss it without any reason other than that you don’t like it.

    You are in denial about climate.

    If you are sincerely worried about future climate why do you find it so hard to examine the evidence that shows it is not as bad as we thought in the 1990s ? We have a lot more good quality data than we had then and we have 15 years more of climate change to study.

    I’m not trying to trick you or anyone else, I’m just presenting the data. All the data, not cherries.

  231. “kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 20, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm:

    It amazes me how someone can think they are talking about science and not believe in the greenhouse effect. It’s like not believing in gravity.

    It amazes me how You can be as dumb as a tree stump. I link to articles describing the greenhouse effect, I try to converse with you on the greenhouse effect. And you’re trying to say I don’t believe in the greenhouse effect?

    Beyond the pedantic quibble that faith requires believing, science only requires acceptance, thus the greenhouse effect does not require belief, that is.

    Never mind, I take it back. Tree stumps have a long historical record of being smart enough to function as anvil stands and tables. Given that you’re just automatically throwing off any knowledge that’s being dropped on your head, you’re not even good enough to be a tree stump.”

    That’s a nice ad hom coming from someone who had to be repeated told the absorption was on the surface of the Earth, while he ignored the word surface and talked about total solar radiation to the Earth.

    You link to things saying the greenhouse effect can’t be the answer because of bogus reasons, when in fact all reasons have been checked.

  232. From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm:

    The government wanted nuclear reactors to provide materials for nuclear weapons. Weinberg wanted to use thorium to make reactors that couldn’t meltdown and for a host of other intelligent reasons.

    Which in absolutely no way addresses my points. We could have had all of our electricity provided by nukes by now. The Greenies didn’t want nukes. The Greenies are to blame for the carbon emissions that wouldn’t have existed if they hadn’t insisted on killing new nukes.

    Next time there’s a “No Nukes!” protest rally nearby, you better be out there as a counter-protester and admonish them for trying to kill the planet by runaway global warming. If you don’t, you’re just another loud-mouthed flaming hypocrite.

    You aren’t going to find private investment for nuclear reactors.

    http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/

    The independent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted in February 2012 to grant a combined construction and operating license for two reactors at Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle, near Waynesboro. It is the first combined license ever approved for a U.S. nuclear energy facility, which will become the nation’s first new nuclear units built in 30 years. On March 30, 2012, the NRC issued combined construction and operating licenses to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company for two reactors near Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

    Some 19 companies and consortia are studying, licensing or building more than 30 nuclear power reactors. Of the more than 30, there are currently five under construction by three companies and consortia. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively reviewing 10 combined license applications from 9 companies and consortia for 16 nuclear power plants. See New Nuclear Plant Status.

    Some day, if you study hard and put in the long hours of practice, if you are truly dedicated to the pursuit, you too will be able to competently Google.

  233. “D Böehm says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Gary Lance says:

    “The feedback mechanisms haven’t all kicked in yet. A planet mostly covered with water can easily hide warming.” The ARGO buoys show oceans are cooling.

    And:

    “I’m not an alarmist” [heh]

    And:

    “The problem with your analysis is, scientists have looked at everything and greenhouse gases are the only thing they found.”

    That is a textbook example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium, the argument from ignorance: “Since we can’t think of what else it could be, then it must be because of CO2.””

    Speaking of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium, if you want a chart corrected for changes in solar irradiance and comparing CO2 to temperature in the Phanerozoic, find it yourself! I’ve seen it and it matches.

    The Argumentum ad Ignorantium continues that since science concludes something you don’t want, they haven’t examined everything. Well, of course, scientists haven’t examined everything in the universe, but neither has any other conclusion.

    I pointed out these industries have scientists, so why can’t they come up with a reason for warming or go on record disputing the computation of radiative forcing? I don’t see them putting their reputation on the line and they may not want to look foolish, if that industry isn’t around in the future.

    Why don’t you spend some time learning the science instead of all your time trying to hide the science?

  234. Gary Lance:

    I still await the answers to my questions which you said your superior knowledge could provide. So far all you have offered in reply is your post at October 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm which claims “the Earth” is “America”.

    I admit to being surprised at that because I have spent my life thinking I am living on the Earth.

    Anyway, I still await the information you claim to have. Or are the answers to my questions all ‘Inner Secrets’ that can only be shared among the High Priests of the Cult of Global Warming?

    Richard

  235. “D Böehm says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Being wrong about everything else, now Gary Lance tackles droughts.

    And where is that mythical chart showing that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature? The alarmist crowd is wrong about the science because they have cause and effect reversed.”

    We’ve had a Snowball Earth and can you explain how it melted and what put the oxygen in the atmosphere to the levels it is today? The math works out that if glaciers reached the latitude of New Orleans, the forcing would be enough to continue to snowball conditions.

    To melt out of those conditions, volcanos needed to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to reach 13%. The CO2 collected there, because the ice prevented it from contacting water. Once the melting began, the albedo effect amplified it. The CO2 was then changed into O2 by plants and removed by weathering.

    Now, since you keep claiming CO2 lags temperature, what mechanism is involved to increase CO2 in the atmosphere with increases in temperature?

  236. Gary Lance says:

    “…if you want a chart corrected for changes in solar irradiance and comparing CO2 to temperature in the Phanerozoic, find it yourself! I’ve seen it and it matches.”

    First off, we’re comparing the Holocene climate, not millions of years in the past, when the continents were in different relative locations and the Isthmus of Panama was open. And you won’t mind if I question your secret chart: put up or shut up.

    The fact is that you have no chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. I have posted empirical scientific evidence showing exactly the opposite. Your response has been nothing but impotent hand-waving.

    Your comment: “…what mechanism is involved to increase CO2 in the atmosphere with increases in temperature?” is so basic that I won’t waste time trying to educate you. The mechanism is clear. But keep in mind that, in any case, skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on the climate alarmist crowd to prove that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. Proof must be in the form of scientific evidence: verifiable empirical observations, and/or raw data. Note that computer models are not scientific evidence.

    All you have done in this thread is hand-wave, and present yourself as the climate Authority know-it-all. That will only get you derisive laughter here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. You are just repeating the debunked talking points found in censoring echo chamber blogs like Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science and the RealScienceyClimate bubble chamber. And you still do not understand the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Nothing in the current climate is unprecedented; it has all happened before, and to a greater extent, during times when CO2 levels were much lower.

    Now, where is your mythical ‘CO2 causes T’ Holocene chart? It doesn’t exist, does it?

  237. From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm:

    That’s a nice ad hom coming from someone who had to be repeated told the absorption was on the surface of the Earth, while he ignored the word surface and talked about total solar radiation to the Earth.

    From you on October 20, 2012 at 11:42 am:

    The surface of the Earth absorbs 168 watts per square meter from incoming solar radiation and it absorbs 324 watts per square meter from back radiation.

    I have to slowly parse out your own words for you?

    “The surface of the Earth absorbs 168 watts per square meter from incoming solar radiation

    and

    [the surface of the Earth] absorbs 324 watts per square meter from back radiation.”

    That adds up to the surface of the Earth absorbing 492 watts per m² total.

    Gee, I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but do you really think this is a good way to hide your condition?

    To simply pick out some words you recognize, then spew out a “wall of words” with those you found sprinkled in, and assume the other person won’t look past your blustery arrogant tone to realize you weren’t able to read what they wrote?

    You’ve written many things on this thread.

    We can tell you have not been reading.

    You do not have to be ashamed.

    You can get help for your condition.

    I spaced this out so you can read it easily.

    You link to things saying the greenhouse effect can’t be the answer because of bogus reasons, when in fact all reasons have been checked.

    Gary, it’s okay that you can’t read new research and have to go by what you were told long ago.

    We’re not here to judge you.

    Science moves forward. New things are found.

    There are new reasons that explain the recent warming without using an increased greenhouse effect.

    We do accept the greenhouse effect. It keeps our planet warm. We know that.

    We do not think the additional warming is from the greenhouse effect.

    There are other possible reasons that science has found recently.

    We hope you can understand us now.

  238. If sea ice continues to decline, the refreeze will continue to get faster and the refreeze area will continue to get greater. The primary reason is geometric. The sun will dip at the same time each year, the loss of insolation will quickly bring about freezing temps (abetted by the uncovered ocean releasing heat energy) and sea ice will form. The timing of insolation loss will be constant, but its effect on sea ice reformation will increase if Arctic sea ice continues to recede Poleward.

    Imagine that the area of Arctic sea ice was completely bounded by land and the land edge was well inside the zone of current refrteeze, so that each winter the ocean was completely covered with ice, but each summer the decline continued over the long-term. The summertime minimum recedes over time, but the winter maximum remains constant. Both the melt and the refreeze would necessarily occur faster and over a greater area.

    As long as the Arctic winters remain deeply below freezing we will continue to see faster melts and refreezes. Basically, the parabola will deepen. We expect refreeze increased area/rate if the sea ice edge continues to recede towards the Pole over the long-term. And that is exactly what we are seeing.

    Albedo loss and insulation loss are complicating and competing factors here, but geometry explains the steepening parabola displayed in the longer-term sea ice area/extent records. And it a result, too, of long-term thinning in the sea ice pack.

  239. “richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Gary Lance:

    I still await the education concerning your assertions to me which I requested from you in my post at October 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm.

    You claim to know more climatology than me, and I am always willing to learn, so I am avidly awaiting the education which you say you can give me.

    And I will keep asking.

    Richard”

    If you want an education, try learning the subject for a change. Maybe an analogy will help.

    I made the point once that man contributed carbon by cutting down forests and, of course, someone who wants to deny the role of carbon made the point that old growth forests don’t sequester CO2. The problem with his analysis is it doesn’t look at the full picture.

    Forest sequester carbon on a long time scale of about 400 years for an old growth forest to reach equilibrium, when they max out at about 300 carbon units. If you cut one of those mature trees down, you would get about 75 carbon units of useful wood. With good forest management, you can get trees growing to sequester carbon at a good rate after many years, but it starts off slowly and needs help to speed it up. If you are only looking at the carbon sequestration rate then an actively growing forest is the best choice, but that’s only because the old growth forest has already done it’s job. If given enough time to sequester 100 carbon units, it can be harvested to provide about 25 carbon units of useful wood. By the time that managed forest could be harvested again, most of that useful wood has joined that useless carbon, which has long ago returned to the atmosphere and ocean. Over time, very little of that carbon is truly sequesered and that is evidenced by areas once containing old growth forests nearly across the continent that aren’t there and finding a specimen of that wood is rare.

    The logic applies to CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions. Claiming an effect is logarithmic and therefore of little consequence is just saying you have already done what is of consequence. It’s also saying if the process has to be undone, there will be little reward for the initial labor. The logarithmic effect works well for people not affected by the results of their actions, but it doesn’t work well for society. Toss the nuclear waste in that spent reactor, dump some pollution on a polluted spot or throw more trash where you see trash all works well if you aren’t the one having to clean it up or fix it.

    You have been told that the jet stream guides weather patterns and is determined by differences in temperature of the poles and tropics. You have been told if that difference in temperature is reduced that the jet stream meanders further north and south and gets stuck in a location. Being stuck in a location causes repeat weather conditons, so it’s a good way to get unpleasant things like floods, droughts and heat waves.

    If you study Paleoclimatology, you will see a relationship between CO2 and temperature. You can easily find examples of increases and decreases of CO2 causing temperature changes. If you don’t think CO2 can cause temperature forcing, do the math on Venus and take it’s albedo into consideration. Tell Venus CO2 is a logarithm!

  240. Gary Lance cannot produce the chart he claims he has, so he ignores my comment. Readers can decide for themselves if Mr Lance is credible. Lance also says:

    “If you don’t think CO2 can cause temperature forcing, do the math on Venus and take it’s albedo into consideration. Tell Venus CO2 is a logarithm!”

    If Lance uses the WUWT archive search function, he would learn that CO2 is not the reason that Venus is hot. And since he claims that on earth CO2 causes temperature forcing, I once again ask Lance: where is the empirical evidence?

  241. barry,

    If Arctic sea ice continues to decline, it will be entirely beneficial. It has happened before with no ill effects, and if the cycle repeats, the fuel savings alone will be immense. There is no downside to an ice-free Arctic (which anyway will probably not occur).

    Of course, the wild-eyed climate catastrophists will begin frantically running in circles and arm-waving over that comment. But as we see from this thread, they have no clue, they have only their religious beliefs.

  242. @ Gary Lance

    I am from Canada and we are really familiar with permafrost. I know the man who designed the first building (Inuvik) built on permafrost that has underground parking, and seen it.

    When permafrost melts, trees grow much more rapidly. There are there in stunted form all over the Arctic tundra (those little bushes are 1-200 year old trees).
    “Eventually, there won’t be sea ice present in June.” And the last time that happened was….? Be serious – there is nothing unusual about about an ice-free Arctic summer.

    “Aerosols are hard to accurately estimate for their radiative effect,”
    Not so. Please see the work of our particle expert Dr Tami Bond and her carefully worded testimony to Congress.

    “…but most of our aerosols are gone in a week and are only there because they are constantly replaced.” This is based on the erroneous idea that all particles can be detected by light scattering. Below 0.1 microns (PM0.1) they were undetectable. Now we know better. There are gazillions of nanoparticles (BC and OC) floating happily around the atmosphere for years. Biomass burning creates a lot of them.

    “It isn’t that hard to convert a boiler from coal to natural gas.” Why bother? They have a limited life anyway. Coal (which is a form of biomass) has lower H2 than natural gas so per MJ of heat it produces more CO2. So what? It is obviously have no detectable effect. There isn’t even any correlation to falsely connect as causation. Ask yourself how this level of BS got to dominate the science budget! Particles from coal plants are not from the fuel, they are created during the combustion and by blowing the ash into the air (hence, scrubbers). There are coal combustors that actually, literally, clean the ambient particles from the combustion air and emit no PM1.0 at all. It
    is a matter of choosing the right equipment for the fuel.

    “The trend for aerosols in the US is in decline and that means more warming.” Not during a 30 year cooling cycle :) And those prediction(s) are made based on light scattering measurements, not PM measurements. The answer is not clear at all.

    “Antarctica and Greenland are both losing mass,…” That is factually incorrect. Please read this list more regularly.

    “… but the albedo changes are nothing like losing 6 million square kilometers of snow cover. ” Global warming alarmists predict more snow from a warming world so let’s watch the real data and see what happens, and more importantly, whether the predicted warming effect is manifested. Because you have made an error about the albedo influence in the high Arctic, be careful how high you pile the arguments so you don’t have to far to climb down later. An ice-free arctic ocean loses heat much more rapidly than an icy one. Just look at the current re-freeze to see what I mean. It is ocean heat that is being lost, not atmospheric heat, in the main. Ice = insulation. Basic physics.

    “The antarctic sea ice minimum goes back to the same each year and that’s were the albedo effect is important.” The albedo at the southern ice pack limit is more important than the Arctic because of the latitude. You can calculate this yourself but it is harder than CO2 absorption from melting ice.

    “CO2 is important in the long run and it’s hard to remove from the atmosphere,” It is removed from the atmosphere in vast amounts on an hourly basis. As it has nearly no causitive influence on global temperatures (as has been repeatedly demonstrated by comparing the temperature and the CO2 level), why would we want to try to do something that looks expensive and pointless? Do you really, really think we can override natural fluctuations in global temperature? What assurance can you give that it will make a detectable difference? None! Why? Because the influence is so small and the negative feedbacks are so strong (see Bejan).

    There will be a drought in Southern Africa in 2021 (part of their 19 year drought cycle). You could rather start drafting news releases about how this is all the fault of the evil coal companies pushing their black death on the misguided global population. At least there will be no harm in the activity, whereas cutting off the electricity supply or tripling its cost causes huge amount of real harm to millions, nay, billions of people.

    “We already have enough to mess up the world.” We certainly have, and reformation is good, but it is not caused by CO2. There are many real environmental problems to solve but the resources are being drained from the public purse to chase mirages of fanciful proportion.

  243. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    You have a commercial nuclear industry invented by the same man (Weinberg) who wanted it changed to Thorium MSRs. You have high pressure reactors that can meltdown and don’t remove nuclear waste. You have three quarters of those reactors leaking radioactive tritium in the groundwater and they are regulated by the NRC. You don’t have people wanting to build large facilities because they would have to shut down existing capacity to operate them.

    Nuclear power didn’t fall apart by a green movement, it fell apart because it became too expensive when the government wasn’t footing the bill.

    Try researching something for a change and do it with sources to let you form your own opinion!

    Hear is the deal you characterize with that nonsense about greenies: You can’t economically downsize nuclear facilities, and the electricity needs to be made at capacity, so it’s only good for a base load. Since no one is going without electricity, you are going to have to shut down existing capacity to operate your new nuclear facility. Your location is limited to where you can get large amounts of water. You are building a nuclear reactor with a limited lifespan, so a new reactor will be required in the future and they have been built at those presently operating nuclear facilities. There is no mechanism to get rid of nuclear waste and when that reactor stops making you money, you still have to maintain it. It’s very expensive, costs many years to get approval, because of constant design changes, years to build where it costs you and without you making money from it and the federal government has enough bomb material and doesn’t want to help you out. You may find yourself responsible for that nuclear waste, once a means of disposing of it is made possible.

    Nuclear is only cheap, if it’s subsidized and you ignore the cost of building and rebuilding it. It costs more than just fuel and personnel.

    Replacement reactors are thought out well in advance, but they usually have design changes requiring a long time for NRC approval. The containment building needed for safety really drove up the costs. I’ve been able to check on new nuclear reactors being built, so why haven’t you? You can find them all listed in wiki, just go to NRC, pick a region and scroll to the bottom for a list of nuclear facilities in all regions!

  244. @Gary Lance

    I forgot to include a reference to the frequency (wavelength) of incident radiation and its relationship to the particle size. Nanoparticles interact with sub-visible radiation. This has been discussed elsewhere on WUWT. No need to repeat. In short, UVand EUV heat BC nanoparticles. Analysis to date by EPA has not considered this. The altitude at which its influence is exerted matters a great deal, probably having some influence on Ozone. The work of Prof Lu in Waterlooo becomes relevant – he is doing original work and is worth following.

    I am sorry you provoked the WUWT mods. They are very tolerant. Perhaps you can just comment on the math and the (esp) Arctic and not the poster. I am particularly interested in seeing some independent work on the uptake of CO2 by meltwater which happens very rapidly.

  245. “richardscourtney says:

    October 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Gary Lance:

    I still await the answers to my questions which you said your superior knowledge could provide. So far all you have offered in reply is your post at October 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm which claims “the Earth” is “America”.

    I admit to being surprised at that because I have spent my life thinking I am living on the Earth.

    Anyway, I still await the information you claim to have. Or are the answers to my questions all ‘Inner Secrets’ that can only be shared among the High Priests of the Cult of Global Warming?

    Richard”

    Your nonsense has been answered and you’re just spamming. You don’t have my full attention.

  246. D Böehm says:

    October 20, 2012 at 5:44 PM

    Now you want to play games and switch to the Holocene, when I gave you concrete examples of CO2 changing temperature.

    I asked you a simple question about you saying CO2 lags temperature and you didn’t answer it. I asked you what the mechanism was for CO2 to lag temperature. I asked you that specifically because that mechanism shows how ridiculous that lagging indicator argument is.

    Temperature didn’t force an end to an ice age, the sun’s increase in solar radiance did. It’s true that an increase in solar radiance was a force to change the ice age and therefore increase temperature, but it also had positive feedback. When you remove a glacier, you change the albedo and that positive feedback chances temperature, just like CO2 does.

    So where was the CO2 to also become a positive feedback? If you don’t know ask the change in albedo!

    That whole argument about a lagging indicator came from a think tank obviously too influenced by someone in finance. Scientists don’t call an indicator lagging, but a stockbroker would. How can someone claim to know science and fall for that think tank clap trap?

  247. Crispin in Yogayakarta

    Your views are out there in La-di-da land about coal.

    Aerosols can also be tested by sampling, so the scattering light argument is bogus. I was simply pointing out that changing away from coal reduces aerosols. In China, people wear masks on the streets in some cities.

    Do you have a lot of coal up in Canada, because coal contains mercury, arsenic and, of course, sulfur, along with any bad thing it’s been exposed to for millions of years. When a Chemist wants to capture bad things, the first thing he would think of is carbon.

    I’ve posted sources saying natural gas costs half as much to produce electricity as coal. I see the market works fine for conservatives as long as it isn’t coal. These power plants have a cheaper and cleaner alternative than using coal. The reason they are being told to change is they have been told to get their act straight for over 40 years. Now that natural gas is cheaper, they have no excuse. The EPA isn’t strict telling a company to use a fuel at half the costs to solve it’s pollution
    problems after more than 40 years.

    I’ve also posted the data in a chart on snow cover at least twice on this thread, so it’s data collected in June for many years. You can find a chart of snow cover in google images. Here it is again:

    I’ve made the point several times that area is more than three Greenlands. Warming is right back on schedule.

    You don’t believe adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere causes warming or that losing sea ice is a bad idea. I don’t believe in the tooth fairy and one of us is right.

    Global warming may be good for Canada, but it isn’t going to be good for the United States. Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia have carbon resources to sell and we only have coal, which is the dirtiest of them all. We probably could develop enough natural gas, but why bother?

  248. Crispin in Yogayakarta says:

    October 20, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    @Gary Lance

    I forgot to include a reference to the frequency (wavelength) of incident radiation and its relationship to the particle size. Nanoparticles interact with sub-visible radiation. This has been discussed elsewhere on WUWT. No need to repeat. In short, UVand EUV heat BC nanoparticles. Analysis to date by EPA has not considered this. The altitude at which its influence is exerted matters a great deal, probably having some influence on Ozone. The work of Prof Lu in Waterlooo becomes relevant – he is doing original work and is worth following.

    I am sorry you provoked the WUWT mods. They are very tolerant. Perhaps you can just comment on the math and the (esp) Arctic and not the poster. I am particularly interested in seeing some independent work on the uptake of CO2 by meltwater which happens very rapidly.

    I don’t think you understand what I said about aerosols. I said the radiative forcing amount by aerosols is uncertain, meaning the accuracy and not the amount of aerosols. In particular, the radiative forcing amount by an aerosols influence on clouds isn’t very accurate. I also said the US will be reducing aerosols and that quickly translates into warming. Electricity from coal is losing out to natural gas, so there will be less aerosols and less aerosols means more warming.

  249. Gary Lance:

    I still await the answers to my questions which you said your superior knowledge could provide in explanation of assertions you made. So far all you have offered in reply is
    1.
    your post at October 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm which claims “the Earth” is “America”.
    2.
    your long diatribe at October 20, 2012 at 6:53 pm which does not mention the subjects.

    I told you I would keep asking, and I intend to keep doing it until you answer or admit you were spouting nonsense.

    I copy my relevant post below in case you have forgotten the questions and to remind others of your daft assertions which are the reasons for my questions.

    Richard

    _____________________

    richardscourtney says :
    October 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Gary Lance:

    At October 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm you say to me

    Pass a course in Climatology and then explain how good an ice free arctic is! It will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed. The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.

    Oh Wise One who knows so much more climatology than me,
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.

    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?

    And, O Wise One, you tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.” Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    O Wise One, I need to know more. I beg you to provide me with the knowledge I seek.

    Richard

  250. Henry says
    I am watching with some amusement the arguments here,
    seeing as it seems to me that none of you have really any notion as to what is going to happen next.Note that I commented earlier that the situation now is much the same as it was 1923:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1113982

    that means all the arctic ice will freeze back in the next 20 years, as it did from 1923-1943.
    1944 was a bad winter. That is all going to come back because the weather is controlled by a 88 year energy-in cycle as I have calculated from the drop in maximum temperatures.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1115384

    Looking at my sine wave we are now approaching the bottom of the curve and that means we are cooling down nearly at the maximum rate of about 0.035 degrees C per annum on the maxima. Also, we are already on a cooling curve since 1995. Earth has been using up its energy reserves until now, but it seems to me, that that situation has changed :

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

    According to hadcrut3 we already fell by about 0.1 K since 2000. According to my own data set I reckon it could be closer to 0.2. (note the very high peak for 2007 on Hadcrut4 which looks a bit suspicious to me)

    Either way, we will all fall now at least as high as the maximum temperatures. Earth has no more reserve and the carbon dioxide is not going to help. (That was a red herring. CO2 follows warming since it started warming in 1950).

    That means that by 2020 we will have fallen by as much as 8 x 0.035= ca. 0.3 degrees K on top of the 0.1 or 0.2 that we already fell since 2000.

    Moving south, as suggested by somebody, seems like a good idea to me.

  251. Gary

    I was interested in your comment

    “You have been told that the jet stream guides weather patterns and is determined by differences in temperature of the poles and tropics. You have been told if that difference in temperature is reduced that the jet stream meanders further north and south and gets stuck in a location. Being stuck in a location causes repeat weather conditons, so it’s a good way to get unpleasant things like floods, droughts and heat waves.”

    I think the jet stream is a major-but as yet little understood-feature of our climate.

    I have spent some years searching through actual observations of the weather in an attempt to reconstruct CET from 1660 back to 1000 AD.

    I wrote of the first phase from 1660 to 1538 here, and also examined the temperature reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb (you will appreciate the latter had a much better grasp of historical records than the former.) This research included-amongst many other places-the excellent archives at the Met Office. I wrote the following article

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    Amongst the notes I recorded in the general caveats were these; Especially please note 13)

    1) When accessing historic observations and records, certain caveats need to be made, although generally the information portrayed is reliable as the information of harvest dates, weather patterns etc would be essential for the continued welfare of an agrarian based society. In the context of the time notable events would be chronicled, as even short periods of extremes might have serious consequences for people often living at the margins.

    11) Whilst frost fairs may be seen to be a good proxy for extreme cold, during Puritan times this activity may have been frowned on. Also changes in the course/flow of the river may have precluded this activity even though the temperatures might suggest a frost fair was possible. A list of frost fairs is included in the references. As Mann and Jones mention when quoting Lamb 1977 in their own 2004 paper ‘Climate over the past millennia’ there were only 22 frost fairs on the Thames recorded between 1408 and 1814.

    12) CET is seen as a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. See article ‘The Long Slow Thaw’ for evidence and caveats.

    13) Due to its geographical location British weather is often quite mobile and periods of hot, cold, dry or wet weather tend to be relatively short lived. If such events are longer lasting than normal, or interrupted and resumed, that can easily shape the character of a month or a season. Reading the numerous references there is clear evidence of ‘blocking patterns,’ perhaps as the jet stream shifts, or a high pressure takes up residence, feeding in winds from a certain direction which generally shape British weather.

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    It is obvious that the jet stream meandered very considerably throughout the period in question which started off warm, turned cold, then oscillated between the two states. It is also obvious that the catastrophic weather events were much more frequent in what is termed the LIA than during the MWP or Modern times. Not surprising as there is less energy if the air is has a moderate temperature gradient than if there are extremes of heat and cold as happened during the LIA.

    So the weather can get ‘stuck’ whenever the jet stream meanders, but the consequences are likely to be much worse during extremes. The evidence through tens of thousands of observations is that the modern era-like the first few decades of the 1700’s and the 1400’s/early 1500’s and the MWP-is that the modern climate is benign, not severe.

    I do hope you will continue to participate in future threads as we need dissenting voices but please do realise that we are not ignorant and adjust your comments accordingly. Hopefully some from ‘my’ side will also moderate their tone thereby allowing a reasoned discussion.
    tonyb

  252. @HenryP

    I have tried moving South for the past few weeks and it is still too hot and sticky. My wife complained bitterly – something about how nice -40 degree air is in the morning. That is the problem with marrying someone from the Haliburton Highlands.

  253. Gary Lance,

    you said
    “To melt out of those conditions, volcanos needed to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to reach 13%. ”

    you also said
    “If you don’t think CO2 can cause temperature forcing, do the math on Venus and take it’s albedo into consideration. Tell Venus CO2 is a logarithm!”

    Something like 17 probes have been to Venus and more are planned. We know what the temperature profile of Venus is and at a depth in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is the same as the atmospheric pressure of Earth, correcting for distance to the Sun, the temperature is the same as on Earth despite an atmosphere of 96.5% co2.

    Yet you claim that 13% of co2 miraculously melted ice.

    What’s more, an atmosphere of 13% co2 equates to 130,000 parts per million. Where is your evidence that co2 levels ever reached such a figure. Divide by ten and you might be nearer reality.

    Also what scientific evidence, mathematical, and or lab based experiment shows how much heat is provided by 13% of co2. Presumably you have a graph somewhere that shows that increasing percentages of co2 result in a temperature increase of hundreds of degrees centigrade ?

    Sorry, but co2 has an ever decreasing effect as its percentage volume is increased, the maximum effect of co2, ie. at 100% co2 is just 2 degrees centigrade. Temperature levels on this or any other planet are not controlled by co2.

    TSI. You quote values of tsi in isolation and insist that this cannot account for temperature changes and so you resort to ascribing imaginary powers to co2 which neither exist in theory, laboratory experiments, or on Venus.

    What governs temperatures on this planet is a complex interaction between many different agencies, with time lags and mostly negative feedbacks with one or two positive feedbacks thrown in for good measure.

    You blame the Maunder and Dalton on changes in albedo due to deforestation, yet today we have even more deforestation and a greater area of arable land than then, yet your prediction for temperatures is that they will increase. Mankind has undoubtedly made planet wide changes to albedo, but these have never been shown to relate to historical temperatures.

    You acolytes of co2 are effectively modelling a rally car (temperatures) picking up speed as it goes down a hill (co2), but now your explanation is running out of steam as your model tries and fails to explain why the speed of the rally car has levelled off. This is hardly surprising as you left out two rather important factors from your model, the rally car has an engine (the sun) and a driver (negative feedbacks).

    An increasingly attractive explanation is that the same forces that most probably influence tsi are the same forces that also provide the forcing or magnification effects that allow tsi to show a good match for temperatures going back to and including the Maunder minimum / LIA. In other words the magnetic field of the Sun influencing tsi and the magnetic field of Earth influencing cloud cover. Both are declining at a steady rate, no one has any idea why or when it it will stop or reverse or what will happen.

    Graphs of magnetism against tsi and temperature show a far better match than co2.

    The graph which shows the best match against tsi includes the Dalton, the Maunder, and the warm bits in between, also suggests a deeper minimum than the Maunder by about 2100. co2 was not included in that graph, the match is good enough without.

    The prophets of co2 have failed to deliver on their promises for the last 16 years, and now it is too late, solar activity can only decline from now and a cold, possibly severe cold period is our future. co2 hasn’t delivered because it can’t deliver.

    How many years of flat temperatures are needed to cause you to question your belief in co2.?
    How many years of decreasing temperatures are needed to cause you to question your belief in co2.?
    If we have a repeat of the Dalton in the next 10 or 20 years will you start to question your belief in co2.?
    If conditions then continue on to a repeat of the Maunder or worse, will you then start to question your belief in co2.?

    I was a co2 acolyte two years ago, but then I broadened my reading and after spending every evening for 3 weeks and about a solid week of holiday time looking at the conflicting evidence I realised that a great deal of mainstream climate science was and is downright fraudulent, and completely ignores the far more likely and dangerous outcome, namely impending global cooling.

    I can see why you worship at the church of co2, the prophets of that church promise you that if you reform and stop producing co2 then you can live happily in La La land ever after. Whereas the prophets of the church of the Sun tell you that things are going to get so cold that life will be tough for many and that there is nothing that can be done about it, so you need to shape up, grow up and face up to it and adapt. No cushy La La tellytubby land on offer.

    I guess in your case no amount of cooling and no amount of time will shake your blinkered belief in co2. If you do ever change your mind, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, will you have the honesty to return to this blog and make that admission ?

  254. J Martins:

    You have no hope of obtaining an answer from Gary Lance to the reasonable questions you ask him in your post at October 21, 2012 at 3:02 am.

    In this thread he has made a series of ludicrous and unsubstantiated assertions but he has refused (been unable?) to justify any of them when asked. And he has repeatedly demonstrated a refusal (inability) to discuss anything: he merely makes another ridiculous assertion when any attempt is made to discuss anything with him.

    So, I have decided to repeatedly demand a justification of two outrageous assertions he made to me. I will keep making those same demands until he does.

    And I suggest you keep repeating your questions to him until he answers them, and that you not be deflected by his inevitable irrelevancies and non sequiturs in response.

    It is time that this character be made to make some rational justifications of his existing statements instead of snowing the thread with more and more nonsensical assertions.

    Richard

  255. Crispin says
    I have tried moving South
    Henry says
    I know you guys think this is a joke. But remember my forecast of ca. -0.4 or -0.5 by 2020 is only a global average. It does not sound like a lot. Initially I also thought so. But in some places it is a lot more. In fact, I noted that in Anchorage (Alaska) average temps. have already fallen by as much as 1.5 K since 2000. I have the reports from two weather stations there to prove it. The poor tomato farmers there did not have much of a crop up there this year. And nobody tells them that next year is not going to be any better….
    I think it is a sin that the local weather stations (in the world) are not forced to report a trend for the past 11 or 12 years (to cover at least one sun cycle), to warn farmers.

  256. “tonyb says:

    October 21, 2012 at 2:12 am

    Gary

    I was interested in your comment

    “You have been told that the jet stream guides weather patterns and is determined by differences in temperature of the poles and tropics. You have been told if that difference in temperature is reduced that the jet stream meanders further north and south and gets stuck in a location. Being stuck in a location causes repeat weather conditons, so it’s a good way to get unpleasant things like floods, droughts and heat waves.”

    I think the jet stream is a major-but as yet little understood-feature of our climate.

    I have spent some years searching through actual observations of the weather in an attempt to reconstruct CET from 1660 back to 1000 AD.

    I wrote of the first phase from 1660 to 1538 here, and also examined the temperature reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb (you will appreciate the latter had a much better grasp of historical records than the former.) This research included-amongst many other places-the excellent archives at the Met Office. I wrote the following article

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    Amongst the notes I recorded in the general caveats were these; Especially please note 13)

    1) When accessing historic observations and records, certain caveats need to be made, although generally the information portrayed is reliable as the information of harvest dates, weather patterns etc would be essential for the continued welfare of an agrarian based society. In the context of the time notable events would be chronicled, as even short periods of extremes might have serious consequences for people often living at the margins.

    11) Whilst frost fairs may be seen to be a good proxy for extreme cold, during Puritan times this activity may have been frowned on. Also changes in the course/flow of the river may have precluded this activity even though the temperatures might suggest a frost fair was possible. A list of frost fairs is included in the references. As Mann and Jones mention when quoting Lamb 1977 in their own 2004 paper ‘Climate over the past millennia’ there were only 22 frost fairs on the Thames recorded between 1408 and 1814.

    12) CET is seen as a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. See article ‘The Long Slow Thaw’ for evidence and caveats.

    13) Due to its geographical location British weather is often quite mobile and periods of hot, cold, dry or wet weather tend to be relatively short lived. If such events are longer lasting than normal, or interrupted and resumed, that can easily shape the character of a month or a season. Reading the numerous references there is clear evidence of ‘blocking patterns,’ perhaps as the jet stream shifts, or a high pressure takes up residence, feeding in winds from a certain direction which generally shape British weather.

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    It is obvious that the jet stream meandered very considerably throughout the period in question which started off warm, turned cold, then oscillated between the two states. It is also obvious that the catastrophic weather events were much more frequent in what is termed the LIA than during the MWP or Modern times. Not surprising as there is less energy if the air is has a moderate temperature gradient than if there are extremes of heat and cold as happened during the LIA.

    So the weather can get ‘stuck’ whenever the jet stream meanders, but the consequences are likely to be much worse during extremes. The evidence through tens of thousands of observations is that the modern era-like the first few decades of the 1700’s and the 1400′s/early 1500’s and the MWP-is that the modern climate is benign, not severe.

    I do hope you will continue to participate in future threads as we need dissenting voices but please do realise that we are not ignorant and adjust your comments accordingly. Hopefully some from ‘my’ side will also moderate their tone thereby allowing a reasoned discussion.
    tonyb”

    First off, why do you think there is an interest in the MWP and LIA? I think it’s because there is an agenda to dispute global warming, so they try to confuse variablilty with a linear response to warming.

    I’m familiar with Lamb and Mann, but Lamb didn’t get his opinion on MWP and LIA from data, he got it from researching written records. That isn’t saying Lamb didn’t do a good job, it’s just saying the tools for such research weren’t available. I had the impression Lamb looked at the MWP through the lense of the LIA. Lamb was also infuenced by legend and he could tell a good story.

    Now that we have the tools, it would be good to use good proxies to investigate the paleoclimatology of that era. I don’t think it’s good to cherry pick data from around the world to make claims that these events were global and not review all the data. I don’t think it’s good to be so loose with the dates to identify these periods.

    I find there is a sense of urgency, because evidence in glaciers for those time periods aren’t going to last much longer.

  257. Gary Lance Aka zedsdeadbed the troll that infects other sites, right now i will go back to lurking, and leaning ( but not from him)

  258. Gary Lance has been shown to be wrong time after time in this thread, but he persists in emitting his debunked nonsense. His lame attempts to paint skeptics into the corner of disagreeing that there is global warming have failed. We know the planet is recovering from the LIA, naturally. We also know that the rate of warming since the LIA has not changed or accelerated, whether CO2 is low or high. Thus, CO2 has zero measurable effect on temperature.

    Lance is still avoiding my challenge to him to post a chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence showing that to be the case. None. And without any evidence, AGW is simply a conjecture; a conjecture that has ballooned into an alarming scare by the crazed CAGW crowd. They are frustrated because knowledgeable people here are not buying into their runaway global warming fantasies.

    I note that Lance is getting no traction here on the internet’s Best Science site. Regular readers have been through these arguments time after time. The only facts left standing show that while there may be some validity to the AGW conjecture, any warming due to human emissions is so tiny that it can be completely disregarded as de minimus. It has a minuscule effect — and warmth is good, not bad; CO2 is beneficial, not harmful. More is better, and Lance is impotently flogging a dead horse. WUWT readers are too educated and intelligent to fall for Lance’s baseless climate alarmism.

  259. Gary Lance says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:58 am
    Richard M

    I don’t accept cherry picked data and I’ve told you over and over the antarctic ice mass has nothing to do with global warming.

    I never said it did. I simply responded to one of your increasing number of incorrect statements. You obviously get your science from Propaganda ‘R Us. If you ever decide to actually look at the real data and use some kind of critical thinking then get back to me. Until then I will assume you will never even consider real data over the propaganda continually fed to you.

    When a scientist looks at data, they look at all the data. When a scientist sees someone posting charts that deceive or flat out lie about dates, then they know the person isn’t interested in science.

    Thanks for the nice self-diagnosis. I’ve noticed when you have been pressed to provide “real data” you have provided zero, zilch, nada, none. Your projection is totally hilarious.

    The rest of your comment is nothing but repeats of alarmist propaganda that you clearly can’t understand. Claiming people don’t believe in the greenhouse effect because they understand there is much more to the physics of the atmosphere than the simple GHE is quite hilarious. The fact is you have such a simplistic view that you are easily swayed by the propaganda. Educate yourself and come back in a few months (or years) when you can converse intelligently.

  260. Gary Lance:

    At October 21, 2012 at 5:21 am you say to me

    I can just write it and I can’t make you read and comprehend it.

    I WANT TO READ IT SO WRITE IT.
    You made the assertions and all I am doing is asking you to justify them.
    My questions are clear and simple. I remind that they are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    The assertions are yours.
    My questions ask you to explain how your assertions can be true.
    You say of my requested answers that you “can just write it”, so stop running away and just write it.

    Richard

  261. J Martin says:

    October 21, 2012 at 3:02 am

    Try sticking with one mistake at a time!

    You brought up Venus at a certain depth of atmosphere and that’s not apples to apples. Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot. Venus gets a certain amount of sunlight and so does Earth. They both have their unique albedos, so explain why it’s so hot on Venus!

    I gave you the dates for the Maunder Minimum and it couldn’t have started the LIA, like you said. The Europe of the LIA wasn’t the Europe Caesar visited and there was enough deforestation to cool Europe during that time period.

    The data for 13% CO2 works like this: First there is the evidence of a Snowball Earth and a book can be written about it, so find the evidence and notice when it was. The issue then becomes is there enough evidence to believe such an Earth existed and if it did, how could it stop from existing? A person who is truly a scientist and knows the greenhouse effects of gases can be tested and the tests prove it is true can calculate how much greenhouse gas is needed to warm a Snowball Earth. Water is a greenhouse gas and is a major part of that Snowball, but it’s too cold to get much water in the atmosphere, so what other gas can it be and how can it get there? Volcanos give off CO2 and a frozen world prevents that CO2 from leaving the atmosphere. Since our present world has places that have recorded temperatures to make dry ice, that Snowball Earth could also do it. It probably took tens of millions of years, but eventually enough greenhouse gas was put into the atmosphere to melt through the Snowball and once the albedo effect started to assist, it melted the ice away.

    The data does show the O2 levels in our atmosphere increased significantly following this time, so where did the O2 come from, if it wasn’t CO2? Volcanos can give CO2, but not O2. Much of the original O2 was used to get rid of iron and methane. There is evidence O2 levels had to drop to around 6%, eventually rose to 35% and declined to our present 21%. I’ve never heard a scientist suggest any other way to get our atmospheric O2 without plants and CO2.

    The relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature is established science, which works as a trigger for increases and decreases.

  262. Gary said

    “Now that we have the tools, it would be good to use good proxies to investigate the paleoclimatology of that era. I don’t think it’s good to cherry pick data from around the world to make claims that these events were global and not review all the data. I don’t think it’s good to be so loose with the dates to identify these periods. ”

    So you dont think written records from observers of the time and myriad other lines of evidence such as grain and grape prices/yields plus instrumental records are good proxies?

    Did you actiually read my article and the research behind It? Its not cherry picked and comes from one location so it can be measured directly against CET.Seriously, what ‘good proxies’ are you suggesting? Do you want to use tree rings which reflect the microclimate of the growing season only?

    tonyb

  263. D Böehm says:

    October 21, 2012 at 6:31 am

    I’ve given you plenty of examples of changing CO2 changing temperature and it’s the basis of geology. It’s your agenda to claim CO2 doesn’t trigger warming or cooling events that determines this new pseudo-science.

    Here is another one no mentioned and that’s our present temperatures are a product of the weathering removing CO2 with the formation of the Himalayas. That is established Geology, but you choose not to believe science.

    You still haven’t shown where that approx. 100 ppm CO2 originated between glacial and interglacial periods.

    I’m not objecting to established science and you are, so the burden of proof that CO2 can’t change temperature is on you. Science says it can and has been saying for nearly 200 years.

  264. Gary Lance says:

    “The relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature is established science, which works as a trigger for increases and decreases.”

    That is flat wrong. I have repeatedly challenged you to post a chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. But you have never been able to post such a chart, because there is no such scientific evidence. You cannot show that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature.

    Your premise has been repeatedly debunked, yet you continue to post your catastrophic AGW nonsense. And as long as you continue to post your nonsense, I will be reminding readers that you are unable to substantiate your anti-science claims.

    And as usual, you are changing the subject. My challenge to you is to post scientific evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. You have completely failed, because you have avoided even commenting on the lack of cause and effect. Your comments are examples of anti-science; masquerading as science. But WUWT readers are more intelligent than you, and they can distinguish between your pseudo-science nonsense and empirical evidence showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2, not vice-versa.

  265. “Richard M says:

    October 21, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Gary Lance says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:58 am
    Richard M

    I don’t accept cherry picked data and I’ve told you over and over the antarctic ice mass has nothing to do with global warming.

    I never said it did. I simply responded to one of your increasing number of incorrect statements. You obviously get your science from Propaganda ‘R Us. If you ever decide to actually look at the real data and use some kind of critical thinking then get back to me. Until then I will assume you will never even consider real data over the propaganda continually fed to you.

    When a scientist looks at data, they look at all the data. When a scientist sees someone posting charts that deceive or flat out lie about dates, then they know the person isn’t interested in science.

    Thanks for the nice self-diagnosis. I’ve noticed when you have been pressed to provide “real data” you have provided zero, zilch, nada, none. Your projection is totally hilarious.

    The rest of your comment is nothing but repeats of alarmist propaganda that you clearly can’t understand. Claiming people don’t believe in the greenhouse effect because they understand there is much more to the physics of the atmosphere than the simple GHE is quite hilarious. The fact is you have such a simplistic view that you are easily swayed by the propaganda. Educate yourself and come back in a few months (or years) when you can converse intelligently.”

    I pointed out your latest data on ice mass in Antarctica came from a satellite that stopped working over two and a half years ago. I also said the latest data I’ve seen shows mass decreases in both Antarctica and Greenland. The Australians have set up meeting to discuss changes in the ice and ocean currents that they are alarmed about. See what IceSat has to say about that!

    I get primary sources of scientific information and not material manufactured on blogs. When was the last time you visited science and not Propaganda ‘R Us?

    Do you think nature is law of Physics? Milankovitch Cycles say we should be cooling since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, so claiming we have been warming since the LIA, because of nature is not an explanation. Anything you call nature still has to have a mechanism recognized by science.

  266. Gary Lance says
    I’m not objecting to established science and you are, so the burden of proof that CO2 can’t change temperature is on you. Science says it can and has been saying for nearly 200 years.
    Henry says
    Come on Gary. I have looked at this problem for more than 3 years and found that they (“the science”) were wrong for various reasons

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/

    You cannot “test” this in a closed box.
    Further to this, in this thread, I have given you my latest results, which apparently nobody has figured out as yet, but which, ultimately, should all unite us against the common (coming) cold.
    Obviously you have a different (money laundering) agenda….

  267. Gary Lance:

    I am still waiting for you to answer my clear and simple questions. I remind that they are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    Stop hiding from your own assertions. The more you hide the less credible is every other post from you. And your hiding will not go unnoticed because – as I said – I intend to keep asking.

    Richard

  268. Gary Lance, said “Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot.”

    Wrong way round. Venus has high temperature because of it’s high pressure. At the same pressure on Venus with it’s 96.5% co2 atmosphere the temperature is the same as on Earth allowing for relative distance to the sun, give or take 2 degrees centigrade.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    On Earth the amount of co2 is trivial, water vapour is the main greenhouse gas.

    Gary, you didn’t answer my question. You probably won’t answer my question even to yourself, far less this blog.

    What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?

  269. More nonsense from Lance: “I pointed out your latest data on ice mass in Antarctica came from a satellite that stopped working over two and a half years ago. I also said the latest data I’ve seen shows mass decreases in both Antarctica and Greenland. “

    What latest data? I gave you the ONLY data that is meaningful and you went into full denial. Let’s see you back up your claim and provide later data … hmmm, I won’t hold my breath. You are simply repeating propaganda and hoping people are as ignorant as yourself. You are getting slaughtered here because the people here have seen the actual data and are not suckered in by the propaganda as you appear to be.

    One can only wonder how any sane person could claim information over the 2 years is somehow superior to information over 8 years even if it existed. Clearly, it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.

  270. Now for a tough question … is Gary Lance an auto-bot? Hard to believe anyone would go to such extremes to show off their ignorance.

  271. “richardscourtney says:

    October 21, 2012 at 6:44 am

    Gary Lance:

    At October 21, 2012 at 5:21 am you say to me

    I can just write it and I can’t make you read and comprehend it.

    I WANT TO READ IT SO WRITE IT.
    You made the assertions and all I am doing is asking you to justify them.
    My questions are clear and simple. I remind that they are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    The assertions are yours.
    My questions ask you to explain how your assertions can be true.
    You say of my requested answers that you “can just write it”, so stop running away and just write it.

    Richard”

    This has been answered several times, but it could have been deleted by the mod or ignored again. Let me paint you another good picture!

    Let’s set the scene as being three years from now and the arctic did go ice free. Do you think the people here who claimed it has stopped warming or who claimed the sea ice would recover are going to be here thinking about an ice free arctic of selling some other bull? I believe that even with more record temperatures, extreme weather events and Greenland melts between now and then, their agenda will not change. I believe that because I have experience with people like that. They don’t take responsibility for what they said yesterday and their agenda controls them.

    As I have pointed out, an ice free arctic is going to be the most pivotal time to Earth in human history. Let me spell it out to you, to Earth simply means the physical world we live in and not the most important event for mankind! That has been pointed out to you, but you like to change what is said to suit things you make up about it, like that Earth/US nonsense.

    You brought up moving out of Africa, but why is that migration anymore important than other migrations? It isn’t that hard to get out of Africa and it isn’t that hard to venture to an area near a glacier that is retreating. If you think mankind is older than that and experienced a glaciation, it isn’t that hard to move away from a bad area.

    All of this has been said over and over, but focus for a change. Why is an ice free arctic so pivotal in man’s relationship to Earth? I’ve pointed out the consequences of having an ice free arctic and I’ve pointed out it can be prevented, even gave details. I’ve pointed out that nearly three times that amount of remain arctic sea ice area, which is about equal to the area of Greenland, has happened in snow cover loss in June. To any reasonable person, changing that much albedo should be alarming and an indication of warming. I also pointed out the Greenland 150 year melt will continue to occur under those circumstances.

    So how many alarms does it take for the human race to wake up? There are signs of warming all over the world and in records each year. Random events don’t happen that often.

    If we allow the arctic to go ice free, we are allowing a major change to happen to our climate without mitigation. The best weather experts tell us, it has already affected the jet stream and will impact areas with exceptional weather conditions. The data shows a history of that already occurring. I’ve looked at the analysis of insurance companies that insure insurance companies and they listed events and not payouts. Statistics show a rapid increase of extreme weather related events that don’t match natural events and again I emphasize, I’m talking about the number of these events.

    The prognosis for an ice free arctic isn’t that hard to diagnose in the short term. The sea ice will still form in winter, but the ice free period should grow beyond the initial period that had multi-year sea ice. Land areas around the Arctic Ocean should continue to thaw and erode. Ice shelves will collapse at a faster rate and glaciers will speed up. There are basically two choices and that involves warming the Arctic Ocean enough to not have winter sea ice or finding a new equilibrium once the sea ice free period is extended. The coastal areas of Greenland and the CAA will change quickly and Greenland should have yearly ice sheet melts in the near future.

    I’d say even anticipating an ice free arctic is pivotal and people in the future aren’t going to believe nothing was done to mitigate the damage. The changes people generally talk about adapting to are slow changes and this isn’t a slow change. It’s a rapid change like a large volcanic eruption, but rapid changes of a long duration that will drastically alter the Earth as we know it. When that has happened in the past, it’s resulted in mass extinction.

  272. To Gary Lance from another thread.

    dcfl51 says:
    October 21, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Brian Macker says:
    October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
    ~~~
    Have you seen the studies by Ferenc Miskolczi ? Deriving his results from the analysis of weather balloon data compiled over 60 years, he has shown that, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there has been a matching (in its effect) reduction in water vapor thereby maintaining the greenhouse effect in stable equilibrium.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

  273. “tonyb says:

    October 21, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Gary said

    “Now that we have the tools, it would be good to use good proxies to investigate the paleoclimatology of that era. I don’t think it’s good to cherry pick data from around the world to make claims that these events were global and not review all the data. I don’t think it’s good to be so loose with the dates to identify these periods. ”

    So you dont think written records from observers of the time and myriad other lines of evidence such as grain and grape prices/yields plus instrumental records are good proxies?

    Did you actiually read my article and the research behind It? Its not cherry picked and comes from one location so it can be measured directly against CET.Seriously, what ‘good proxies’ are you suggesting? Do you want to use tree rings which reflect the microclimate of the growing season only?

    tonyb”

    Let’s keep it simple and to the point for a change! You were talking about Lamb and I told you my opinion, which is the opinion of science, except for the historical parts. You come back talking about instrumental measurements, but there were no instrumental measurements for the period or for the whole Earth. The fact is during Lamb’s research time, they didn’t think tree rings were good enough to get a date.

    The only significance of MWP and LIA is whether it’s local or global. I don’t see other people on this site trying to rebut things like the Maunder Minimum caused the LIA, when it’s a fact that the LIA happened before the Maunder Minimum. Lamb did what he did to come to the opinion that the MWP and the LIA happened and he documented how he came to those conclusions, so it’s a fact. It’s also a fact that he didn’t use instrumental measurements to come to those conclusions, but supported the last part of the LIA and recent history with instrumental measurements from central England only. Lamb’s primary source were Church documents.

    Scientists are skeptical by nature and they quickly learn not to allow bias to infuence their research.

    I said good proxies (remember I mentioned glaciers) and tree rings can be good proxies of temperature, if the tree grew under conditions that temperature would reflect growth, like alpine areas, where a tree is temperature stressed. Otherwise, tree rings are good for dating, if a data base exists, and showing a record of precipitation.

  274. D Böehm says:

    October 21, 2012 at 7:23 am

    How many examples of changes in CO2 causing changes in temperature do you need? It’s been established science for nearly 200 years and is fundamental to our understanding of Geology.

    On your side is someone who can just say words and can’t back those words up with facts.

    Explain why temperature fell from that 22 degree C Hothouse Earth, if the Geologists are wrong and the Himalayas didn’t remove CO2 and cause the temperature to drop!

  275. To Gary Lance.

    What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?

  276. Gary Lance says:

    “I asked you a simple question about you saying CO2 lags temperature and you didn’t answer it. I asked you what the mechanism was for CO2 to lag temperature. I asked you that specifically because that mechanism shows how ridiculous that lagging indicator argument is.”

    Lance, I didn’t answer your question because it is basic common knowledge that ocean outgassing and absorption regulates atmospheric CO2 according to its partial pressure and water temperature. It seems that everyone here except you knew that. Now you know the mechanism, too.

    And now you ask:

    “How many examples of changes in CO2 causing changes in temperature do you need?”

    One will do. Otherwise, you’re just hand-waving. You give no examples of CO2 leading temperature during the Holocene. Either post a chart showing that ∆T follows CO2, or you lose your entire argument. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, and your hand-waving, along with your ridiculous self-referral as an authority scores no points. I have provided a chart showing that ∆CO2 always lags ∆T. That is empirical scientific evidence proving that you have cause and effect exactly backward. No wonder your conclusions are wrong.

  277. Gary Lance:

    Concerning my two questions repeatedly put to you, at October 21, 2012 at 10:38 am you assert

    This has been answered several times, but it could have been deleted by the mod or ignored again.

    NO!
    You have NOT answered either question. You do not point to any answer in the thread (there is none). And the mods on WUWT indicate when they have snipped a post (this is not some warmist ‘echo chamber’). You have NOT answered either question.

    Then you say

    Let me paint you another good picture!

    I do NOT want a “picture” be it good, bad or otherwise.
    I want an answer from you to my questions asking you to explain and/or justify specified assertions you made to me.

    Let me – again – remind you of the questions. They are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    Your long-winded “picture” does NOT answer either question.
    The nearest to an answer it contains is this.

    As I have pointed out, an ice free arctic is going to be the most pivotal time to Earth in human history. Let me spell it out to you, to Earth simply means the physical world we live in and not the most important event for mankind! That has been pointed out to you, but you like to change what is said to suit things you make up about it, like that Earth/US nonsense.

    Yes, I know what you “pointed out”. I am asking you to explain and/or justify it.
    You have merely repeated it.

    And your stupid comment about the “Earth/US” was all that was in your post at October 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm. It most certainly was “nonsense”, and I am at a loss to understand why you would draw attention to your having provided such “nonsense”.

    Enough is enough. You made the assertions. Answer the questions.
    The time for weaseling is over.

    Richard

  278. gary lance says
    Try looking at the problem while writing your thesis in Geology and see if you get your degree!
    henry says
    dear me, are you down to name calling now?
    I note that you have not measured anything at all, but you know everything.

    But, pray do tell me how I was able to analyse some 650000 daily measurements and convert it into a proper cooling curve for maximum temps., in degrees C/annum versus time, using geology as my major?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Now, are you going to tell me now which way you think my blue curve will go?

    Climate change will happen, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, but it is due to natural cooling.

    I am sure you or someone scrupulous will eventually spin a reason as to why to blame the colder and rainier and more snowy weather on
    (the poor)
    CO2….

  279. Gary Lance’s alarmist hand-waving over natural global warming presupposes that current temperatures are exactly right, and should never rise. But the climate alarmist is wrong, as usual.

    The planet is normally warmer than it is now. If global temperatures rise a few degrees, the net result will be beneficial. Warmer temperatures were not a problem in the geologic past:

    Lance is arguing that the planet is wrong, a ridiculous position to take. And as we see, he has no scientific evidence to support his beliefs; hand-waving is his stock in trade. For myself, I prefer to listen to what the planet is telling us: that warmer temperatures are normal, natural, and nothing to fear.

  280. “J Martin says:

    October 21, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Gary Lance, said “Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot.”

    Wrong way round. Venus has high temperature because of it’s high pressure. At the same pressure on Venus with it’s 96.5% co2 atmosphere the temperature is the same as on Earth allowing for relative distance to the sun, give or take 2 degrees centigrade.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    On Earth the amount of co2 is trivial, water vapour is the main greenhouse gas.

    Gary, you didn’t answer my question. You probably won’t answer my question even to yourself, far less this blog.

    What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?”

    Thanks for the laugh about something causing the atmosphere on Venus to pressurize. It must be something big to keep it from expanding in volume.

    PV = nRT

    If you increase the temperature and keep the volume constant, you increase the pressure. Gravity is what holds the volume and it’s about the same as our gravity.

    It doesn’t make a difference what the main greenhouse gas is. The Earth was cooling from the Holocene Thermal Maximum, so figure out why they called it the Thermal Maximum! The Earth was cooling with that same main greenhouse gas, but something overcame the cooling trend of Milankovitch Cycles and caused the Earth to warm, when it was suppose to cool. The additional force only has to be stronger than the weak force of Milankovitch cooling.

    You can have tons of forces acting on something, but the resultant force may be quite small. What if you have a million pounds of force in one direction and a million and one pounds in the opposite direction? If I add more than one pound of force against the resultant, I’ve reversed the direction of motion.

    There is a lot of it can’t be adding greenhouse gases on this site and not a lot of showing a mechanism to overcome the decrease in solar energy from Milankovitch Cycles. Claiming it is nature without a mechanism doesn’t cut it. CO2 is a mechanism and nature isn’t.

  281. “Richard M says:

    October 21, 2012 at 9:25 am

    More nonsense from Lance: “I pointed out your latest data on ice mass in Antarctica came from a satellite that stopped working over two and a half years ago. I also said the latest data I’ve seen shows mass decreases in both Antarctica and Greenland. “

    What latest data? I gave you the ONLY data that is meaningful and you went into full [snip]. Let’s see you back up your claim and provide later data … hmmm, I won’t hold my breath. You are simply repeating propaganda and hoping people are as ignorant as yourself. You are getting slaughtered here because the people here have seen the actual data and are not suckered in by the propaganda as you appear to be.

    One can only wonder how any sane person could claim information over the 2 years is somehow superior to information over 8 years even if it existed. Clearly, it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.”

    What did I go into?

  282. “To Gary Lance from another thread.

    dcfl51 says:
    October 21, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Brian Macker says:
    October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
    ~~~
    Have you seen the studies by Ferenc Miskolczi ? Deriving his results from the analysis of weather balloon data compiled over 60 years, he has shown that, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there has been a matching (in its effect) reduction in water vapor thereby maintaining the greenhouse effect in stable equilibrium.”

    I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.

    Does he bother to explain why adding CO2 reduces H20?

  283. “J Martin says:

    October 21, 2012 at 11:52 am

    To Gary Lance.

    What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?”

    I pointed out that a drop in CO2 took us away from Hothouse Earth, so let’s get back to the way it was before we screwed it up. Give me 50 ppm CO2 reduction and put the arctic sea ice back and we’ll see if that covers it!

    No one has the right to change the world this way knowing others have to live with the consequences.

  284. Gary Lance:

    At October 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm you say

    I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.

    Yes, Garry, we have all observed how little you know about climate science. There is no need to tell us about that.

    Instead, spend the time answering the questions put to you about your assertions. There are now three people who have asked you specifics concerning different untrue assertions which you have made in the thread.

    Richard

  285. Gary Lans says:

    [Regarding the internationally esteemed climatologist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi]: “I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.”

    Proof that we are dealing with an ignoramus who is just repeating debunked talking points that he gets from thinly-trafficked alarmist echo chamber blogs. It is astonishing to me that Lance would openly admit that he never heard of Dr. Miskolczi. I had thought Lance’s credibility couldn’t get any lower. I was wrong.

  286. From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 10:30 pm:

    You have a commercial nuclear industry invented by the same man (Weinberg) who wanted it changed to Thorium MSRs. You have high pressure reactors that can meltdown and don’t remove nuclear waste.

    Science has moved on, Gary. Inherently safe reactor designs have been developed. From Canada comes the CANDU reactor design. There have been safely running CANDU reactors for 50 years.

    They can burn the “spent” fuel of other reactors. Fuel can be recycled and reused until there is hardly any high-level nuclear waste.

    CANDU’s can burn thorium. Molten Salt Reactors are not needed.

    Try to read the Canadian Nuclear FAQ, it is very informative.

    You have three quarters of those reactors leaking radioactive tritium in the groundwater and they are regulated by the NRC.

    You read an AP piece that was in USA Today. Good job, Gary!

    You said “leaking” as if 3/4 of the plants are leaking right now, rather than “leaked” as the story said, deceptively changing a cumulative score into an ongoing problem. Bad Gary, bad!

    Sorry, but this site is visited by many people with actual experience dealing with the NRC, including real nuclear reactor operators, and know how tough the NRC actually is. We also have extensively discussed the real dangers of radiation. You have more to fear from getting a single CT scan than you do from tritium leaks from reactors.

    You don’t have people wanting to build large facilities because they would have to shut down existing capacity to operate them.

    Seriously? I give a link showing many people who want to build large facilities to add capacity, and you claim the exact opposite.

    See Gary, that’s how we can tell you are not really reading. You can admit your problem to us, we already know you have one. Many people have reading and comprehension problems. You are not alone.

    Besides, generating companies are loosing existing capacity anyway as older coal-fired plants are being shut down, so your point was moot from the start.

    Nuclear power didn’t fall apart by a green movement, it fell apart because it became too expensive when the government wasn’t footing the bill.

    So the endless court battles from Greenies demanding ongoing expensive Environmental Impact Statements and continually fighting all nuclear plant construction on federal, state, and local levels, driving up construction costs to where it was prohibitively expensive to even begin seeking approval for merely considering to build a new nuke plant, had no effect?

    Try researching something for a change and do it with sources to let you form your own opinion!

    I’ve been doing that for decades. I’m doing it right now. I know it is hard with your condition, but please pay attention.

    You can’t economically downsize nuclear facilities, and the electricity needs to be made at capacity, so it’s only good for a base load.

    Science has moved forward. Google “modular nuclear reactors”. Example:

    Small modular reactors, approximately one-third the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction and economic benefits. Specifically, they could be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times. The small size also makes SMRs ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, providing utilities with the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.

    Many designs are under development.

    CANDU’s can do load-following, they don’t have to be base load.

    France has 90% of their electricity from nuclear plants, they learned how to do load-following.

    Plus the planned small modular reactors are expected to be more flexible.

    Your location is limited to where you can get large amounts of water.

    Among the many small nuclear power reactors planned and built are those that are air cooled. You can drop them in a bone-dry desert, or in veritable deserts without liquid water like Antarctica and around the Arctic.

    You are building a nuclear reactor with a limited lifespan, so a new reactor will be required in the future and they have been built at those presently operating nuclear facilities.

    Check out the modular designs. Pull out the old one, replace with new one, ship the old one out for refueling or recovery/recycling/decommissioning.

    There is no mechanism to get rid of nuclear waste and when that reactor stops making you money, you still have to maintain it.

    The costs of decommissioning are figured in from the initial planning, gathered while the plant is operating.

    Most nuclear waste is low-level, can be as mundane as latex gloves that handled a radioactive tracer dye for a medical test.

    The “spent” fuel from an American light water reactor is rich fuel for a CANDU, which can also burn waste actinides. There are several fast spectrum reactors (example) in development that will also burn them.

    In the US, nuclear plant operators have been making payments in good faith to the federal government for a long-term disposal facility for decades, which was to have been Yucca Mountain. But as a sop to the Greenies, Obama did fulfill one 2008 campaign pledge and killed Yucca Mountain by defunding it in 2011. The Administration’s “reply” was that the spent fuel can sit in pools until 2050 until “eventually” there will be new processes developed and deployed for fuel recycling.

    But this Administration said “Nyet!” to using the proven reprocessing methods successfully used in France and elsewhere.

    Since by the contracts by which the payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund were gathered, which stipulated the feds should have been accepting the waste over a decade ago, plant owners are suing the federal government to recover those payments. And winning.

    If you want to complain about not being able to get rid of nuclear waste in the US, take it up with the Greenies as it’s their fault.

    It’s very expensive, costs many years to get approval, because of constant design changes, years to build where it costs you and without you making money from it and the federal government has enough bomb material and doesn’t want to help you out. You may find yourself responsible for that nuclear waste, once a means of disposing of it is made possible.

    All thanks to the rabidly anti-nuke Greenies. They’d rather cause the spewing of thousands of gigatonnes of CO₂ and watch the Earth spiral into the hot death of a runaway greenhouse effect than split one atom.

    Nuclear is only cheap, if it’s subsidized and you ignore the cost of building and rebuilding it. It costs more than just fuel and personnel.

    You could replace “nuclear” with “wind and solar” in the first sentence quite easily. But government subsidies in the US for nuke plants are limited to things like loan guarantees and insurance, and the nuke plant will provide reliable electricity.

    Replacement reactors are thought out well in advance, but they usually have design changes requiring a long time for NRC approval. The containment building needed for safety really drove up the costs.

    Containment buildings have been standard in the US for ages, long ago factored into construction costs. Thus that is a non-issue.

    I’ve been able to check on new nuclear reactors being built, so why haven’t you? You can find them all listed in wiki, just go to NRC, pick a region and scroll to the bottom for a list of nuclear facilities in all regions!

    With your obvious problems in reading and comprehension, and that practically everything you spew can be easily disproved with but a little quick online research, I find it hard to believe you have conducted any of the research you are now claiming to have done.

    You just said to go to the “wiki” for the list, then go to the NRC for the lists, and can’t provide a single link for any of that. Thus I know you didn’t do any of that.

    If you keep denying your problem, you are doing a disservice to those with dyslexia and other conditions with similar problems. Acting like you’re successfully getting away with your deception ends up encouraging sufferers who could get help and be treated to instead try to hide their condition as you do.

    Please, stop being so selfish.

  287. “D Böehm says:

    October 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Gary Lance says:

    “I asked you a simple question about you saying CO2 lags temperature and you didn’t answer it. I asked you what the mechanism was for CO2 to lag temperature. I asked you that specifically because that mechanism shows how ridiculous that lagging indicator argument is.”

    Lance, I didn’t answer your question because it is basic common knowledge that ocean outgassing and absorption regulates atmospheric CO2 according to its partial pressure and water temperature. It seems that everyone here except you knew that. Now you know the mechanism, too.

    And now you ask:

    “How many examples of changes in CO2 causing changes in temperature do you need?”

    One will do. Otherwise, you’re just hand-waving. You give no examples of CO2 leading temperature during the Holocene. Either post a chart showing that ∆T follows CO2, or you lose your entire argument. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, and your hand-waving, along with your ridiculous self-referral as an authority scores no points. I have provided a chart showing that ∆CO2 always lags ∆T. That is empirical scientific evidence proving that you have cause and effect exactly backward. No wonder your conclusions are wrong.”

    So you claim that 100 ppm CO2 was in the ocean and outgased as the ocean received more cold water runoff from glaciers. Now, why wouldn’t the glacier cover the carbon and release it as it retreated?

    You’ve be given many more than one example and the entire Paleoclimatic record is an example. Try reading the real science and you can find hundreds of examples!

  288. Gary Lance says:

    “You’ve be given many more than one example and the entire Paleoclimatic record is an example.”

    Hand-waving prevarication. Post a Holocene chart showing that CO2 leads temperature, or you lose the argument. Simple as that.

    I have posted a chart showing exactly the opposite of what you claim. You cannot refute it without posting verifiable and convincing scientific evidence, and you have no such evidence. All you do is vague hand-waving. You have no scientific credibility here, and after your astonishing comment about Dr. Miskolczi your ignorance is on display.

  289. Gary Lance:

    re your post at October 21, 2012 at 1:14 pm.

    Good grief, man! You were asked a question and your evasion is to reply with another question.
    You could have admitted you knew you were wrong instead of so clearly displaying it.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) gave you invaluable advice in the final two paragraphs of his post at October 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm. Every post you makes provides more evidence of your need to take that advice.

    Richard

  290. To Gary Lance.

    This is my last comment on this thread.

    The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), while the pressure is 93 bar.
    Venus has 90 times the amount of atmosphere as planet Earth.

    It is that massively larger atmosphere held by gravity that creates the pressure which consequently gives the high temperature.

    co2 does not and cannot raise the temperature any further than a puny two degrees centigrade.
    It is the pressure of an atmosphere 90 times larger than Earth’s which creates the remaining 465 degrees C.

    If you cannot understand that then you should never have been allowed to leave school. And perhaps that is the case.

    Goodbye.

  291. Gary Lance says:
    October 21, 2012 at 7:04 am

    “Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot.”

    Thanks Gary Lance, at least we now realize that you know absolutely nothing of basic atmospheric physics and can just discard most of you preceding assertions. Sure saves me a lot of time reading them and trying to figure out just where your mind resides. I shall exit now. ☺

    For your information, the atmospheric pressure at any level ONLY has to do with the mass of gas above that level and the gravitational acceleration acting on that mass. Integrate if you need better accuracy. You can never constrain the volume of a planetary atmopshere. Later.

    Oh, BTW, your ‘projection’ is showing.

  292. Gary said

    ‘Lamb’s primary source were Church documents.’

    Wow Gary, it is clear you have never looked at a book by Lamb or by any of the other great historical climatoligists, if you believe that. He gathered material from a huge variety of sources and corresponded widely with other scentists in order to gain and share information. Instrumental records were available for the most severe part of the LIA—the second phase—which ocurred in the late part of the seventeenth century and sporadically onwards.

    Lamb was very well aware of tree rings and their shortcomings and posibilities and wrote thousands of words on the subject. Do you prefer such material as scientific ‘data’ above observations and instrumental records? Do you still believe Dr Mann’s Hockey stick version of events?

    You also said:

    “I don’t see other people on this site trying to rebut things like the Maunder Minimum caused the LIA, when it’s a fact that the LIA happened before the Maunder Minimum.”

    What are you talking about? I have never at any time talked about the Maunder minimum here. It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the LIA but I have no particular opinion as to whether lack of sun spot activity caused the various periods of intense cold that have come to be known as the LIA.

    tonyb

  293. “HenryP says:

    October 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    gary lance says
    Try looking at the problem while writing your thesis in Geology and see if you get your degree!
    henry says
    dear me, are you down to name calling now?
    I note that you have not measured anything at all, but you know everything.

    But, pray do tell me how I was able to analyse some 650000 daily measurements and convert it into a proper cooling curve for maximum temps., in degrees C/annum versus time, using geology as my major?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Now, are you going to tell me now which way you think my blue curve will go?

    Climate change will happen, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, but it is due to natural cooling.

    I am sure you or someone scrupulous will eventually spin a reason as to why to blame the colder and rainier and more snowy weather on
    (the poor)
    CO2….”

    What name calling?

    You claim to not believe a connection between CO2 and temperature, so Paleoclimatogy is a branch of Physical Geography, which is a branch of Geology. I told you to put that in your thesis and see if you get the degree. It’s like putting flat Earth in your Astronomy thesis. You are treating something fundamental to the science as if it’s an opinion.

    I think using maximum temperatures is stupid. The temperature varies due to all kinds of conditons, both daily and seasonally, so the logical thing to do is average continuous temperatures annually, if you want to compare things throughout long periods of time and carve up the Earth with a grid, if you want it globally. The way they usually do it is to find temperature measurements to represent the whole area of a grid and average continuous temperatures for daily, weekly, monthly and annually. They use an average of a large base period to compare the particular data to the norm. Since a grid can have various features with different temperatures, they try to estimate what temperature is representative of the average temperature in that grid.

    It harder doing all that, but they think it’s the smart way and so do I.

    The biggest problem is, new stations can have good data, but they may not be part of the base period.

    My only interest in a high or low is a record high or low.

  294. No biggie but seems like “refreeze” is the wrong word since the ice was blown out to sea before it melted? There was an ice floe 80 miles long 12 miles wide sailing past the shell operation off the coast of Alaska just a few weeks ago on it’s way to the Pacific. They had to pull anchor it was so large. Thanks for the great website.

  295. “D Böehm says:

    October 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Gary Lance’s alarmist hand-waving over natural global warming presupposes that current temperatures are exactly right, and should never rise. But the climate alarmist is wrong, as usual.

    The planet is normally warmer than it is now. If global temperatures rise a few degrees, the net result will be beneficial. Warmer temperatures were not a problem in the geologic past:

    Lance is arguing that the planet is wrong, a ridiculous position to take. And as we see, he has no scientific evidence to support his beliefs; hand-waving is his stock in trade. For myself, I prefer to listen to what the planet is telling us: that warmer temperatures are normal, natural, and nothing to fear.”

    The people in my state have the common sense to know the temperature has increased with time. They don’t have to be told what is, they have memories and know other people with memories too.

  296. “D Böehm says:

    October 21, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Gary Lance would do well to read:

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    That paper thoroughly deconstructs the belief that CO2 is the reason for the high temperatures on Venus.

    The rest of Lance’s comment is his usual evidence-free hand-waving.”

    Why would I waste my time reading that? I guess Astrophysics is wrong too and only you people know science.

    I spend plenty of time reading science, you should try it sometime.

  297. Gary Lance says:

    “The people in my state have the common sense to know the temperature has increased with time.”

    Show us where any skeptic has stated that global temperatures have not increased with time. That response is deliberate misdirection, intended to cover up the fact that Lance lacks any coherent argument. The central point is whether human emissions cause any measurable rise in temperature. So far, the answer is that any effect from anthro emissions are too small to measure. The Null Hypothesis and the Principle of Parsimony say that the default position must be that the rise in global temperatures since the LIA is entirely natural. No one is denying that the planet is recovering from the LIA. But there is no scientific evidence showing that human activity is the cause.

    And regarding H.D. Huffman’s Venus paper, Lance asks:

    “Why would I waste my time reading that?”

    If ignorance is bliss, Lance must be one happy camper.

  298. Rob Murphy … look at the graph at the beginning of the thread …what does the slope tell you for 2012? Forget the percentages! Duh!

  299. Around 2006-2007 something changed in the Arctic ice dynamics, such that the change from minimum to maximum ice abruptly increased, and the ice extent curve transitioned to wider swings between summer and winter. This happened at the same time as a transition between an ENSO phase dominated by el Nino events to one dominated by La Ninas. The sudden growth in variation in Arctic ice resembles a transition between phases in a Lorenz type strange attractor. Swanson and Tsonis (2009) proposed that change in synchrony and resonance of atmospheric and/or oceanic oscillations could cause a climate regime shift, associated with nonlinear dynamics although they placed it as happening in 2001-2.

    Its not clear if this upturn in winter-summer range will lead to more ice loss on average, or gain, or stasis. A look at recent temperature history might suggest a downturn is more likely.

  300. I don’t think anyone objects to clean energy but it is now well established there is no weather emergency justifying hurting the poor and middle class with high energy costs like is occurring. If anything the real emergency is what is happeneing to the poor and middle class. We have clean cheap plentiful energy in gas and hydro. We don’t need the panels etc. We never did. We were deceived for political and monetary gain. We were all duped. Some people just won’t admit it. They never will.

  301. D Böehm says:
    October 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    And regarding H.D. Huffman’s Venus paper, Lance asks:

    “Why would I waste my time reading that?”

    Since his whole analysis starts with a blatantly false assertion there is little point in proceeding further. GIGO.

  302. Phil,

    Somehow I am not surprised that you’re at the same level of understanding as Gary Lance. You probably never heard of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi either.

  303. “richardscourtney says:

    October 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Gary Lance:

    At October 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm you say

    I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.

    Yes, Garry, we have all observed how little you know about climate science. There is no need to tell us about that.

    Instead, spend the time answering the questions put to you about your assertions. There are now three people who have asked you specifics concerning different untrue assertions which you have made in the thread.

    Richard”

    So what you are saying is your litmus test of someone knowing about climate science is whether a person believes the Earth has a greenhouse gas balance policy, such that adding more CO2 causes it to have less water vapor.

    Why would a planet behave like that? What mechanism would control that?

    Does it work for other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs?

    Are we removing CO2 with our cooling tower emissions of water vapor?

    Why does CO2 just pick on water vapor and not other greenhouse gases?

    Did those early land animals which lived with much higher CO2 levels evolve from deserts, like the ancestors of crocodiles? Does this mean you are stating for the record that greenhouse gases actually exist? I’d be careful and not allow others on this site hear you say that.

    I find it amazing that someone would actually believe there could be a greenhouse gas balance policy on Earth.

  304. “D Böehm says:

    October 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Gary Lans says:

    [Regarding the internationally esteemed climatologist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi]: “I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.”

    Proof that we are dealing with an ignoramus who is just repeating debunked talking points that he gets from thinly-trafficked alarmist echo chamber blogs. It is astonishing to me that Lance would openly admit that he never heard of Dr. Miskolczi. I had thought Lance’s credibility couldn’t get any lower. I was wrong.”

    Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist? How can there be a greenhouse gas balance policy if greenhouse gases don’t exist?

  305. Phlogiston says
    ….could cause a climate regime shift, ……
    Swanson and Tsonis (2009) states
    Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred
    in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend
    from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred

    Henry says
    the downward trend from 2002 is here for everyone to see:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

    (note the rather suspicious looking peak on hadcrut4 for 2007)

    I analysed ca. 650000 maximum temperature recordings and came to this curve:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The blue curve is actual speed of warming/cooling measured. Maximum temperatures (energy-in) started dropping in 1995. Earth energy out (global mean) is lagging a bit but we can agree that that lag time is now over (from 2002). Follow the blue curve: where else must it go, but fall further down – a logical conclusion that simply escapes our friend Lance (hope he is not related to Armstrong).
    So YES, we do have a change in “climate regime” and my prediction is that we will fall a further 8x 0.035 = 0.3 degrees C by 2020, globally, at least.

    Before they started with this carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly, to explain an apparent 100 year weather cycle, if you study the height of the flooding of the Nile over time. See here.

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    To quote from the above paper:
    A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    (The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)

    So, indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) during and at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding during and at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more), it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain/snow). At the same time you would also have more clouds, naturally, so to speak.

    Now put my sine wave next to those dates?
    1995 end of warming – minimum Nile flooding
    1950 end of cooling – maximum Nile flooding
    1900 end of warming – minimum Nile flooding

    Not too bad, heh?

    The wetter weather is also the reason why some places still benefit, (i.e. “warming”) like Norway and the USA east coast.
    I am amazed that I am the only one who has figured it out. I think that even Moses was aware of it (remember 7×7 yr + 1 jubilee year?), so the Egyptians must have know about this ages ago.

  306. Gary Lance:

    You still have not answered my two questions repeatedly put to you and you have not replied to my complaints at October 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm about your ludicrous evasions at October 21, 2012 at 10:38 am.
    I yet again remind you of the questions. They are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    No more prevarications and evasions.
    ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR APOLOGISE FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY POSTED FALSE ASSERTIONS THAT YOU KNEW WERE FALSE.

    Richard

  307. From Gary Lance on October 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm @ D Böehm:

    Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist?

    Since when did D Böehm claim that water vapor doesn’t exist?

    Your desperation over having your condition being revealed is obvious, driving you to make baldly false accusations as a distraction.

    But your problem is very easy to notice, as you copy entire comments in your replies. If you were able to really read them, you would selectively copy only the relevant parts.

    As you are doing it now, you even leave out any formatting, and run your words and theirs together into an indistinguishable blob.

    Not that we’re judging you about that, as with your obvious disability the original comment must look like a blob of words anyway.

    Stop hiding in the closet, Gary. Help is available.

  308. From Phil-dot on October 21, 2012 at 7:10 pm:

    Since his whole analysis starts with a blatantly false assertion there is little point in proceeding further. GIGO.

    The analysis starts with:

    The flip side of the entrenched incompetence in science today is that all it takes is scientific competence to make revolutionary discoveries, or fundamental corrections to current dogma.

    I’ll admit the “fundamental corrections to current dogma” part sounds rather optimistic, as we have repeatedly seen how the (C)AGW-pushers will not allow their climate dogma to be corrected no matter what scientific competence and proven facts are brought to bear. Such collective protectionism is also noted in other branches of science, even adjunct branches like medicine, although seemingly less vicious in their defense of errors and flaws that are obvious to even mildly educated laymen.

    But “a blatantly false assertion”? That is hardly the truth about his opening line!

  309. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Your post about nuclear energy is full of nonsense and I don’t need to hear nonsense about greenies. People who claim there can be safe nuclear energy are by definition not greenies, which only proves you can’t even get that concept right.

    Calling something CANDU doesn’t mean it can do. Your heavy water CANDU reactors are about the best commercial reactors that exist to make materials for nuclear weapons and Germany was trying to build them in Norway in WWII. They use cheap unenriched natural uranium as fuel and therefore generate much more spent fuel than reactors using enriched uranium. If the purpose is just to generate electricity, producing hugh amounts of transuranium actinides is not the way to go about it, in fact, it’s the opposite way to go about it. You can’t put that spent fuel too close to the sides of a nuclear reactor, so there are two choices and that’s to just store it in the reactor, until the reactor gets full, or process it. If you store it, the reactor gets full of spent fuel and has to shut down. Now, you have to maintain a reactor that is costing you money and is not making electricity. Eventually, you will have to process that spent fuel, because it can’t stay there forever and that means it costs you to process and dispose of that spent fuel.

    The economics of heavy water reactors works out like this: You avoid the costs of uranium enrichment, but have to pay more for heavy water. That’s an economic trade off in the now, but when the eventual cost of processing additional spent fuel is considered, it’s more costly than other designs. If you aren’t planning on making nuclear weapons to offset those processing and disposal costs, then the full costs of producing electricity with a heavy water reactor are too expensive to compete with other methods. People interested in pushing this technology believe they can make their money and have someone else pick up the tab for their free lunch.

    The safety concerns of CANDU is it’s a pressurized water reactor. Instead of listing all the bad things, I’m going to show you what I want in a nuclear reactor and why you can’t get it in heavy water reactors. First off, I want a commercial nuclear reactor that can built in any country throughout the world and not contribute to nuclear proliferation, so CANDU gets an F for that subject. I want a reactor that doesn’t make much transuranium actinides and cleans up fission by-products, so there isn’t a chance that an accident can release things like cesium and iodine. I want a reactor that you can blow a hole in the side of it and not contaminate the environment around the reactor. I want a reactor that has no problem if there is a complete power failure and has no need for backup systems. I want a reactor that doesn’t need expensive containment. I want a reactor that doesn’t make the costs of electricity skyrocket, if it’s built on a smaller scale. I want a reactor that doesn’t have hydrogen or water near it. I want a reactor that produces cheap electricity and isn’t playing a game of making someone else pick up the tab for nuclear waste disposal costs. In other words, I want a reactor that has the nuclear material removed once it can no longer be operated and doesn’t need maintenance costs, because you clean it up and dispose of it.

    Now, I can’t resist in pointing out that for what I want in a nuclear reactor that CANDU is better named CAN’TDU. There is a kind of nuclear reactor that can do what I want and would be a blessing to the world and not a curse.

    The first thing I want clarify is no nuclear reactor “burns” thorium. Thorium is like super lead in absorbing neutrons and is non-fissile, meaning it can’t be used as it is in nuclear fission. It’s radioactive, but an alpha emitter with a half life three times the age of the Earth. Thorium is a by-product of rare earth metal production, is about 4 times more abundant than uranium and is in nature effectively all one isotope, thorium 232. Thorium now adds to the costs of rare earth production, because it is treated as a nuclear waste. Rare earths are needed and it wouldn’t hurt bringing down the costs and preventing people being contaminated like they are in China. In short, thorium is cheap.

    The concept of the Thorium MSR is to use a thorium fluoride salt to shield or blanket a nuclear core that does have fissile material. Both the blanket and the core are diluted by a lithium and beryllium fluoride salt. Lithium and beryllium are moderators meaning they slow down neutrons like the deuterium in heavy water does. The core is made of a graphite shell which is also a moderator. Both the core and blanket are processed to remove nuclear wastes and the blanket is processed to produce the fuel for the core, meaning uranium 233. A Thorium MSR is a breeder reactor that converts non-fissile Th 232 to U 233 and cleans itself in the process. It has a higher neutron economy than any existing commercial nuclear reactor.

    A Thorium MSR is a high temperature reactor that only uses pressure to pump liquid material when it needs to add or remove small amounts. It’s contents are held in place with a freeze plug in the drains, so if power is lost, the system cooling the salt to make the freeze plug is lost and it heats up draining the contents of the reactor to storage vessels. The original recommendations were to make 250MW reactors, but based on our present reactors they would replace and the need for processing, multiple reactors in the 1000MW to 1500MW total range are needed. The processing areas can also function to process spent fuel from existing nuclear reactors and the logical thing is to build at existing nuclear facilities, replacing the dinosaur technology we presently use. The sites of our existing nuclear facilities were logistically chosen to be the best sites available for the area they serve. The good thing about a thorium program is it can process spent fuel from existing reactors and may even allow some existing nuclear units to continue to operate, because some units are shut down from the buildup of spent fuel. To meet future energy demands, you just add another 250MW Thorium MSR and you don’t have to build those large MW units needing expensive containment and shut down much existing electricity production capacity to operate them.

    Now the critics are always quick to point out these commercial reactors weren’t built, but the Cold War was going on when Weinberg proposed using them and the government was building a nuclear arsenal. The criticism that the thorium reactors that were built were only heating air is disingenuous, because there was no need to add to the cost of research by building power generation around the reactor and power generation was already researched. There wasn’t a power shortage at Oak Ridge with all those TVA dams near them.

    Here is a link for details:

    TWO-FLUID MOLTEN-SALT BREEDER REACTOR DESIGN STUDY (STATUS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1968).

    http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/4093364-qQG01M/4093364.pdf

  310. Gary Lance, you are a caricature of alarmism. You point out a couple of climate anecdotes that are not new nor particularly bad (e.g. 2012 drought) , cry over someone’s cattle, and make wild claim such as the loss of arctic ice will change the polar jet in significant ways.

    The first thing you need to do is study weather. Study some history so you won’t make inaccurate claims about the novelty of today’s weather, and learn fluid dynamics so you don’t make unsubstantiated claims about what will happen to the jet streams with AGW and alleged arctic amplification.

    Second, you need to get out from behind your keyboard this winter and take a drive by some neighborhoods near me. People who got their tanks taken away by the propane company have hooked up 25 pound tanks that they manage to scrounge up. I live in “mild” Virginia and unlike the lack of summer A/C, having no heat in the winter means extreme discomfort, major damage and possibly death. Please tell me how you plan to provide energy on calm winter nights.

  311. climatereason says:

    October 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Did I quote you saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA? I asked you why you people allow such misinformation that suits your agenda to go unchallenged, while you challenge real science that doesn’t support your agenda.

    The agenda against CO2 is the only concern the people on this site have. Science is only brought up to distort science.

    Lamb didn’t hide the fact that he used Church records, so why are you people trying to hide it? Why do you people pick out certain things Lamb said in his life and ignore the fact he changed his mind later?

    What are you people going to do when events happen and no one is going to listen to the bull that global warming isn’t happening and isn’t causing major problems?

    This nonsense has about three years left and no one is going to fund the misinformation.

  312. “Wyatt says:

    October 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    I don’t think anyone objects to clean energy but it is now well established there is no weather emergency justifying hurting the poor and middle class with high energy costs like is occurring. If anything the real emergency is what is happeneing to the poor and middle class. We have clean cheap plentiful energy in gas and hydro. We don’t need the panels etc. We never did. We were deceived for political and monetary gain. We were all duped. Some people just won’t admit it. They never will.”

    I’ve heard tons of people objecting that Obama is shutting down coal and posted links showing natural gas can produce electricity at half the price of coal. I’ve posted links from the EIA years ago showing we have enough natural gas electricity production capacity already built to reduce coal fired electricity production to 5%. I’ve posted details of all the pollution in coal fired boilers. I’ve shown how easy it is to convert a coal fired boiler to one running on natural gas. Both give you guys the CO2 emissions you love so much, so what is the problem?

    If you don’t think anyone objects to clean energy, then you don’t think. I know for a fact they do object, because these are the kinds of people easily manipulated by the industries that stand to lose if things are changed. These kind of people don’t bother to check the facts and want to be told what their opinions should be.

  313. From Gary Lance on October 22, 2012 at 3:18 am:

    People who claim there can be safe nuclear energy are by definition not greenies, which only proves you can’t even get that concept right.

    Thus people who claim there CANNOT be safe nuclear energy could be Greenies, and Greenies do have a long documented history of claiming there cannot be safe nuclear energy, which confirms I did have the concept right.

    Your heavy water CANDU reactors are about the best commercial reactors that exist to make materials for nuclear weapons and Germany was trying to build them in Norway in WWII.

    I’m sorry, I should have realized that with your condition you couldn’t read the dense text blocks of the Canadian Nuclear FAQ.

    So you couldn’t read the history of the CANDU reactor and know it is not merely a “heavy water reactor”, and was not made for producing bomb materials,

    That the design is FAR from what the Germans were trying to do,

    And you couldn’t read how it would be VERY VERY DIFFICULT to make a nuclear bomb from used CANDU fuel.

    While technically possible, the technology and skills needed would be very advanced, it would be very expensive, and the risks would be VERY HIGH, with the possibility of making a usable stable bomb that wouldn’t self-explode VERY LOW.

    There are many ways that are far more productive for obtaining bomb-grade materials than extracting them from used CANDU fuel.

    Thus, again, you are VERY VERY WRONG.

    Since you are increasingly obviously unable to read common reference materials, and it is unseemly to even appear to be making fun of the disabled, I will refrain from addressing the other errors in your comment.

  314. Gary

    This reply is surely ambigous;

    “Did I quote you saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA? I asked you why you people allow such misinformation that suits your agenda to go unchallenged, while you challenge real science that doesn’t support your agenda. ”

    Well yes you appeared to imply that, and are doing it again. ‘You people’ surely implies me and I have never said that. You seem to want to lump everyone on this site together in one pigeon hole. .

    Of course Lamb used Church records. He also used numeroius other reference sources so why try to pretend otherwise when you said ‘Lamb’s primary source were Church documents.’ That simply isn’t remotely true, nor is it true of other climatologists such as le roy ladurie .

    You are certanly alarmist. We can quote all the events from the past that illustrate the current era is not unusual -jet streams to arctic ice to catastrophic weather events to a warming trend that has existed for 350 years- and you simply ignore them.

    Please clairify what you mean by saying ‘this nonsense has about three years left?’ Are you saying that by then the cooling/static temperatures of the last 15 years or so will have reached a stage whereby they can’t be ignored, or that there will be a sufdden major warming or what?
    tonyb

  315. Gary Lance:

    At October 22, 2012 at 4:50 am you reply to eric1skeptic saying:
    Wasting time with your ad homs, just shows you can’t handle the subjects.

    More importantly, you need to learn that
    Wasting everybody’s time with your unfounded and silly assertions which you cannot justify when questioned about them just shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Richard

  316. “kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 22, 2012 at 12:06 am

    From Gary Lance on October 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm @ D Böehm:

    Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist?

    Since when did D Böehm claim that water vapor doesn’t exist?

    Your desperation over having your condition being revealed is obvious, driving you to make baldly false accusations as a distraction.

    But your problem is very easy to notice, as you copy entire comments in your replies. If you were able to really read them, you would selectively copy only the relevant parts.

    As you are doing it now, you even leave out any formatting, and run your words and theirs together into an indistinguishable blob.

    Not that we’re judging you about that, as with your obvious disability the original comment must look like a blob of words anyway.

    Stop hiding in the closet, Gary. Help is available.”

    Are you saying only water vapor is a greenhouse gas? Some of you are claiming the Earth magically only allows so much greenhouse gas and if CO2 is added then the Earth removes water to keep the greenhouse gas in balance. Do you believe that, too?

    Reasonable people research the difference in the amount of solar radiation involved in Milankovich Cycles, locate our position in that cycle, determine the length of the cycle and calculate the amount of radiative forcing our Earth is getting because of the cycle.

    Now, without looking at the figures, let’s say the full cycle is 120,000 years, so half the cycle would be 60,000 years. From what I remember about the claim of the difference in solar radiation it was 6%. That works out real easy, because we are about 10,000 to 20,000 years from the maximum, so our present 342 watts per square meter is 1% or 2% less than the maximum. Personally, I think it’s between 1% to 2% and that means the maximum solar radiation is 349 watts per square meter and the minimum is 328, if it’s 2%. If we are only losing 14 watts per square meter in 40,000 years, we only have to add 1 watt per square meter every 2,857 years to counteract the cooling.

    The evidence shows the glaciers melted rather quickly, but you could play with the numbers going all the way back to our present solar radiation being 3% to 1% less than the maximum, but the magnitude of how much solar radiation is lost in a given period of time doesn’t change much. It’s not logical that the solar radiation maximum happened after the Holocene Thermal Maximum and I would expect conditions of warmth to lag solar conditions just like summer lags the solar maximum. Even after glaciers left, permafrost needed to be melted and forests needed to repopulate the land to change albedo to warmer conditions. There is evidence of trees much further north in Earth’s recent past, but that is only evidence of it being warmer over long periods of time and it doesn’t mean our present conditons won’t also allow the tundra to be forested and elephants to graze in Siberia during the summer, if we give the permafrost the chance to melt and be reforested.

    There are plenty of people with degrees in Physics that can’t find employment in the field and surely a NASA Astrophysicist or two have been cut from the budget, so why haven’t they challenged the radiative forcing claims? Where are the Geologists who work for the petroleum industry, because Climatology is tucked away in the general field of Geology? If the people here know so much about the subject, why can’t they refute the math used to estimate radiative forcing with their own math and propose another cause for warming, like changes in Thermohaline Circulation? They don’t have to have data that it’s happened, but they should be able to refute the measurements that calculate radiative forcing.

  317. Gary Lance:

    You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions. This is understandable in the light of your condition.

    So, I remind you that they are:
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    You made the assertions and, therefore, if you are reasonable then you will want to answer them as a matter of urgency when you know of your forgetfulness.

    Richard

  318. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 22, 2012 at 5:14 am

    You say your CAN’TDU reactors can burn spent nuclear fuel, but all nuclear reactors can do that. You claimed they can burn thorium, which can only mean they transmute thorium to make fuel that will burn and that’s been done in many reactors.

    What you can’t understand is, to make electricity you don’t want to make all those bad things and use only the good things to make electricity.

    You spend your time talking about small reactors, but do you post the price of the electricity they produce? This isn’t new and I’ve seen the costs. They would only be used in some isolated place that don’t have the normal options to produce power.

    When you have something large and hot producing energy or a chemical process, the best thing to do is run it at constant state. You don’t want the metal to heat up and cool down. You don’t want to waste fuel not producing electricity.

    Nuclear fission creates many by-products all with their own chemistry and if they aren’t radioactive they will be in time. A reactor that can remove those by-products won’t create a nuclear disaster like the ones you keep telling us can’t happen and do. You can’t shoot a hole in the reactors you recommend and not have a nuclear disaster. Why should we have to settle for your Chernobyls and Fukushimas and be played like a fool being told how safe your nuclear reactors are? We can look up civilian nuclear accidents and see a long list.

    Why don’t you try to focus on something more than your own self interest for a change? I said I wanted nuclear reactors that can be put in any country and have a design that makes it difficult to produce nuclear weapons. I understand the realities of electricity needing to be produced on demand and how that demand changes during a day, how it’s better to electricity nearby and how things like wind and solar don’t constantly produce electricity, even if it’s economical to use them in certain places. A country also should have grid storage.

    I’ve heard people on this site talk about needing an environmental impact study and know it doesn’t take long to do one and these things are planned out so far in advance that there is plenty of time for it to be done. The United States makes more electricity from nuclear energy than any country in the world and it isn’t France. France uses many copies of proven designs and the United States keeps changing the designs and that’s what makes it a long process to get approval.

    The EPA and the NRC are not anything like what is said about them. Marvin Gaye was singing about mercury in the fish about the time the EPA started over 40 years ago and there are still coal fired power plants putting mercury, arsenic and hugh amounts of sulfur into the environment. The EPA regulates toxic wastes and there is a site in America containing toxic wastes for about every 300 Americans. The EPA is mostly involved in handing out money for someone wanting to develop the toxic waste site and they don’t even watch over that much. It’s a joke to think the EPA is strict and the NRC is even worse. The NRC caters to the industry. There was an incident where there was an underground pipe leaking and the NRC didn’t even know it was there. A politician asked the NRC how it was suppose to regulate something if they don’t even know it exists.

    There are several countries showing an interest in producing Thorium MSRs and there is no good reason why the United States and many other countries shouldn’t get on board and fast track this process.

  319. “richardscourtney says:

    October 22, 2012 at 6:23 am

    Gary Lance:

    At October 22, 2012 at 4:50 am you reply to eric1skeptic saying:
    Wasting time with your ad homs, just shows you can’t handle the subjects.

    More importantly, you need to learn that
    Wasting everybody’s time with your unfounded and silly assertions which you cannot justify when questioned about them just shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Richard”

    I don’t see you doing anything but trolling. Why don’t you put the calculations proving adding 120ppm of CO2 to the 280ppm CO2, existing before the industrial age, can’t produce the radiative forcing the IPCC said it does along with the other changes in radiative forcing?

    I don’t care what you people think and I’m not the subject, so if you have something besides nonsense disguised as science post it. You’re too busy asking the same question over and over that has been answered. I don’t see you proving my answers wrong, but you pretend it wasn’t answered and ask again.

    You don’t have to make false victory claims to truly win a debate. That’s why you people run from the subject and talk about the person.

  320. “tonyb says:

    October 22, 2012 at 6:03 am

    Gary

    This reply is surely ambigous;

    “Did I quote you saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA? I asked you why you people allow such misinformation that suits your agenda to go unchallenged, while you challenge real science that doesn’t support your agenda. ”

    Well yes you appeared to imply that, and are doing it again. ‘You people’ surely implies me and I have never said that. You seem to want to lump everyone on this site together in one pigeon hole. .

    Of course Lamb used Church records. He also used numeroius other reference sources so why try to pretend otherwise when you said ‘Lamb’s primary source were Church documents.’ That simply isn’t remotely true, nor is it true of other climatologists such as le roy ladurie .

    You are certanly alarmist. We can quote all the events from the past that illustrate the current era is not unusual -jet streams to arctic ice to catastrophic weather events to a warming trend that has existed for 350 years- and you simply ignore them.

    Please clairify what you mean by saying ‘this nonsense has about three years left?’ Are you saying that by then the cooling/static temperatures of the last 15 years or so will have reached a stage whereby they can’t be ignored, or that there will be a sufdden major warming or what?
    tonyb”

    I’ve asked three times why you people don’t object to a person saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA. I’ve pointed out you people don’t care about facts and only your agenda. You know what I meant and just tried to avoid the subject.

    I said Lamb primarily used Church documents to form his opinion about the LIA and MWP. I never said that was wrong or it was the only thing he used. If you can handle the facts, Lamb came to the conclusion that the LIA and MWP existed using written historical evidence and not scientific data. Once he came to that conclusion, Lamb supported his theory with scientific data from central England. You people are interested in Lamb because the “Ice Man” was claiming we were going into another Ice Age, he started CRU, which you refute the data from, he mentioned a warm period on the otherside of a cold period and he was reluctant to accept global warming, but changed his mind.

    Lamb is just a way to pick apart old science and there is a constant attempt to claim a global MWP without evidence. Lamb was aware of us finding our position on the Milankovitch Cycle and thus his Ice Man reputation. It’s a shame that a lot of that climate record for that period is going to be lost as glaciers melt away all over the world.

    I figured what I said about three years left was obvious. I’m predicting in three years the fossil fuel industries will be admitting to climate change and claiming how great it’s going to be. They will embrace the science, because events will convince the world that the science of warming is real. It’s possible we could go 3 years without another every 150 year Greenland melt, but it isn’t very likely. It’s possible the arctic sea ice will last longer than 3 years. People aren’t going to listen to this bull in three years and the fossil fuel industries are going to remember what happened to the cigarette industries, who were sued for spreading misinformation about cigarette smoking.

    Major events that the average person doesn’t have the background to find significant are going to continue, just like now. The ENSO stopped dead in it’s tracks and they don’t know why because it hasn’t happened before. There are some interesting things going on with ocean currents too. We are in for some interesting times for people interested in climate.

  321. Gary Lance:

    Your recent evasion of my simple questions asking you to substantiate your assertions says to me at October 22, 2012 at 8:23 am:

    You’re too busy asking the same question over and over that has been answered. I don’t see you proving my answers wrong, but you pretend it wasn’t answered and ask again.

    If that were from somebody else then I would say it is lies but – in light of your condition – I assume it is delusion.

    You have NOT answered the questions. And, as I said I would, I shall persist in pressing them until you do.

    To help you escape from your delusional state, I tell you that if you have provided answers then all you have to do is copy and paste them to prove you have provided the answers. This will require you to find the answers. THEY DO NOT EXIST. When you recognise that your provision of the answers only exists in your mind then, perhaps, you may be able to break out of your delusional state.

    So, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. The process of doing it can only help your condition.

    Richard

  322. Gary Lance:

    re your post at October 22, 2012 at 9:44 am

    No. I checked, No answer there. Please answer the questions.

    Richard

  323. Gary said;

    “I said Lamb primarily used Church documents to form his opinion about the LIA and MWP. I never said that was wrong or it was the only thing he used. If you can handle the facts, Lamb came to the conclusion that the LIA and MWP existed using written historical evidence and not scientific data. Once he came to that conclusion, Lamb supported his theory with scientific data from central England. You people are interested in Lamb because the “Ice Man” was claiming we were going into another Ice Age, he started CRU, which you refute the data from, he mentioned a warm period on the otherside of a cold period and he was reluctant to accept global warming, but changed his mind.”

    Wow! So you are a conspiracy theorist and a hockey stick man. Have you ever read a book on historical climatology? I guess your comments above demonstrate you haven’t.
    tonyb

  324. climatereason:

    At October 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm you quote Gary Lance and very reasonably conclude from that your reply to him that says

    Wow! So you are a conspiracy theorist and a hockey stick man. Have you ever read a book on historical climatology? I guess your comments above demonstrate you haven’t.

    Yes!
    And that is precisely why his ‘feet need to be held to the fire’.

    He has destroyed any rational discussion in this thread by his long series of unsubstantiated – and unjustifiable – alarmist assertions which have no basis in fact and/or reality. It is imperative that he is refused any responses except an insistence that he substantiate ridiculous assertions which he has already made.

    Anything else addressed to him would encourage him to disrupt another thread in similar fashion.

    Richard

  325. Dear Gary Lance,

    The “radiative physics” are not in dispute. That certain gases yield a greenhouse effect is not in dispute.

    I linked to the Ira Glickstein articles explaining the radiative physics.

    But “radiative physics” alone is the wrong thing to discuss.

    What matters is how the Earth responds to CO₂. This is called the climate sensitivity.

    It involves how the many interconnected systems respond to the forcing of CO₂, incorporating the many climate feedbacks.

    Dr. Roy Spencer showed the real climate sensitivity was much lower than the IPCC estimates.

    Other researchers have also found much lower climate sensitivity values than the IPCC.

    Ferenc Miskolczi found the value to be zero, meaning the climate is insensitive to CO₂ increases.

    I’ve tried to educate you about the logarithmic greenhouse effect of CO₂, and how it is saturated at current levels.

    Further increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations from current levels will not yield significant temperature increases.

    The IPCC values depend on assuming positive feedbacks that have not been found in the real world.

    Real science using real measurements has shown the IPCC is wrong.

    You have been arguing the wrong thing,

    while demanding we defend our position with the wrong thing.

    Thus you have lost the argument because you do not even know what is being argued.

    Hope this helps.

    Have a nice day.

  326. “climatereason says:

    October 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Gary said;

    “I said Lamb primarily used Church documents to form his opinion about the LIA and MWP. I never said that was wrong or it was the only thing he used. If you can handle the facts, Lamb came to the conclusion that the LIA and MWP existed using written historical evidence and not scientific data. Once he came to that conclusion, Lamb supported his theory with scientific data from central England. You people are interested in Lamb because the “Ice Man” was claiming we were going into another Ice Age, he started CRU, which you refute the data from, he mentioned a warm period on the otherside of a cold period and he was reluctant to accept global warming, but changed his mind.”

    Wow! So you are a conspiracy theorist and a hockey stick man. Have you ever read a book on historical climatology? I guess your comments above demonstrate you haven’t.
    tonyb”

    Do you people have any idea how stupid this is? I remember the year Lamb started CRU, in fact I was taking courses in Physical Anthropology and Cultural Archaeology during that year. These were the first two courses I took that dealt with the subjects of dating in detail. There was no data base even in the southwest to use tree rings to date something, let alone a method to analyze oxygen isotope ratios to determine a temperature proxy. The instrumentation in 1973 required large samples for all types of analysis and it wasn’t very accurate for dating. My Cultural Archaeology professor had his doubts that tree ring analysis would ever be useful, because a local data base needs to be established and that means you have to find wood from that period to analyze. His view was understandable because he specialized in Native American people of the southeast and termites don’t leave much old wood around.

    These are just facts and Lamb didn’t have the tools to use scientific data to advance his theories on LIA and MWP. Lamb used the investigative tools he had and that was written record and even Viking legends. It’s nonsense to think Lamb had instrumental measurements in the LIA and MWP, like some have said. The Fahrenheit scale was produced in 1724 and later adjusted. The Celsius scale was proposed in 1742. You can’t collect instrumental data from a time before the instruments existed.

    I don’t have a problem with what Lamb did or the positions he took. I understand why he thought we were heading for another Ice Age and he was right in his view that the radiative forcing of Milankovitch Cycles was taking us there, but that was the generally accepted view. Scientists generally didn’t change their point of view when temperatures started to increase, because it was logical to think it could be an aberration. Lamb was quick to pick up on global warming, but he wasn’t first. Long before he retired in 1978, he was warning of the consequences.

  327. What matter is something triggered our present warming and produced enough radiative forcing to counteract the radiative cooling forcing of our journey through Milankovitch Cycles. Scientists say it’s our emissions and their measurements have ranges of uncertainty, but do prove enough radiative forcing from emissions was produced to counteract the weaker radiative forcing for us cooling.

    That’s the trigger that gets all the feedback on it’s side and feedback can amplify a force many times it’s magnitude.

  328. Gary Lance:

    At October 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm you write to the exceptionally mild mannered and polite tonyb (whose logic is always impeccable) saying

    Do you people have any idea how stupid this is?

    The only stupidity is your persistently posting additional nonsense when you cannot justify the nonsense which you have already posted. It is fooling nobody except perhaps yourself.

    Now answer the questions. I yet again remind you of the questions. They are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    Richard

  329. “kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 22, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Dear Gary Lance,

    The “radiative physics” are not in dispute. That certain gases yield a greenhouse effect is not in dispute.

    I linked to the Ira Glickstein articles explaining the radiative physics.

    But “radiative physics” alone is the wrong thing to discuss.

    What matters is how the Earth responds to CO₂. This is called the climate sensitivity.

    It involves how the many interconnected systems respond to the forcing of CO₂, incorporating the many climate feedbacks.

    Dr. Roy Spencer showed the real climate sensitivity was much lower than the IPCC estimates.

    Other researchers have also found much lower climate sensitivity values than the IPCC.

    Ferenc Miskolczi found the value to be zero, meaning the climate is insensitive to CO₂ increases.

    I’ve tried to educate you about the logarithmic greenhouse effect of CO₂, and how it is saturated at current levels.

    Further increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations from current levels will not yield significant temperature increases.

    The IPCC values depend on assuming positive feedbacks that have not been found in the real world.

    Real science using real measurements has shown the IPCC is wrong.

    You have been arguing the wrong thing,

    while demanding we defend our position with the wrong thing.

    Thus you have lost the argument because you do not even know what is being argued.

    Hope this helps.

    Have a nice day.”

    The problem is you have redefined climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing and you’ve changed it to only be CO2. The radiative forcing of any greenhouse gas can be rather accurately measured and there is no evidence one type of radiative forcing is any different than the others when the amount of radiative forcing is the same. CO2 is not the only thing that was done to change radiative forcing, but it’s what contributed the most to the radiative forcing warming the Earth and changes in CO2 levels have a long history of producing radiative forcing to warm and cool the Earth. No one disputed that science until recently when the fossil fuel industries started playing their cigarettes don’t cause cancer games. I’ve had college course that predated global warming concerns and the textbooks are full of examples of changes in CO2 changing temperature. There wasn’t anyone disputing that back then and there isn’t a real scientist standing up and disputing it now with evidence to refute the evidence that formed the science that changing in greenhouse gases change the temperature of Earth.

    I gave the examples of glaciation where Ice Ages are caused by radiative forcing changes based on Milankovitch Cycles. Milankovitch Cycles is a general description of many cycles which each have their unique radiative forcing. It’s easy to prove for a fact how much incoming solar radiation we recieve, because it’s measured accuratedly. I haven’t heard one person dispute changing solar radiation changes temperature, but I’ve heard others dispute changing albedo doesn’t change temperature, when we’ve all walked across asphalt and noticed the change. There were past times that were much warmer with less incoming solar radiation and only more greenhouse gases can explain it.

    Let me add this point! You can an idea of the types and magnitude of the radiation forcing from charts issued by the IPCC, which include their margins of error. That doesn’t mean the things listed are the only possible kind of radiative forcing. For example, major changes in thermohaline circulation is a type of radiative forcing.

  330. Gary Lance:

    No, it won’t do. You cannot distract from your previous daft assertions by posting lunacy like this

    major changes in thermohaline circulation is a type of radiative forcing.

    No. It is not.

    Now, answer the questions which you have steadfastly avoided.

    Richard

  331. “richardscourtney says:

    October 23, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Gary Lance:

    No, it won’t do. You cannot distract from your previous daft assertions by posting lunacy like this

    major changes in thermohaline circulation is a type of radiative forcing.

    No. It is not.

    Now, answer the questions which you have steadfastly avoided.

    Richard”

    Are you ever right about anything? Explain Younger Dryas! Explain our sensitivity to Ice Ages after North and South America were connected! Explain global temperature changes once South America disconnected from Antarctica and the circumpolar current was born!

    If you don’t know changes in thermohaline circulation can change global temperature, then you shouldn’t post anything but questions on a site discussing climate change! Your statement proves you don’t know the basics.

  332. Gary Lance:

    At October 23, 2012 at 9:51 am you say to me

    If you don’t know changes in thermohaline circulation can change global temperature, then you shouldn’t post anything but questions on a site discussing climate change! Your statement proves you don’t know the basics.

    Of course I know that! You should try telling it to your soulmate Grimsrud because he doesn’t accept it despite my repeated explanations.

    And he doesn’t accept it because the effect is NOT “radiative forcing”. I wrote to refute your ignorant and wrong-headed assertion which said it is. And you have the gall to claim I don’t know the basics!

    Now ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

    Richard

  333. “richardscourtney says:

    October 23, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Gary Lance:

    At October 23, 2012 at 9:51 am you say to me

    If you don’t know changes in thermohaline circulation can change global temperature, then you shouldn’t post anything but questions on a site discussing climate change! Your statement proves you don’t know the basics.

    Of course I know that! You should try telling it to your soulmate Grimsrud because he doesn’t accept it despite my repeated explanations.

    And he doesn’t accept it because the effect is NOT “radiative forcing”. I wrote to refute your ignorant and wrong-headed assertion which said it is. And you have the gall to claim I don’t know the basics!

    Now ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

    Richard”

    Any externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget is radiative forcing.

  334. Gary Lance:

    Never one to miss an opportunity to show you are clueless, pertaining to global temperature change from thermohaline variations, at October 23, 2012 at 1:34 pm you write

    Any externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget is radiative forcing.

    No! That is wrong on two counts.
    1.
    It is internal variation and NOT an “externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget”
    2.
    The temperature change is due to radiative balance and not radiative forcing (and I don’t think you know enough to understand any of this).

    Now answer the questions from which you have not stopped running. I yet again remind you of the questions. They are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    Richard

  335. richardscourtney says:

    October 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    That’s how the climate scientists now define radiative forcing and they didn’t ask you. I wonder why!

  336. Gary Lance says:

    “Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist?”

    No. I never said that.

    You can’t get anything right, can you?

  337. Gary Lance:

    I wrote
    “The temperature change is due to radiative balance and not radiative forcing
    (and I don’t think you know enough to understand any of this).”

    You replied
    “That’s how the climate scientists now define radiative forcing”
    WRONG!
    Tropopause vs surface (i.e. chalk and cheese)

    Tested hypothesis:
    Gary Lance does not know enough to understand any of this
    Result:
    Quaf Erat Demonstrandum

    Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

    Richard

  338. “richardscourtney says:

    October 24, 2012 at 1:49 am

    Gary Lance:

    I wrote
    “The temperature change is due to radiative balance and not radiative forcing
    (and I don’t think you know enough to understand any of this).”

    You replied
    “That’s how the climate scientists now define radiative forcing”
    WRONG!
    Tropopause vs surface (i.e. chalk and cheese)

    Tested hypothesis:
    Gary Lance does not know enough to understand any of this
    Result:
    Quaf Erat Demonstrandum

    Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

    Richard”

    “Tropopause vs surface (i.e. chalk and cheese)”

    You have to be joking to think that’s what radiative forcing means. You have to be someone who wants to play games to claim changes in temperature aren’t equated with changes in radiative forcing. It’s a simple equation that involves sentitivity.

    All someone has to do is look this up in an encyclopedia and they’ll see you don’t even have the sense to do that and acquire basic knowledge of this subject.

  339. “D Böehm says:

    October 23, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Gary Lance says:

    “Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist?”

    No. I never said that.

    You can’t get anything right, can you?”

    Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing the amount of greenhouse gases, such as water, CO2, nitrous oxide, CFCs, ozone and methane?

    Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing the albedo?

    Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing aerosols?

    Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing major ocean currents that redistribute heat?

    Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing clouds?

    Do changes in solar irradiance change the temperature of a planet?

    I fail to see the logic how someone can just pick out CO2 and claim it can’t change the temperature of a planet by everything else can.

    I also fail to see the logic how someone can think we can have an ice free arctic and not cause future generations to evacuate the coast, meaning every coastal city on Earth will be lost. Greenland is already changing and the change will go expondential once that arctic sea ice is gone. If you want to predict it, track the snow cover!

  340. GARY LANCE SAYS
    Scientists say it’s our emissions and their measurements have ranges of uncertainty, but do prove enough radiative forcing from emissions was produced to counteract the weaker radiative forcing for us cooling.(SIC)

    HENRY SAYS
    As everybody has told you by now, there is no one who has the right results in the right dimensions giving us a balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming each of the gases cause, when they increase by 100 ppm….only…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

    In addition, CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades. So, you have to add that to our balance sheet. (please do the measurements yourself; you have to actually do something to call yourself a scientist….try studying biology to find out … geology won’t work here).
    For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that the increase in CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/

    The above results show that a cooling cycle started around 1995.

  341. Gary Lance says:

    “I fail to see the logic how someone can just pick out CO2 and claim it can’t change the temperature of a planet by everything else can.”

    As everyone else here can see, you are a friggin’ idiot. A tiny trace gas is not capable of heating up the planet and causing runaway global warming. Only an idiot could believe nonsense like that.

  342. Gary Lance:

    Your recent two posts demonstrate that you don’t possess even an elementary knowledge of basic science.

    At October 24, 2012 at 3:30 am you write

    I also fail to see the logic how someone can think we can have an ice free arctic and not cause future generations to evacuate the coast, meaning every coastal city on Earth will be lost.

    This shows you not only lack logical ability, you are ignorant of even basic schoolboy physics.

    Arcticsea ice is floating. It displaces its own volume of water. Melt the ice and the sea level changes not at all (well, actually it falls by an insignificant amount but I doubt your ability to understand why).

    Try this simple experiment. Half fill a drinking glass with water and add an ice cube. Mark the water level on the glass. Let the ice cube melt and observe how that the water level has not changed.

    I can foresee you wriggling about melting land ice. But that excuse does not free you from the trap you have created by your ignorance.

    Antarctic ice is increasing.

    The Greenland ice sheet would require thousands of years to melt. And the ground beneath it is isostaticly depressed. Any melt water from melting Greenland ice would remain entrained in the depression for centuries.

    At October 24, 2012 at 3:10 am you say

    You have to be joking to think that’s what radiative forcing means. You have to be someone who wants to play games to claim changes in temperature aren’t equated with changes in radiative forcing. It’s a simple equation that involves sentitivity (sic).

    Clearly, you will accept every opportunity to demonstrate you know less than nothing about the science of climate change. The IPCC uses this definition of radiative forcing

    The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system (due to a change, for example, in greenhouse gas concentration) is the change in net (solar plus longwave irradiance) in W/m² at the tropopause after allowing the stratospheric temperatures to re-adjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperature and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.

    Please note “at the tropopause”.

    The effect of altered ocean currents is to change the distribution of the Earth’s surface temperatures. A variation in ocean currents could move more heat from hot regions to cold regions with resulting cooling of the hot regions and warming of the cool regions. This causes a change to global temperature because the Earth has to maintain its radiative balance: i.e.
    energy from space (the sun) = energy radiated to space.

    All surfaces radiate energy and the energy they radiate is determined by the temperature (T) of the surface. The energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature (i.e. T^4).

    If the temperature of a region of the hot tropics falls by a degree Celsius while the temperature of an equal area of e.g. the cold Arctic rises by a degree Celsius then the the global average temperature does not instantaneously change. But the globe loses a lot less energy (because radiated energy is proportional to T^4). The global temperature rises in response to the reduced surface heat loss until radiative balance is restored.

    Please note that this is
    (a) a surface effect
    and
    (b) is an effect of radiative balance and NOT radiative forcing.

    Having demonstrated
    1.
    You make silly assertions which you cannot justified when pressed
    2.
    You are ignorant of physics at schoolboy level
    3.
    You know nothing and understand less than nothing about climate science
    4.
    You bluster with unfounded claims of knowledge you don’t have whenever your errors are pointed out

    I now intend to ignore anything else from you.

    Richard

  343. “D Böehm says:

    October 24, 2012 at 4:52 am

    Gary Lance says:

    “I fail to see the logic how someone can just pick out CO2 and claim it can’t change the temperature of a planet by everything else can.”

    As everyone else here can see, you are a friggin’ idiot. A tiny trace gas is not capable of heating up the planet and causing runaway global warming. Only an idiot could believe nonsense like that.”

    Did you bother to answer those questions about radiative forcing? No, you didn’t and running your mouth doesn’t prove the amount of radiative forcing calculated by climate scientists is wrong. Posting calculations by climate scientists that are peer reviewed proves other calculations are wrong, so surely those fossil fuel industries can get one of the scientists on their payrolls to do the calculations, can’t they?

    You people want to believe that CO2 increases aren’t the primary reason for present warming and some don’t even believe it is warming, with all the evidence it is. Reality isn’t based on what you want.

    How many times does Greenland have to melt those 150 year melts before you will figure it out? Are you going to believe it’s warming when the arctic is ice free? I don’t believe you ever will come to the conclusion it was greenhouse emissions that triggered the warming and you will just change your story to the warming is natural without giving a mechanism for the warming.

  344. Gary Lance says
    and CO2 doesn’t cause cooling.

    Henry says
    How did you figure that one out?

    For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec

    They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.

    (this still excludes the cooling at 4-5 um where CO2 also has big absorption, because the instrument does not measure in that range)

  345. richardscourtney says:

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 am

    I’ve made it clear I’m talking about the ice free arctic melting land ice that does raise sea level.

    You don’t have the sense to know you are talking to someone with more knowlege of sea ice and climate than you have. Who doesn’t know the buoyancy point besides people like you?

    If you know so much about this subject, why do you allow comparisons of “ice” being ice sheets two miles above sea level and sea ice at an elevation of four inches?

  346. From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 5:51 am:

    I don’t believe you ever will come to the conclusion it was greenhouse emissions that triggered the warming and you will just change your story to the warming is natural without giving a mechanism for the warming.

    Then supply the mechanism that explains the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Climate Optimum, and the still-earlier Minoan Warm Period, etc. If global warming needs a triggering mechanism and cannot be natural, then they must have triggering mechanisms as well.

    The use of the “The MWP was not global!” cop-out is denied, as BEST reported 1/3 of the stations were cooling, Antarctica is cooling, thus the current “global warming” is likewise not global.

  347. HenryP says:

    October 24, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Don’t you know the Earth’s energy budget requires the amount of energy leaving the Earth to equal the amount that enters? That doesn’t mean the planet is warming, cooling or staying the same.

    We measure the surface of Earth and we get nearly twice the amount of back radiation as we get solar radiation reaching the surface.

  348. From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 7:52 am:

    Don’t you know the Earth’s energy budget requires the amount of energy leaving the Earth to equal the amount that enters?

    True at equilibrium. If the planet is warming or cooling, then it is gaining or losing energy, energy in does not equal energy out, it is not at equilibrium.

  349. Gary Lance says
    Don’t you know the Earth’s energy budget
    Henry says
    But we were not talking about that. You said that CO2 does not cause (radiative) cooling.
    I showed you that it does.
    So now you must show me from a scientific study that, by increasing the concentration of CO2 by 100 ppm, the cooling caused by re-radiating sunshine (12 hours per day, 0-5 um ) is smaller than the warming caused by re-radiating earthshine (24 hours/day 14-16 um)
    Can I have that, in the right dimensions?
    Time is a factor, you know… but you won’t find that in the ipcc reports. I checked. They assumed warming is caused by more CO2 (GHG), and calculated a forcing by measuring the observed warming versus the increase in CO2 (GHG( since 1750. It is the worst mistake scientists can make: assuming you know the cause of a problem and work your way back trying to solve it only to discover you made the wrong diagnosis….

    Apart from that, increased vegetation, as noted,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

    also causes some cooling by the CO2
    seeing that plants and trees consume energy when they grow?
    How much was that?

    So, you cannot say CO2 does not cause cooling.
    I am a bit worried now that perhaps I am waking up a few people now to start arguing that it is the CO2 that it going to cause the cooling that is coming…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  350. kadaka (KD Knoebel):

    I strongly advise that you don’t bother.

    If you check this thread you will see Gary Lance knows almost nothing – and he understands less than nothing – about climate change. He has today learned (from me) about the interaction of radiative balance and temperature when only yesterday he was disputing its existence in this same thread. Now he throws this knew (to him) knowledge at you as though it was a support of his position when it actually supports yours. And he does this because it provides an illogical mire into which he can draw you.

    If you engage with him you are very likely to get sucked-in to his untrue assertions that he cannot justify and to which he adds each time you ask for a justification. Everybody – including me – who has made the mistake of engaging with him has suffered being sucked-in to his pattern.

    I strongly advise that you ignore him.

    Richard

  351. Henry P:

    I draw your attention to my very recent advice to kadaka (KD Knoebel), and I say to you, ditto.

    Richard

  352. Gary Lance:

    At October 24, 2012 at 7:39 am you laughably say to me

    I’ve made it clear I’m talking about the ice free arctic melting land ice that does raise sea level.

    Yes, I answered that in my post at October 24, 2012 at 5:23 am which you claim to be answering but your reading ability was inadequate for you to have read it.

    And you say to me

    You don’t have the sense to know you are talking to someone with more knowlege of sea ice and climate than you have. Who doesn’t know the buoyancy point besides people like you?

    I have the sense to to know you are an ignorant prat with less scientific knowledge than a typical 12-year old. You reveal the falseness of your claims to knowledge with almost every post you make.

    If you had any sense you would stop posting because it is better for you to be thought a fool than for you to keep proclaiming that you are one.

    Richard

  353. “kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 24, 2012 at 7:41 am

    From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 5:51 am:

    I don’t believe you ever will come to the conclusion it was greenhouse emissions that triggered the warming and you will just change your story to the warming is natural without giving a mechanism for the warming.

    Then supply the mechanism that explains the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Climate Optimum, and the still-earlier Minoan Warm Period, etc. If global warming needs a triggering mechanism and cannot be natural, then they must have triggering mechanisms as well.

    The use of the “The MWP was not global!” cop-out is denied, as BEST reported 1/3 of the stations were cooling, Antarctica is cooling, thus the current “global warming” is likewise not global.”

    What you call nature or natural always has a mechanism.

    Can you supply scientific data from credible sources to prove your warm periods aren’t a fairy tale and they were global events? No, you can’t because no such massive study has ever been done. Lamb concluded there was a period warmer than the LIA based on his checking mostly church documents in Europe. He focused on wine production. Lamb was saying it was warm before the LIA like it is now and he wasn’t making the claims you make. Lamb pointed out the Vikings went to Greenland and left, because the climate became too cold. That only means it became cold and the LIA happened. Since you like using Lamb as a source, post the dates for the MWP that Lamb used and his reasoning for picking that period!

    If you want to discuss any of those periods, you can start by defining when the period was with specific dates. Finding evidence for the LIA and MWP doesn’t mean it’s proven to be global if you select other areas that seem to prove it and ignore the areas that don’t. Being global means it’s an event at basically the same time throughout the world. and lasting for the period. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it, it has to be comprehensive evidence from the world.

  354. Friends:

    In the probably forlorn hope of stopping the drivel from the prat, I am starting a series of errata to correct his errors. This is the first in what I anticipate will be a series.

    Misleading Statement
    “Finding evidence for the LIA and MWP doesn’t mean it’s proven to be global if you select other areas that seem to prove it and ignore the areas that don’t. Being global means it’s an event at basically the same time throughout the world. and lasting for the period. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it, it has to be comprehensive evidence from the world.”

    Fact
    The existences of the MWP and LIA are demonstrated by hundreds of peer reviewed studies using multiple methods. see

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/subject_l.php

    Richard

  355. From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 8:54 am:

    What you call nature or natural always has a mechanism.

    And you cannot supply a mechanism for well-known global warming periods that were natural, thus have no basis for claiming the current global warming cannot be natural.

    Shame, really, I was hoping you’d at least trot out “Milankovitch Cycles” again.

    Oh well, thank you for playing.

  356. richardscourtney says:

    October 24, 2012 at 8:45 am

    The only thing you do here is troll.

    Do you live in a fantasy where you think normal people believe what you say?

    Do you buy CO2 is cooling/moon nonsense?

    The world will melt away around you and you still won’t see it.

  357. Gary Lance says:

    “You people want to believe that CO2 increases aren’t the primary reason for present warming…”

    Note that no one is in agreement with Gary Lance, who is IMHO a friggin’ idiot. There is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming. It may be the cause of some minuscule warming, but there is no verifiable empirical evidence supporting that conjecture. None.

    Gary Lance exhibits all the signs of insanity. His cognitive dissonance will not allow him to see reality:

    The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
    ~Marcus Aurelius

    The best we can do is to debunk his nonsense. But that’s easy, so no problem.

  358. Friends:

    This is number 2 in my series of corrections to statements of the Gary Lance which are intended to discourage him from posting nonsense. The following are his statements and questions to me (at October 24, 2012 at 9:55 am) with my corrections and answers.

    GL statement:
    The only thing you do here is troll.
    Correction:
    No, I correct falsehoods from trolls

    GL question:
    Do you live in a fantasy where you think normal people believe what you say?
    Answer:
    No, I live in a real world where people pay to hear what I say. In addition I give GL what I say gratis.

    GL question:
    Do you buy CO2 is cooling/moon nonsense?
    Answer:
    I had not heard of it and although I checked ebay I could not find it so I don’t know what it is or where to buy it.

    GL statement:
    The world will melt away around you and you still won’t see it.
    Answer:
    The claim that “The world will melt away” in my lifetime is only possible in the mind of GL. His assertion is yet another demonstration of his lack of scientific knowledge. The surface temperature of the Earth would need to reach 1200 deg.C for the world to melt away and it will not happen until the Sun becomes a Red Giant ~2 billion years in the future.

    Richard

  359. D Böehm says:

    October 24, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Come back to reality and figure out where you are posting! There are plenty of people who agree with me. Take scientists for example!

    I haven’t seen calculations by you people being submitted for peer review and published. I’ve pointed out climatology is a branch of geology, so there are plenty of geologists on the payroll of the fossil fuel industries.

    Can you come up with the dates for your warm periods and the LIA and compare it to Figure 1 page 3 of this chart?

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

    Why does this chart keep getting posted when it’s been proven wrong?

    or this:

    Do the dates match? Does the fake chart end in 2000? What are the time periods for your so called warm periods and has recent warming been given a long enough time to reach it’s maximum. Those past periods lasted hundreds of years and there are already trees growing in Greenland.

  360. richardscourtney says:

    October 24, 2012 at 10:26 am

    So you have proven you can be froward and not understand something very obvious!

    Are you going to be on here posting when the arctic is ice free or when we have our next Greenland meltdown?

  361. Gary Lance says:

    “There are plenty of people who agree with me.”

    Quite a few legitimate scientists and engineers comment here. Produce one who agrees with your nonsense. And just because you don’t like a chart, that does not mean it is wrong, it just means you have trouble dealing with reality. Look at where the charts came from: R.B. Alley and Leif Svalgaard, for example.

    Finally, you’re quibbling about a chart ending at year 2000. But there has been no global warming since well before 2000, so it doesn’t matter. It’s just more of your incessant threadbombing. Try getting out once in a while, because your mom’s basement is no place to spend your life.

  362. Friends:

    This post is number 3 in my series of posts refuting statements of Gary Lance, and it pertains to everything in his post addressed to me at October 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm.

    It is not possible to comment on meaningless noise. All one can do is wait until the toddler’s temper tantrum ends. Fortunately GL’s post was short.

    Richard

  363. “D Böehm says:

    October 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Gary Lance says:

    “There are plenty of people who agree with me.”

    Quite a few legitimate scientists and engineers comment here. Produce one who agrees with your nonsense. And just because you don’t like a chart, that does not mean it is wrong, it just means you have trouble dealing with reality. Look at where the charts came from: R.B. Alley and Leif Svalgaard, for example.

    Finally, you’re quibbling about a chart ending at year 2000. But there has been no global warming since well before 2000, so it doesn’t matter. It’s just more of your incessant threadbombing. Try getting out once in a while, because your mom’s basement is no place to spend your life.”

    Like has nothing to do with taking data and faking a chart with the wrong date and words claiming present is 2000, when in fact the data from R. B Alley ended in 1855. It’s a proven Easterbrook fake. If you had legitimate evidence, you would tolerate a fake chart and you’ve posted it knowing it’s a fake chart.

    I have a copy of R. B Alley’s data, so why don’t you bother to look at the data and prove to yourself the chart is fake? The reason is, you don’t care about posting fake things, because that’s all you have.

  364. Gary Lance:

    Your assertions mean nothing. Nothing was ‘faked’. If you have a chart, post it.

    You let the cat out of the bag when you admitted not having a clue about who Ferenc Miskolczi is. He is well respected internationally, and quite well known in the field of climatology. His name comes up regularly here. So we know you’re just winging it, with talking points you get from alarmist echo chambers. And you are far from being up to speed on the subject.

  365. Friends:

    This is number 4 in my series of posts refuting nonsense from Gary Lance.

    At October 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm GL types saying of a graph

    It’s a proven Easterbrook fake.

    He provides no evidence for this assertion and this omission is not surprising because his claim probably results from a confusion: i.e. he was thinking about himself and not the graph when he typed.

    Richard

  366. From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm:

    Why does this chart keep getting posted when it’s been proven wrong?

    or this:

    (…) Does the fake chart end in 2000? (…)

    From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm:

    Like has nothing to do with taking data and faking a chart with the wrong date and words claiming present is 2000, when in fact the data from R. B Alley ended in 1855. It’s a proven Easterbrook fake. If you had legitimate evidence, you would tolerate a fake chart and you’ve posted it knowing it’s a fake chart.

    I have a copy of R. B Alley’s data, so why don’t you bother to look at the data and prove to yourself the chart is fake? (…)

    I’ve got Alley’s GISP2 data too. From the Alley 2000 paper “present” is 1950.

    But the NOAA page where one can get the data clearly says:
    Start Year: -107175 AD End Year: 2000 AD

    The XML file puts the end of the data at “-50 cal yr BP”, which would be 2000AD.

    So if you go by what NOAA says, it’s an understandable mistake when those charts say “Years Before Present (2000 AD)” as the Alley GISP2 data goes from 95 BP and NOAA says 2000AD.

    The graphs themselves are not in error, certainly aren’t fake, the numbers and lines match the Alley data. The error is limited to a number in parentheses in the X-axis label, should be 1950 instead of 2000.

    This is discussed in a January 2011 comment to an Easterbrook article on WUWT. Which documents how NOAA was contacted about the “2000” issue on that page and “Bruce” said it’d be fixed. As clearly seen, it still hasn’t been fixed.

  367. I know who Gary Lance is. His name is Stephanthedenier. I think he is a doctor, actually. But I already told him he should try and rid himself of all the demons that possess him. (schizophrenia)

  368. “D Böehm says:

    October 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Gary Lance:

    Your assertions mean nothing. Nothing was ‘faked’. If you have a chart, post it.

    You let the cat out of the bag when you admitted not having a clue about who Ferenc Miskolczi is. He is well respected internationally, and quite well known in the field of climatology. His name comes up regularly here. So we know you’re just winging it, with talking points you get from alarmist echo chambers. And you are far from being up to speed on the subject.?”

    When Easterbrook was told the data was misrepresented on his original chart, he kept on using it, just like you do. You don’t care if it’s a lie as long as it suits your agenda.

    I say use it and let people know your character!

  369. Gary Lance:

    At October 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm you say to D Böehm about a graph

    I say use it and let people know your character!

    I say to you about your ridiculous assertions, answer the questions.
    I remind that they are
    1.
    Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
    This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
    2.
    You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
    Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?

    Failing your answer, I will continue my series of corrections as you add to your list of daft assertions.

    Richard

  370. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    I have Alley’s report.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    The data starts at age 0.0951409 and age being defined in thousand years before present. Present is defined as 1950 and it’s done that way so it doesn’t have to be changed. I’ve seen recent ice cores with negative age, meaning after 1950. The point is simple and the youngest data in GISP2 is 1855. The GISP2 site was chosen to give a long record of the past. There are plenty of Greenland ice cores with modern data. If you go to NOAA, you can even find a comparison of modern ice cores. One of the ones I found had about 6 modern ice cores, but the data was still in O18 measurements. I thought about converting the data to temperature and figured it would just be a waste of time. What impressed me was these measurements were made on ice cores where the year could be positively identified by the rings and the data showed large variation for the same year. I was interested in how accurate O18 analysis was and it’s not accurate enough to treat a single ice cores as gospel.

    This is the link I use to find any NOAA Paleoclimatology Ice Cores Data Sets:

    http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:537703002861230:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:

  371. From Gary Lance on October 25, 2012 at 12:45 pm:

    I have Alley’s report.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    The data starts at age 0.0951409 and age being defined in thousand years before present. Present is defined as 1950 and it’s done that way so it doesn’t have to be changed.

    But the report only says “before present”, the definition is not given there. The data references the Alley 2000 paper, which is normally paywalled but I supplied a link to a free copy. By the incorrect NOAA page and the paper’s date it is easy to think 2000 is “present”.

    To find out that “present” is 1950 for the dataset needs the paper, where it’s mentioned.

    The point is simple and the youngest data in GISP2 is 1855.

    I’ll take this as confirmation you really do want me to think you are that stupid.

    You’ve been throwing around a link to this paper at Leif’s site as “proof” the Easterbrook charts are wrong.

    That’s the Kobashi et al 2011 paper, describing another GISP2 reconstruction. Here’s the links to that dataset:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.txt
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.xls

    That GISP2 data runs to considerably younger than 1855.

    This is the link I use to find any NOAA Paleoclimatology Ice Cores Data Sets:

    http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:537703002861230:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:

    Damn, that’s a confused jumbled mess. Found the Alley listing, says most recent year is 2000AD.

    Look for Greenland ice core data here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html

    For the rest, try the “Ice Core Gateway”:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.html

  372. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 25, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    What is so hard or confusing about doing this?

    “There was a follow-up U.S. GISP2 project, which drilled at a glaciologically better location on the summit of the ice sheet. This hit bedrock (and drilled another 1.55 m into bedrock) on July 1, 1993 after five years of drilling,”

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GISP2

    Compare GRIP to GISP2!

    “Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used in archaeology, [b]geology[/b], and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the “present” time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practicable in the 1950s. The abbreviation “BP”, with the same meaning, has also been interpreted as “Before Physics”; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.[1][2]”

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

    1950 is always used because time changes if you don’t set a date for BP. You can always use negative BP for something after 1950.

    1950 – 95 = 1855

    The first report referenced in 2000 is only the date of the report and is about Younger Dryas, which was approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years BP (1950). The second report has data going back to 49,003.4 BP. The only thing that reflects is time to do the analysis and a specific interest in Younger Dryas, hence writing a report when the data was available.

    If you read what Easterbrook originally did, he edited the data, too, by leaving some data towards the end out and claiming the dates were to the present. Don Easterbrook is a geologist, so he knows what BP means. That means it can’t be a mistake.

    Another thing that is commonly done is to claim a long period for LIA and MWP and take any peak in those centuries as confirmation. What about the rest of the time? What about specific dates for these periods and matching it to the data with the right dates for the data? A Geologist ought to be able to do what a freshman student does.

    The data starts in 1855. There is plenty of data that has yearly rings to bring the GISP2 ice core up to date. Like I’ve said, the GISP2 site was chosen for the past and not the present. I’ve seen comparisons of recent data to see how accurate the O18 measurements were and they aren’t accurate enough to make these all these claims with only one ice core. The site also has instrumental data for temperature.

    A person who believes in a cause should hold others believing in that cause accountable and not embrace their misbehavior. I have seen videos on Lord Christopher Monckton who was a Journalist and it showed him misquoting people over and over again. The man knows if you put something in quotation marks and claim someone says it that you aren’t suppose to change it to your words. To make a mistake is one thing, but to make a habit of doing it is another. I understand he continued to misquote others even when corrected.

  373. Friends:

    Gary Lance says;

    “To make a mistake is one thing, but to make a habit of doing it is another.”

    Yes, Gary Lance – who has yet to make a demonstrably true statement in this thread – said that!

    Richard

  374. From Gary Lance on October 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm:

    What is so hard or confusing about doing this?

    You mean changing the subject so you don’t have to admit you’re wrong? Not my style, but if you feel you have to try it, well, we’ll see how it goes.

    Compare GRIP to GISP2!

    Why and how? I don’t see any GRIP temperature reconstructions at the Greenland repository. Alley2000 mentions using GRIP data, but the temperature/accumulation dataset says GISP2.

    1950 is always used because time changes if you don’t set a date for BP. You can always use negative BP for something after 1950.

    Going by the NOAA sources, from 2000 is an easy mistake.

    The first report referenced in 2000 is only the date of the report and is about Younger Dryas, which was approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years BP (1950). The second report has data going back to 49,003.4 BP. The only thing that reflects is time to do the analysis and a specific interest in Younger Dryas, hence writing a report when the data was available.

    What are you smoking? The “first report” is the Alley2000 paper. There is no second report, only the dataset arising from the Alley2000 work.

    Plus you need to actually start reading what you are referencing. The Accumulation rate part of the Alley dataset runs to 49,003.4BP, but the Temperature part goes all the way back to 49,981BP. Easy mistake to make when you don’t know what you are reading and just zoom to the end, with the Accumulation rate section being at the end of the file.

    In the dataset Description section it says: Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
    Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).

    The Cuffey and Clow 1997 Accumulation rate dataset runs to 49,972.5BP, note it is specifically called out as before 1950AD to avoid confusion, and is found here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/physical/accum.txt
    Can’t find the temperature data.

    That Alley2000 covered the Younger Dryas doesn’t mean much, as the Alley dataset merely runs to the end of the dataset it came from.

    If you read what Easterbrook originally did, he edited the data, too, by leaving some data towards the end out and claiming the dates were to the present.

    Since you haven’t provided links to what Easterbrook allegedly did, I followed the internet squawking. Of which there was very little, Googling “easterbrook alley gisp2″ only gets four hits total. The graph you’re griping about is from this WUWT guest post:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/



    I have no idea WHAT THE HELL you’re talking about. It’s a mix of data from different sources. Figure 1 goes to 2000, data source unspecified, looks like the instrumental record. The rest don’t get near 2000, unless you want to argue that for the small grainy Figure 4 where it can’t be determined where it ends.

    A Geologist ought to be able to do what a freshman student does.

    Regurgitate whatever the professor thinks are the facts on demand as often as needed?

    The data starts in 1855. There is plenty of data that has yearly rings to bring the GISP2 ice core up to date.

    Tree cores show annual rings. Ice cores have annual layers. If you’re going to continue pretending to be scientific, please at least get the nomenclature right. Actually reading the “proof” you’re flogging would help as well.

  375. kadaka,

    Thanks for an excellent and thorough deconstruction of Gary Lance’s comment. It is clear that Lance is new to this subject, and that he has plenty of idle time on his hands to post his alarmist carp. His comments come from someone who admittedly had never even heard of Dr Miskolczi, an internationally recognized climatologist. And now you show that Lance has not even read his own links. There is a huge gap between Mr Lance and scientific credibility.

  376. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 26, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Do you think a Geologist can read? Did they just hand the Geologist Don Easterbrook a diploma for paying his tuition or did he find it in a Cracker Jack box?

    Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the “present” time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practicable in the 1950s. The abbreviation “BP”, with the same meaning, has also been interpreted as “Before Physics”; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.[1][2]

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

    I’ve had courses in archaeology, geology, paleontology and anthropology. How can someone get a degree in geology and not know BP means before 1950? Doesn’t it make sense if a date isn’t set then it will be confusing, because present is always changing?

    Just how far are you people willing to go to support this fraud? The Geologist Don Easterbrook intentially lied when he made those charts.

    If you post a chart that says it has data up to the year 2000 and it doesn’t have that data, it’s a lie. If you quote someone and change their words, it’s a lie.

    Of course, normal people can make a mistake, but these aren’t normal people. Easterbrook and Monckton are frauds. A geologist knows what BP means and a journalist knows what the requirements are to quote someone. A journalist knows you can’t quote someone and change their words. The excuse that it basically means the same thing doesn’t cut it, because if that were the case, there wouldn’t be any sense in changing it.

  377. Gary Lance:

    At October 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm you say

    I’ve had courses in archaeology, geology, paleontology and anthropology.

    Were the courses in Readers Digest?

    Richard

  378. It appears that “BP” refers specifically to radiocarbon dating and sediments. Ice cores are not mentioned. BP literally means “Before Present”, and that is how that acronym is often used, the fake authority of Wikipedia notwithstanding. Conventions are not laws, nor are they requirements. Ice cores go back more than 700,000 years. But radiocarbon dating goes back only a small fraction of that.

    And the scurrilous assertions that individuals committed “fraud” with no supporting evidence only reflects badly on Gary Lance. I have been reading this blog and commenting for five years, and this is the first time I have seen anyone accuse Dr Easterbrook of “fraud”. So consider the source.

  379. From Gary Lance on October 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm:

    If you post a chart that says it has data up to the year 2000 and it doesn’t have that data, it’s a lie. If you quote someone and change their words, it’s a lie.

    You’re complaining about this chart, which comes from this WUWT post, which clearly starts the X-axis at 95 years before present, and in no way “says it has data up to the year 2000″.

    So what does that make you?

  380. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    From Gary Lance on October 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm:

    If you post a chart that says it has data up to the year 2000 and it doesn’t have that data, it’s a lie. If you quote someone and change their words, it’s a lie.

    You’re complaining about this chart, which comes from this WUWT post, which clearly starts the X-axis at 95 years before present, and in no way “says it has data up to the year 2000″.

    So what does that make you?

    That isn’t the original Easterbrook chart. Look it up in google images by using GISP2 charts! You can find the chart and sites discussing how Easterbrook manipulated the data.

    The chart says years before present (2000) at the bottom of the years listed. You have been told any Geologist knows BP is before 1950, but obviously nothing is what it is around people like you. Your agenda controls reality, right?

    Anyone who has been on any forum that discusses climate knows the GISP2 charts are routinely manipulated.

  381. Gary Lance says:

    “Anyone who has been on any forum that discusses climate knows the GISP2 charts are routinely manipulated.”

    Yet another baseless assertion. You need to post solid, convincing evidence showing the raw data and the resulting chart. A link to another blog will not do. Prove your assertion. Otherwise, it’s just hand waving.

  382. D Böehm says:

    October 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Gary Lance says:

    “Anyone who has been on any forum that discusses climate knows the GISP2 charts are routinely manipulated.”

    Yet another baseless assertion. You need to post solid, convincing evidence showing the raw data and the resulting chart. A link to another blog will not do. Prove your assertion. Otherwise, it’s just hand waving.

    The raw data has been posted many times.

    http://allegedlyapparent.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/gisp2-temperaturesince10700-bp-with-co2-from-epica-domec_annot_notunprecedented.jpg?w=640&h=357

    Doesn’t Easterbrook’s chart say present temperature?

  383. Gary Lance,

    That is not raw data as you claim, that is a chart. And I told you not to cite blogs as scientific evidence. That said, your linked chart shows that current temperatures are far from unprecedented. So OBVIOUSLY there were times during the Holocene when the Arctic was ice free. It is a natural occurrence, which causes no harm. In fact, it is more beneficial now than having to put up with an arctic ice cap.

    Regarding your fixation on “BC”, kadaka already explained that to you more than once. It simply does not matter in the context of the current discussion. No doubt you cling to that because you have nothing worthwhile to submit.

    I have to take care of an invalid wife, but I wonder: what are you doing posting here time after time on a Saturday night?? And posting nonsense, no less.
    Get a life. <—(good advice)

  384. D Böehm says:

    October 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Gary Lance,

    That is not raw data as you claim, that is a chart. And I told you not to cite blogs as scientific evidence. That said, your linked chart shows that current temperatures are far from unprecedented. So OBVIOUSLY there were times during the Holocene when the Arctic was ice free. It is a natural occurrence, which causes no harm. In fact, it is more beneficial now than having to put up with an arctic ice cap.

    Regarding your fixation on “BC”, kadaka already explained that to you more than once. It simply does not matter in the context of the current discussion. No doubt you cling to that because you have nothing worthwhile to submit.

    I have to take care of an invalid wife, but I wonder: what are you doing posting here time after time on a Saturday night?? And posting nonsense, no less.
    Get a life. <—(good advice)

    I don’t know how many times kadaka and I have posted that raw data, but you can search for it, because even though I have the link in my favorites, I’m not getting it for you. If you would click on links that people post you would know it’s been posted by both of us. I also posted a link to all the ice cores NOAA has. kadaka thought it was a jumbled mess and it’s in alphabetical order. I didn’t have a problem finding the GISP2 data,

    So OBVIOUSLY there were times during the Holocene when the Arctic was ice free.

    No that isn’t obvious, even if it was warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than today, which it probably wasn’t. That sea ice was really thick during glaciation and oceans don’t warm overnight. We’ll know soon enough if we don’t already have sediment cores in the areas that presently have the sea ice minimum.

    Here is a 700,000 year estimate which is the low:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4467/323.abstract?ck=nck

    Clark, David L. has a 4 million year estimate.

    Well, so much for your obvious, I found some ocean sediment data.

    The youngest part of the retrieved sediment record is condensed, but samples taken from close to the surface, representing Holocene and Recent conditions, lack the subpolar foraminifer species and thus indicate a consistent thick perennial sea-ice cover in accordance with present-day conditions (Nørgaard-Pedersen et al. in press)

    Source: http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr10/nr10_p61-64.pdf

    Now you should have learned at least two things. The arctic wasn’t ice free during the Holocene, which is consistent with what is often said and they can determine if an area was ice free from sediment cores.

  385. From Gary Lance on October 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm:

    The raw data has been posted many times.

    http://allegedlyapparent.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/gisp2-temperaturesince10700-bp-with-co2-from-epica-domec_annot_notunprecedented.jpg?w=640&h=357

    A graph is raw data?

    Source article:

    http://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/unprecedented-global-warming-not-unprecedented/

    Note the red dashed line. Also note the red block on the bottom X-axis scale.

    Caption says to click image for source, which is:

    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISP2%20diagram

    Figure 3. Note the red dashed line has gone away. From caption: The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). Looks like that line was the HadCrut3 extension, removed later.

    The original does show the Alley2000 GISP2 temperature reconstruction, matches the graph I made of the data, and matches the Easterbrook graph you complained about. Your entire fraud charge still rests solely on the 2000/1950 BP thing.

    Next from you:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig41.jpg

    Doesn’t Easterbrook’s chart say present temperature?

    I’ve Googled up a few versions. The arrow indicates present warming, points to the start of the rise out of the LIA. Present warming trend, present temperature, same thing in context.

    Otherwise, yup, looks like Alley, although it’s modified from Cuffey and Clow 1997.

    From you on October 27, 2012 at 7:23 pm:

    BTW, the Minoan warm period is supposed to be the 16th and 17 centuries BC.

    You’ll have to cite a reference for that, everything I’ve found dates it around 3200-3500BP.

  386. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 28, 2012 at 12:06 am

    I know the claim is the Minoan Warm Period was at the apex of the MInoan civilization and that was the 16th and 17th centuries BC and before the earthquake.

    This article was obtained by reading the sources for google images on Easterbrooks chart, just like I told you to do.

    One of the last comments to my “100 years of warming” post suggested that the GISP2 “present” followed a common paleoclimate convention and was actually 1950. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

    Source: http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

    Here (the person who wrote the articles on Easterbrook) is another case of someone being confused about present, but you keep getting told a Geologist shouldn’t be getting confused. 1950 also was a good date, because it was before all that atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which screwed up the C14 isotope ratio. In the link, the author is actually correcting what he had previously said about the 95 year data meaning 1905.

    Easterbrook knew exactly what the data meant. Easterbrook just modified a Cuffey and Clow 1997 chart by cutting out prior data and I believe he even cut off a tail at the present in some versions. All Cuffey and Clow did was plot the data and probably used a smoothing average. The chart was an intentional fraud.

    It’s also nonsense that this convention for BP is only used in isotope analysis, it’s even used by Archaeologists using pottery or stratigraphy to date. It’s just common sense that the present changes, so a date was chosen.

    This is how we stand on this issue. How long has it been since the Easterbrook chart, over two years? It’s been talked about for two and a half years and you people still can’t figure out what the dates are? That tells me you aren’t interested in facts and will take whatever garbage is out there that suits your agenda.

    As previously stated Monckton is another example of a person trained in a field of study, in his case journalism, who abandons the rules by quoting people and changing what they said.

  387. From Gary Lance on October 27, 2012 at 9:43 pm:

    I also posted a link to all the ice cores NOAA has. kadaka thought it was a jumbled mess and it’s in alphabetical order. I didn’t have a problem finding the GISP2 data,

    You posted this link, which has such convoluted formatting that wordpress can’t auto-convert it to a proper click-able link:

    http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:537703002861230:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:

    No search function, only column sorting. It is a jumbled mess.

    The NOAA Ice Core Gateway is much better organized and easier to navigate, and has TWO search functions.

    From Gary Lance on October 28, 2012 at 5:55 am:

    I know the claim is the Minoan Warm Period was at the apex of the MInoan civilization and that was the 16th and 17th centuries BC and before the earthquake.

    You’re wrong, and I’ll hope you can Google the sources I’ve found that prove you’re wrong. Storm’s coming and I’m short on time.

    This article was obtained by reading the sources for google images on Easterbrooks chart, just like I told you to do.

    A single straightedge shows the article is wrong. They give the “Modified” graph and say it’s “almost certainly” from a given Alley2000 graph. But the straightedge (you can use a ruler or an edge of a piece of paper) shows “Modified” has only 3 peaks above -30°C, while that section of the Alley2000 graph has many more peaks above -30°C. They look similar as Alley comes from the Coffey and Clow data, but “Modified” is clearly not “copied and altered” from the Alley2000 graph due to the mismatch.

    We’ve already established the “2000” charts should have said 1950.

    I don’t really know why you’re bothering with the riff against Lord Monckton. The only reason I can think of is the near certainty he’s not reading this old thread, so you feel free to slander at will. Which is good for you, as he would easily eviscerate you and your weak arguments.

  388. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Do you need a search function to use the alphabet? That list works fine if you know the name of the ice core you are looking for and the good thing about it is, it’s all the data of ice cores in one place. The fact is I found the data on that list and posted it too, the first time and several other times. You posted the same raw data with the same link I used, several times.

    We’ve already established the “2000″ charts should have said 1950.

    We’ve established that a Geologist knows BP means before 1950 and Easterbrook is a Geologist. That didn’t stop him from making a chart that is an obvious lie, nor does it stop you from defending that fraudulent act, because it suits your agenda.

    What happened to it all depends on if it’s 2000 or 1950? I knew the answer to that years ago and showed you how to find out for yourself with a simple google image search of sources. If you knew how to use the alphabet, you may have noticed every ice core uses 1950 for BP, so why would Richard Alley change that system? Is there any benefit in changing a system and causing everything written using the old system to be edited? The 1950 date works fine and it predates contamination from above ground nuclear testing.

    I said: “I know the claim is the Minoan Warm Period was at the apex of the MInoan civilization and that was the 16th and 17th centuries BC and before the earthquake”.

    and you said:

    You’re wrong, and I’ll hope you can Google the sources I’ve found that prove you’re wrong. Storm’s coming and I’m short on time.

    Let’s run back the clock a little bit! Lamb finds evidence of grape vineyards from Church records and notices the records of grape production stop in the LIA. There are records in Roman times of grapes being introduced to England. There is pollen analysis of grapes growing in England and written records that Roman wine was highly prized, such that an amphora of good wine was worth the price of a slave. I haven’t evidence that grape production stopped between what is called the Roman Warm Period and the Medievel Warm Period. I’ve only seen evidence that wine production in England stopped during the LIA.

    There is Roman Warm Period evidence of olive oil presses in SW Turkey, where you can’t even grow olives there now, but I haven’t seen pollen evidence that olives were grown. The issue becomes, were they making olive oil or olive presses. I’m sure there was a market for both. There is nothing remarkable about the Romans taking their winemaking with them, because the areas they conquered were warm enough to grow grapes. I can remember it being very cold when I was a child, but all the Italian farmers had their own vineyards. The point is, what does any of this say, except it was too cold in the LIA to grow grapes in England?

    The Roman Warm Period was proposed by Scheidel, Morris & Saller in 2007 and there are earlier proposals. What is the evidence?

    Proxies

    Glaciers: A 1986 analysis of Alpine glaciers concluded that the 100 AD to 400 AD period was significantly warmer than the immediately preceding and following periods.[7]

    Deep ocean sediment: A 1999 reconstruction of ocean current patterns based on the granularity of deep ocean sediment concluded there was a Roman Warm Period that peaked around 150 AD.[6]

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

    The Roman Warm Period is claimed to be from 250 BC to 400 AD, but the glacier evidence concluded the time before 100 AD was significantly cooler than the period 100 AD to 400 AD. So what happened to the first 350 years of the Roman Warm Period, which is 50 years longer than the Alpine glacier evidence?

    It’s little wonder you avoid the question of when these periods existed, you just want to claim a warm period existed, give a broad period of time and claim anything falling into that period is evidence of a warm period existing. It even gets worse when talking about the Minoan Warm Period, because what is the evidence that it’s more than someone just saying it existed? Is it a surprise that Romans brought winemaking with them in a world where winemaking was possible? Is it a surprise that it became cooler than Roman times? It isn’t a surpirse that it was warmer in the past than the LIA. That is totally consistent with slow cooling based on Milankovitch Cycles.

    What I see happening is people taking one ice core from Greenland and claiming warm periods based on a few degrees difference in Greenland. They seem to totally ignore the temperatures are in the -30 degree C range and Greenland has major climatic phenomenon and patterns surrounding it.

    Here is the link I posted:

    http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:2618943466065395:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:

    The GRIP data doesn’t show your warm periods.

  389. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    There is no Alley chart, but you continue to excuse the lies and fraud of both Easterbrook and Monckton. Cuffey and Clow (1997) published the chart and Easterbrook manipulated it by cutting off part of it, producing a chart without temperature and time data, while claiming the LIA was the present. The original Easterbrook chart just cropped off a portion of the Cuffey and Clow (1997) chart, removed what was said and put present temperature for the LIA. Later Easterbrook changed that to present global warming clearly pointing out the LIA was our present global warming. Easterbrook is a Geologist and he knows what BP means. He knows when the LIA was. The fact is originally he didn’t include dates or temperatures and intentionally misrepresented the present.

    Monckton was a Journalist before being a politician and quoted many people in his lectures with quotation marks surrounding how he changed their words. This didn’t happen once, he made a habit of it.

    These are the tactics your side of the climate debate has to use and the fact that you defend these tactics speaks volumes on how you approach the subject of climate change.

  390. Dear “Gary Lance”:

    Only a fool fights in a burning house. I have more pressing business than refuting your false claims and slander again, and again, and again, and yet again. Or at least more interesting things to do.

    Enjoy your false victory. May it be as sweet as saccharine on your lips.

    Good bye.

  391. kadaka (KD Knoebel):

    re your post at October 30, 2012 at 2:03 am.

    I gave up on Gary Lance some time ago when his repeated shouts of “‘Tis but a flesh wound” became tiresome.

    He and Eric Grimsrud are of a type: their ignorance, prejudice and feigned (but obviously false) “knowledge” is amusing for a while but soon becomes annoying.

    Richard

  392. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 30, 2012 at 2:03 am

    Dear “Gary Lance”:

    Only a fool fights in a burning house. I have more pressing business than refuting your false claims and slander again, and again, and again, and yet again. Or at least more interesting things to do.

    Enjoy your false victory. May it be as sweet as saccharine on your lips.

    Good bye.

    The fact is you can’t refute the evidence of the Easterbrook fraud and he did what he did to make money for his anti-AGW stance. The fact that you support such behavior shows how weak your position is. No reasonable person would believe a Geologist doesn’t know BP means before 1950. Don Easterbrook was an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, when he was described in a NY Times article in 2007. None of his WWU links were available and he seems to be rather late on the anti-AGW scene. His analysis seems to be based on climate patterns like the PDO and NAO. Surely as a Professor he would have had the chance to educate students about what BP means. Surely both a Geologist and Professor would have the sense to know one ice core doesn’t represent global temperatures and he would have known that the previous GRIP ice core, just a little north of GISP2 doesn’t agree with those findings.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

    Easterbrook chose to publish charts showing all the previous data from before the Holocene Climatic Optimum to date was warmer than the present, because he used the end of the LIA as a base for present temperatures. He copied a chart and drew a line so you couldn’t even see the LIA, much below it. Easterbrook is the one who is responsible for the “Coolgate” scandal.

    Additionally, it’s just flat out bad science to pick out peaks in GISP2 data and claim them as warm periods.

  393. Gary Lance says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1129276

    henry says
    come on Gary, aka 6 x somebody else (schizophrenia)
    everyone knew those data went only until 1950, you can see it here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    well what do you know……
    Gary believes in a hockey stick….(as if the rest of the story related above does not a matter, it is the 1950 story that counts)
    He is also firmly convinced that CO2 does not cause any radiative or biological cooling
    and he could not provide us with a balance sheet of how much warming and how much cooling the extra CO2 causes, exactly.
    Go home Gary, go see your doctor or pastor as I advised you to do. .

    like I always say:
    You can bring a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink
    ………….there are none so blind as those who do not want to see……

  394. HenryP says:

    October 30, 2012 at 11:32 am

    I believe in real science which is something you people will never understand. Real science identifies a period called the Holocene Climatic Optimum and a modern period that is warm. Real science can read a thermometer and observe ice melting around the world. It can remember finding fossils of mammoths and trees near the Arctic Ocean and well beyond the present treeline. Real science sees evidence beyond doubt that it was warm, then became colder and has returned to warm. Does a treeline farther north mean the global temperatures were warmer in the past? No, it means it was warm long enough to convert tundra, wet and barren lands to taiga and the fact that the treeline moved south means it became colder for a long enough period. The fact that some of you people have pointed to a treeline being farther north as proof of a past being warmer than today only proves you don’t know what real science is. Even common sense says it not only has to be warm enough, but warm enough for enough time is required.

    Such facts would produce something like a hockey stick pattern. On most places on Earth, I’d expect the local climates to have variability during a long decline. I’d also expect noise, if I was using a proxy to reconstruct past temperatures. GISP2 is one ice core that took something like 4 years to drill. It shows a pattern of warming with a sharp decline for Younger Dryas. The pattern returns to a period for the Holocene Climatic Optimum and then declines. Here is the original Cuffey and Clow (1997) as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).

    The chart only identifies Younger Dryas, the MWP and the LIA. Here is the source of this information:

    SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Alley, R.B.. 2004.
    GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.
    IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
    Data Contribution Series #2004-013.
    NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

    ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Alley, R.B. 2000.
    The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.
    Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.

    ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:
    Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow. 1997. Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet
    elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition.
    Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26383-26396.

    GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Greenland
    PERIOD OF RECORD: 49 KYrBP – present

    DESCRIPTION:
    Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
    ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
    Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
    Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).

    Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    Here is version of Cuffey and Clow (1997) that isn’t the original:

    Did you notice the present global warming isn’t the present and is 1855? Did you notice the MWP and LIA are shown in the wrong periods? The original Cuffey and Clow (1997) chart listed the MWP and LIA at the correct times, but this chart, which claims to be based on Cuffey and Clow (1997) doesn’t.

    Just how could such a chart be so widely published and be so wrong? I looked up Cuffey and Clow (1997) chart in google images and went to the NOAA site to find the original. The original is in google images, but it’s buried with these bogus charts. From there the pseudo-science even gets worse, because there is an obvious attempt by Easterbrook to only go back about ten thousand years and point to the LIA as the present temperature in his original chart.

    Since that pseudo-science worked so well, because people don’t know how to read a chart, know the science or the history of when events happened, let’s just lie about the dates and pick peaks claiming it was prior warm periods. This chart uses a scale from the original data for dates and has Years Before Present (2000 AD) below the dates. It changes the color from blue to red from the LIA to the most recent data of 95, which is actually 1855 AD and not 2000 AD. It scales up the x axis to exaggerate peaks based on temperature and picks every peak as some prior warming period. Only warming events are mentioned, like well known cooling events aren’t important. There is no consideration that these peaks and valleys in temperatures could just be noise in the O18 proxy for one ice core in Greenland. There is no consideration that a Greenland proxy is only a representation of that place in Greenland. That data isn’t present on the GRIP ice core that was drilled not very far away. Does a Minoan Warm Period even exist or is it just a name given for a peak in one proxy from one site? If someone believes such a warm period exists, why can’t a period have a defined period of time, like it’s suppose to have? I’ve read that the Minoan Warm Period occurred at the apex of the Minoan civilization and know that was in the 16th and 17th centuries BC. Something is wrong when the proxy says it was in the 13th century BC. The same objections can be said about the Roman Warm Period. At least the Romans expanded to England which was closer to things affecting the climate of Greenland, but what evidence is there that the Roman Warm Period existed? There is evidence of Alpine Glaciers showing warming in the 100 AD to 400 AD period, but I’ve seen proxy data showing the RWP was in the BC times. The introduction of grapes to England only means the Romans showed up. Olive presses in SW Turkey don’t grow doesn’t mean they once grew. Where is the pollen evidence? How do we know they weren’t just making olive presses because they had good wood for doing so, like the famous cedars of Lebanon?

  395. Of course, Gary, you’re completely right. Evidence that a single number is obviously wrong is absolute proof the man is a complete fraud and all-around lying scoundrel. Multiple absolute refutations of your other points is no refutation at all. One ice core cannot represent global temperatures, just as one tree in Yamal is no proof of global warming.

    See Gary, you’re perfectly right about everything, just as you knew you were, just as you will always know you will always and ever be right about everything.

    Have a nice day.

  396. Gary LANCE says
    I believe in real science which is something you people will never understand. Real science identifies a period called the Holocene Climatic Optimum and a modern period that is warm. Real science can read a thermometer and observe ice melting around the world.

    Henry says
    Did you read all the graphs?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    I did use thermometers, and took the results of measurements from 47 weather stations, every day for the past 38 years. In the case of the maximum temps. that was about 650000 results.
    This is my summary of those results.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The blue line is the one that is coming down (to the present). I pray to God that I am right with that fit and that we are now nearing the bottom of the curve. If my sine wave is not right, we could be plunging further down, probably towards a much cooler world, like another little ice age.

    So please, do stop worrying about the arctic ice. It will all be back in 2 decades from now. I promise you. Stop worrying about the carbon. Start worrying about the coming common cold.

  397. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    October 30, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Of course, Gary, you’re completely right. Evidence that a single number is obviously wrong is absolute proof the man is a complete fraud and all-around lying scoundrel. Multiple absolute refutations of your other points is no refutation at all. One ice core cannot represent global temperatures, just as one tree in Yamal is no proof of global warming.

    See Gary, you’re perfectly right about everything, just as you knew you were, just as you will always know you will always and ever be right about everything.

    Have a nice day.

    I was discussing how you people encourage obvious fraud with your support and not making a proof of global warming. Melting of ice throughout the world is proof of global warming for reasonable people. If you want to see a quick change in temperature for an area, watch what happens when ice doesn’t need melting, because it’s gone.

    Reasonable people don’t write a bunch of articles trying to downplay the record minimum of arctic sea ice with a record maximum in antarctic sea ice. Reasonable people listen to the science that points out the antarctic circumpolar winds have increased, pushing the sea ice further away from the continent. They look at the recent studies showing increased snowfall on the antarctic sea ice causing it to sink and overflow with ocean water, making more sea ice. I pointed out the annual trends for the weather to affect the antarctic sea ice during maximums and minimums and what the trends have been during melt and refreeze. I told you the antarctic sea ice would decline to the base in a few weeks and follow the melting trend to it’s minimum and that’s exactly what it has done and will do. That wasn’t hard to predict, because it does it every year.

    Reasonable people look at the original Cuffey and Clow (1997) chart and only look at these bogus charts to critique them. The original Cuffey and Clow (1997) also has data for ice accumulation, which isn’t of much use, but shows an obvious trend. Very cold places like Antarctica or Greenland show increases in ice accumulation with increases in temperature. Reasonable people know it can be too cold to snow and form ice, but unreasonable people will try to take advantage of people’s ignorance and claim increases in ice accumulation disprove global warming. It would be reasonable for Antarctica to add mass as it warms, but Antarctica gets very little precipitation and it’s mostly along the coast. Antarctica has strong katabatic winds that can reach hurricane speeds and blow accumulation into the oceans, because that’s the downward slope. The latest data shows Antarctica having mass loss, but unreasonable people can’t accept that data, because they think it suits their agenda to show mass gain. The fact that west (WAIS) and east (EAIS) Antarctica are two very different places is always whitewashed. Along with the Greenland ice sheet (GIS), these are the remains of ice sheets from the last ice age. The next largest ice sheet is in Patagonia. It has split in two and is melting away.

    What I’ve said hasn’t been refuted, which doesn’t mean ignored by people with an agenda and the Geology Professor didn’t get a number wrong, because he has taught other students that BP means before 1950 and why. The fraud involves more than the number or data, it involves intentionally making a chart to misinform. Easterbrook used his chart in his lectures outside the university and made it look like it was colder now in Greenland than it ever was for 10 thousand years. Just like Lord Monckton’s changed quotes, Easterbrook didn’t just do it once, it was a habit. Both had these errors pointed out and they chose to keep using their frauds. Both were making money on the anti-AGW circuit after leaving their professions. Where is that cooling trend Easterbrook predicted in 2001? The Earth was suppose to cool to 2040 starting in 2007 (± 3 yrs), based on his assessment of PDO and NAO climate patterns. NAO climate pattern measuements have been adjusted for global warming, because they use SST measurements.

    The arctic sea ice minimum had a volume of about 6,400 cubic kilometers in 2007 and it had around 3,100 cubic kilometers in 2012. That means the arctic sea ice volume minimum was around 52% less this year than in 2007. If you really want to measure melt, volume is what melts.

    The Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomaly for June was about 2.3 million square kilometers in 2007 and 5.8 million square kilometers in 2012. Since 2007 the trend has been to lose snow cover at the beginning of summer. That area lost in 2012 is more than 3 times the size of GIS (1.7 sq km) and if that data stays the same or gets worse, I expect more of those 2012 97% melts of GIS to continue. Much of that area is in lower latitudes and near Greenland.

    I’ve looked at few hundred glaciers and it’s the same story. I’ve looked at permafrost and the tale is the same. For all those people on this site claiming there hasn’t been warming for a period of time, get them to explain why all that ice is melting! Ask them what happens when an area runs out of ice to reflect sunlight and the heat doesn’t have to bother melting ice that isn’t there!

  398. Gary Lance says:

    “I’ve looked at few hundred glaciers…” Bullshit. You cherry-picked only those glaciers that are receding, and ignored those that are advancing. And no way did you ever observe “hundreds of glaciers.” Quit trying to pass yourself of as some kind of expert. You admittedly had never even heard of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, an internationally esteemed climatologist, so you are clearly a noob at this, cutting and pasting your talking points from alarmist echo chamber blogs.

    You write: “Melting of ice throughout the world is proof of global warming for reasonable people.”

    Show me where anyone has said that global warming doesn’t exist. Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists — and you are no skeptic] know that the planet has steadily warmed since the LIA — naturally. Your red herring arguments are just a lame attempt to re-frame the debate into something you can win. But since I am holding your feet to the fire, you lose the debate: the planet has warmed at the same rate since the LIA. I have stated that for the past five years here. You will not get away with pretending that I or anyone else disputes natural global warming. You lack the talent to paint me into that corner.

    Regarding your wrongheaded belief that the Arctic has never been ice free, there are peer reviewed papers stating that the Arctic was likely ice free during the Holocene. No one was there to report back, but the evidence is there. And no credible scientist disputes the ice core record, which shows that the planet was considerably warmer than now at times during the past ten millennia. So naturally Arctic ice would have disappeared.

    And your deluded insistence that the Holocene never had warmer temperatures than present is easily debunked. You are just an ignorant puppy who jumped on the catastrophic AGW bandwagon, and you get your talking points from discredited blogs like ‘Fake-skeptical Pseudo-science’ — the only blog that has the dishonor of its own category on the WUWT sidebar.

    Finally, you are the only one falsely claiming that Dr Easterbrook’s charts are “lies”. Easterbrook is a well known and respected climatologist. When you can produce other climatologists like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen or Miskolczi saying that Easterbrook’s charts are wrong, I will listen. But so far all you are doing is engaging in ad-hom character assassination. Grow up.

  399. HenryP says:

    October 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Gary LANCE says
    I believe in real science which is something you people will never understand. Real science identifies a period called the Holocene Climatic Optimum and a modern period that is warm. Real science can read a thermometer and observe ice melting around the world.

    Henry says
    Did you read all the graphs?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    I did use thermometers, and took the results of measurements from 47 weather stations, every day for the past 38 years. In the case of the maximum temps. that was about 650000 results.
    This is my summary of those results.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The blue line is the one that is coming down (to the present). I pray to God that I am right with that fit and that we are now nearing the bottom of the curve. If my sine wave is not right, we could be plunging further down, probably towards a much cooler world, like another little ice age.

    So please, do stop worrying about the arctic ice. It will all be back in 2 decades from now. I promise you. Stop worrying about the carbon. Start worrying about the coming common cold.

    The only thing that could save that arctic sea ice is intervention on the scale of a military operation in the next few years. I’ve shown the evidence of melt and playing with data on charts isn’t going to prevent the obvious. Consider the title of this article “Arctic refreeze fastest ever” and it’s ramifications! It isn’t remarkable that sea ice would recover faster after a record minimum, because the waters and atmosphere of that rapid recovery are the coldest. The rapid recovery just traps heat from escaping, but what happens to the recovery when the sea ice tries to expand in waters with high SSTs, like now? It will take time to cool down those waters enough to create sea ice.

    High pressure tends to park over Greenland and this is what the clockwise circulation is doing to drift and thick sea ice:

    That thick sea ice is drifting away from northern Greenland through the Fram Straits and that means it will keep on drifting and melt next year. The Canadian Archipelago is also leaking thick multi-year sea ice. In order for any of that thin sea ice to survive the next melt season, it has to take the spot of thicker sea ice. If the thicker sea ice drifts away from the pack it’s history. The forces are there to melt the arctic sea ice away and I think it will be ice free by 2015. These predictions you hear from NSIDC and IPCC are way too conservative.

    The sea ice minimum lags the start of summer by about 3 months. When we have June snow cover at a 6 million square kilometer anomaly, warmer tempertures reach those northern areas and cause surface melt on sea ice and ice sheets. There is no trend or change in climate patterns to suggest next year will be better than this year. The higher and lower latitudes are more likely to exchange air masses than in the past and that will just lead to more warming up north. If our south or somewhere gets a cold snap during the winter, it will still get just as warm in the summer, but the exchange of warmer air up north will mean a warmer summer up there. The north has the ice reflecting sunlight and we don’t. If we have another near 6 million square kilometer anomaly in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, I predict another large Greenland melt. Overall, this was a mild weather year for the arctic sea ice, but such events are random, based on how the highs and lows move.

  400. D Böehm says:

    October 31, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Easterbrook is so respected you can’t get a copy of his papers from his university which had them.

    Post where I said it was warmer today than any time in the Holocene! Just how could someone reconstruct global temperatures that accurately to make such a claim? I said we don’t know, but global temperature is just a proxy of warm. I believe our present warming is forceful enough to exceed the conditions of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and just hasn’t had the time to play it’s hand. It can easily be warm enough in our present to eventually melt the tundra and get warmer by adding trees. That doesn’t happen when it’s warming quickly and our present warming hasn’t maxed out, like the warming trend that produced the Holocene Thermal Maximum did. Elephants live in our zoos and there is no reason an elephant couldn’t visit the Arctic Ocean in the future or trees could be planted in areas losing permafrost. Forests in tundra areas will add to global warming.

    I posted evidence from sediment cores proving that the arctic wasn’t ice free in the Holocene.

    The youngest part of the retrieved sediment record is condensed, but samples taken from close to the surface, representing Holocene and Recent conditions, lack the subpolar foraminifer species and thus indicate a consistent thick perennial sea-ice cover in accordance with present-day conditions (Nørgaard-Pedersen et al. in press)

    Source: http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr10/nr10_p61-64.pdf

    What source of data do you have beside talk?

    It’s not hard to find 300 glaciers, if you go to blogs reporting on glaciers. I’d post links, but it would be a waste of time, so google it! Advancing or retreating isn’t imporant and mass balance is. I’ve seen glaciers advance so fast you had to walk quickly to stay in front of them. Advancing like that doesn’t mean it’s a healthy glacier. What planet do you live on if you don’t know the world’s glaciers are losing mass and there will always be an exception due to increases in precipitation? The world has plenty of glaciers and I’ve found some that currently aren’t in danger and are maintaining mass balance. About 98% of the glaciers in temperate areas aren’t.

  401. Gary Lance says:

    “Easterbrook is so respected you can’t get a copy of his papers from his university which had them.”

    In other words, you cannot produce climatologists like Christy, or Lindzen, or Spencer, or Miskolczi to dispute Dr Easterbrook. It is your ilk who use ad hominem attacks against him because you cannot refute his work.

    And:

    “What source of data do you have beside talk?”

    Clearly you are ignoring all the links I have posted. And I would like a source for your statement that some glaciers advance so fast you have to walk fast to keep ahead of them. A fast walk is ≈5 mph. Citation, please.

    Next, I wrote that obviously it was warmer at times during the Holocene. You replied:

    “Post where I said it was warmer today than any time in the Holocene!”

    You forget what you wrote earlier:

    “No that isn’t obvious, even if it was warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than today, which it probably wasn’t.”

    You are saying it was probably not warmer than now during the Holocene, a position not accepted by mainstream science. Then you denied that was your position. That is not the first time you have contradicted yourself. Really, at this point you have no credibility. The Holocene Optimum was the warmest part of the Holocene, as numerous ice cores from both hemispheres show; they are all in agreement. It was also warmer than now during the Minoan Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, and other warm events. Those were good times for the biosphere, yet you are clearly terrified of a warmer world.

    Finally, you state your belief: “I believe our present warming is forceful enough to exceed the conditions of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and just hasn’t had the time to play it’s hand.”

    You can believe anything you want. But you cannot produce scientific evidence to support your beliefs. There is no empirical, testable evidence showing that anything unusual or unprecedented is occurring. Current temperatures are completely normal, and there is no ‘hidden heat in the pipeline’. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.

    You have credulously bought into the climate alarmist scare stories. Maybe some day you will have the maturity to understand the unspoken motivations that generate those scare stories, instead of taking them at face value.

  402. D Böehm says:

    October 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Why would I need scientific evidence to prove a forest doesn’t grow overnight? Melting permafrost means at some point it has melted allowing forests to grow. You can’t compare warming over millenium to warming over decades.

    This idea that warming is such a great thing is ridiculous. The areas that will benefit from warming aren’t inhabited and the areas that will lose from warming are. People who have to suffer from exceptional weather aren’t going to think warming is good. To claim nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening is pure nonsense.

  403. Time for the daily check of the old dead Sea Ice thread!

    Gary Lance still ranting because it would violate all known and unknown laws of time and space for him to ever be wrong about anything thus it is physically impossible for him to admit to even the tiniest possibility he could be wrong about anything, at all, no matter how small, at any time at all from the beginning to the end of eternity?

    Check.

    Any other posts by other people today?

    Nope.

    Noted: Latest Gary post has shrunk to fact-free “Last Word” length.

    Changing schedule, next check on Saturday, unless browser tab gets closed then no check warranted.

Comments are closed.