By Steven Goddard
No matter what happens with the summer Arctic ice minimum, NSIDC will report that the long-term trend is downwards.
Why? Because of mathematics. In order to reverse the 30 year downwards linear trend, this summer’s minimum would have to be nearly 20,000,000 km². More ice than has ever been directly measured.
In other words, we could have a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario, and the mathematical trend would still be downwards.
Conclusion: You can count on NSIDC to continue reporting a downwards trend, regardless of what happens over the next few years. For now, it will be fun seeing what happens over the next eight weeks.
last post submitted did not come with”waiting for moderation”
Probably in limbo because of too many links?
[REPLY – Yeah. Rescued. If a post is not marked as waiting for moderation, it’s a sure bet it’s stuck in the spam filter. We do go over those, however, and restore them if appropriate. It may a bit longer, but we do review them. ~ Evan]
899, you still keep trying to bring it back to Ice Age time scales. I just came here to talk about the basics of radiative transfer, which people here seemed to be having trouble with. CO2 is much more steady than clouds as a forcing, especially at a given point, but also as a global mean. Do I have to explain this? I don’t say clouds aren’t important. The global mean albedo is as important as the mean CO2.
Pamela Gray,
The LW component of the energy budget is as important as shortwave, sensible and latent heat flux, and mixing into the ocean. Coupled models take this whole budget into account. You have to think of the skin temperature as responding to the net all of these components. Like I said, if you set downward longwave to zero, radiation to space would certainly cool the ocean very noticeably. Increasing downward longwave as CO2 does (even if the atmosphere initially is the same temperature), leads to a warming effect on the budget. This would only lead to increased evaporation after the ocean has warmed up first because evaporation depends on temperature difference.
899 says:
June 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“The weather patterns shifted, just as they’ve always.”
“Once again: It’s referred to as ‘natural climate variability.’ WHAT do =>YOU<= not understand about that?!?!"
"Good lord! Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!!!!"
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
At this point there is obviously no sense in further responding to this, what is it that you projected upon me? Ah, yes. "Tirade". I'm just going to clean up a few points and be done with it.
I already mentioned NASA's thermal imaging satellites but you don't want to accept anything these institutions have to say. That is really funny, 899, in view of the fact that the satellite images of ice extent, etc. that are used on this website come from-ahhhhh, I'm trying to remember-oh yes NASA. Where else?
Another thing you mentioned was: "The weather patterns shifted, just as they’ve always."
So please do tell me, as I "tirade" along, why is it not possible for humanity to shift weather patterns? Just as a general concept, is it really impossible for Mankind to do ANYTHING whatsoever that can adversely affect our environment? If it's possible for Mankind to be the major or only factor in this, that or some other environmental disaster then would it not be rational to call that "Anthropogenic Whatever"?
Perhaps you do not believe that CFC's deplete the Ozone layer. Or that continuous exposure to DDT is harmful to animals and Humans. There are people who don't, as you well know. Are these issues part of some demonic attempt to subjugate Humanity under some tyranny? Don't you suspect something irrational about that type of thinking?
Many people did not, and some still do not, believe that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. You do realize that the Tobacco Industry had a massive and orchestrated propaganda campaign to convince people that there was no proof that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer?
The common ground between all these seemingly separate issues was that some people automatically rejected any warning against this, that or the other simply because Government was going to interfere or try to control the substance in question.
In my opinion these people are knee jerk contrarians who will say that the Earth is flat
and square just because Adolf Hitler says that it is round like a ball. Who cares what Hitler, Mother Theresa, Kermit the Frog or anyone has to say on an issue? Are you going to establish credibility, or lack thereof, on the basis of WHO said what instead of WHAT is actually the reality of the situation.? What Government says or does is irrelevant to what Reality/Nature is or does.
"Good lord! Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!!!!"
And you accuse me of tirades.
Keith Minto:
If you would read that Google warning in its entirety, you would see that it means that somebody has attacked my site, not that the site is doing the attacking. My site was doing just fine until the end of May, when somebody seeded it with viruses, which I and my son are trying to eradicate for mote than a month now. The web hosting company refuses to be responsible for any site protection, so it is me who has to go through all the loops to clean the site, though I had nothing to do with infecting it.
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
If you know how to remove the malicious software infecting my site, I would welcome any suggestions. That Google warning harms my reputation by making people think that my site is an “attack site.”
DirkH says:
June 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
1.) As soon as a skeptic points to a cold record the warmists will tell him that that’s weather, not climate. Which doesn’t stop the IPCC from using the French heatwave as an example for climate change in IPCC AR4. It’s only wrong when the skeptics do it.
2.) Wasn’t a key prediction by the GCM’s that global warming will affect the poles and the cold regions much more than places that are already hot, like Africa?
3.) Thanks for the brainwashing-kids methane video. I like to stay up to date with the sinister tactics of the warmists.
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
CONCERNING DIRKH’s POINT #2:
When I respond, and I’ve done so on this site before, to the “Winter of 2009/2010 was colder therefore that disproves Global Warming” I state the following:
1) According to NASA thermal imaging maps 10-15% of the Earth was colder than usual the other 85-90% was warmer even blazing hot, during that period of time.
2) The Arctic region was 10F warmer, along with most of Canada which was up to 10F warmer.
3) The region of the Earth that was colder than usual could be seen as a band (the shape varied throughout the season) going around the Earth just south of the Arctic and most of Canada. In the US it began roughly at the Canadian border and went down to just south of Cuba. Then, going eastward, it continued through Europe, Russia, Siberia, parts of China and then came to the southwest area of Canada ending up back in the US.
4) There was a connection between the Arctic and the band of colder temperatures to the immediate south of it. A weather pattern known as “Negative Arctic Oscillation” essentially flip flopped the weather between those two areas.
5) The Arctic essentially spilled its frigid guts down south and at the same time sucked in warm temperatures from the areas south of it. This made for the reversal in temperature difference.
[This should be a sufficient response to your point #2. I have a feeling you were not carefully reading my previous posts]
CONCERNING DIRKH’s POINT #1:
By making reference to “Warmists” as a general group you are precluding basic temperature statistics. The UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Temperature chart lists 2003 as one of the hottest years GLOBALLY. In fact so were most of the years since 1998.
When it is therefore proven that a particular year was hotter than normal then there is nothing wrong with highlighting a particular region. Cherry picking is when you point to one region while ignoring the whole Earth. Face it, DirkH, we have been breaking records Globally and regionally for quiet a while.
CONCERNING DIRK’s POINT #3:
Your reference to the Methane video as “brainwashing” and “propaganda” reveals more about where you’re coming from then the nature of those videos.
Here are some more videos and pay particular attention to the last one which indicate the decaying state of the permafrost throughout Siberia. I’m sure those Ruskies are part of the conspiracy. Strange, last I heard the Russian Government was against Global Warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU-9JucyCQI
899 says:
June 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm
“You’ve rather dishonestly left out the qualifier: Most scientists who’ve gotten fat research grants …”
“Funny how it is that ‘money talks,’ don’t you agree?”
“And no, I’m not being paid anything, by anyone, to express my lone opinion.”
[–SNIP–]
“Yes, money does seem to talk quite loudly. The false prophets who will profit handsomely should they succeed, while their ‘degreed flunkies’ will be cast aside like the useful idiots they are.”
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
Ah yes. The Lord Moncktonian conspiracy theory. Just utter it and it must be true. Why ask for proof? Is it not obvious that:
CLIMATOLOGISTS, who have been working on the Global Warming issue throughout the administrations of Reagan Bush Sr. and Bush the lesser, are obviously part of some mysterious cabal of psychopathic anthropologists who want to destroy civilization and exterminate the Human population down to 500 million so they can recreate Humanity into a race of primitive headhunters.
PHYSICISTS, who calculated the heat insulating capacity of Carbon Dioxide and Methane, are obviously stooges of Greenpeace.
ASTROPHYSICISTS, who have told us that the actual amount the Sun can fluctuate in its radiance is not capable of having caused the last 30 years of Global Warming.
Well, their true intent is to destroy Christianity and to introduce a religion that worships a Trinity of Sun, Earth and Moon.
They are also part of a UFO cult that advocates a One World Government with Obama, who is actually a green colored alien masquerading as a Kenyan, as its Supreme King.
ALL OF THESE PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONS ARE JUST A PART OF THE ULTIMATE CONSPIRACY! THE CONSPIRACY OF FACTS!! THAT’S RIGHT, I SAID FACTS!!!
IT’S BEEN DECIPHERED BELOW, BY A COMBINATION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE AND GLENN BECK’S SCHIZO-BOARD WITH ITS PSYCHOTIC FLOWCHARTS. FACTS! WHO CAN STAND THE FACTS!! NO MORE FACTS!!!
FACTS:
Fascists
Anarchists
Communists
Trotskyites
Socialists
“And no, I’m not being paid anything, by anyone, to express my lone opinion.”
No, you’re not being paid. Could it be that you’ve been bought?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries#Political_activity
Yes, money talks indeed.
From the late great John L Daly…….
My apologies for cut n paste, but there is no point in me paraphrasing when John Daly put it so clearly.
The one thing I might add is that although clouds may be temporary, their affect on ocean temperatures outweighs the affect of CO2 radiation by orders of magnitude.
To put it another way, it’s been thousands of years since the last ice age. If the atmosphere was able to heat the oceans to any extent (or depth) it would have done so long ago. But funnily enough, the ocean depths are remarkably uniformly cold, no matter what lattitude.
villabolo says:
June 27, 2010 at 12:53 am
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question, why should I care whether the ice cap melts or not?
For the mathematically inclined, this 1998 working paper outlines the equation models for longwave and shortwave heat transfer at the surface and below for large bodies of water. These equations are likely part of the models used to deal with CO2’s re-radiation potential to heat oceans.
What I question is: do the models in use today deaggregate for natural versus anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Because at issue here is not that greenhouse gases re-radiate longwave, at issue is how much anthropogenic sourced CO2 increases re-radiate enough to change the heat transfer significantly to produce a measurable and significant change in both land and ocean temperatures. I think that is the million dollar question and ought to be answered to the voting public’s satisfaction before policy is made. And just to be clear, simply telling me it does tain’t nuf. Demonstrate it. Document it. Show me the data.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hodges/site2006/documents/thermodynamics.pdf
899 wrote,
“You’ve rather dishonestly left out the qualifier: Most scientists who’ve gotten fat research grants …”
Nope, it was true as I wrote it. Most scientists have never seen a dime from research grants that involve climate change. And those who have sure are not getting fat.
899 wrote,
“Ice extent …
WHAT do you not understand about QUANTITY of ice?
You know: That part of the ice which DOESN’T melt because of its thickness. It melts around the THIN edges.
Is that something which is entirely irrelevant in your world?”
You’re very quick with this style of response. But take just a second to scroll back up to the top of the page, where stevegoddard shows two graphs. What are they? He refers to NSIDC. What about NSIDC? He titles his post “The Trend.” What trend is that?
We now have two consecutive days with a change in ice extent over 100,000 square kilometers, and 2010 is over 500,000 square kilometers less than 2007.
I know I am micromanaging the weather report.
Anyone have a prediction for when 2010 will cross and be higher than 2007.
I’ll say July 20, just for a guess.
Thanks
Regarding Baa Humbug’s post.
The question I answered was about how CO2 warms the ocean. This is what I explained. CO2 increases the downward surface longwave, more in the polar regions than in the tropics, so that is where the most direct effect can be found. In the tropics there is too much water vapor for much of the CO2 effect to be seen at the surface. Yes, the warming effect is slow, maybe only a few degrees per century, but it is there, and it is important for climate, especially with the sea-ice loss albedo feedback that amplifies the solar warming, which has obviously taken over now. So CO2 warming is now secondary, but may have been the seed that got sea-ice loss started.
From: Alexander Feht on June 27, 2010 at 12:20 am
As the Google advisory said:
The malicious software is not really on your site, not part of your site’s code, you are not hosting malware. But, the problem looks to be something you let appear on your site, you were an intermediary. The advisory lists the domain the malware was on, said domain having its own advisory which states the site had hosted malware.
Going by the “pills” in that domain name, I think the bad code was in an advertisement, could have been coded in some JavaScript or perhaps even in a Flash animation. Does your site use an ad server, a service that automatically display different ads without you yourself having to manage the ads, as with the (in)famous one near the top of the WUWT pages? Some are more notorious than others for letting through ads that want to do questionable things to your computer without your consent, irritating ones like pop-up windows, to malicious ones like implanting malware.
If you allowed the ad server on your site, contact them and let them know what happened so they can better block those malicious ads in the future. Consider switching to a more responsible ad server, or perhaps getting rid of ads. If you have no say in the ads, like when they are part of free hosting, complain to the technical support staff of the hosting provider, bad ads make their service look bad. If you are one of the few who manage their own site’s ads and approve every one, ouch.
To keep Google happy and perhaps get rid of that warning, you can do as it says at the bottom of the advisory and request a review. If that doesn’t work, well, the advisory keeps using the phrase “past 90 days.” Provided your site stays clean, no more bad ads, your “option” is to wait three months since the last reported infection, then the warning goes away (I think, YMMV).
Are there any skeptics left, or are we now confident that we know what is going to happen?
Being a real skeptic, instead of a believer posing as one, I wouldn’t assume anything about weather effects on Arctic sea ice.
Pamela Gray,
The model you posted parameterizes the radiation too simply for use in a climate model. They make the surface longwave flux only a function of air temperature, which shortcuts the actual mechanism. It actually depends on the temperature profile and the profiles of the radiatively active gases (CO2, H2O, mostly) and clouds (if any), and has to be done through an integration using these profiles, as I am certain GCMs do. Note that there would be no downward longwave flux in clear-sky conditions if it weren’t for CO2 and H2O. In a global average, CO2 accounts for about 10% of the surface longwave, but since there is less than average water vapor and still average CO2 at the poles, it must be larger than 10% as you get to colder regions. From this you can see that doubling CO2 is not an insignificant effect on the polar energy budget.
Jim D says:
June 26, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Pamela Gray,
The LW component of the energy budget is as important as shortwave, sensible and latent heat flux, and mixing into the ocean. Coupled models take this whole budget into account. You have to think of the skin temperature as responding to the net all of these components. Like I said, if you set downward longwave to zero, radiation to space would certainly cool the ocean very noticeably. Increasing downward longwave as CO2 does (even if the atmosphere initially is the same temperature), leads to a warming effect on the budget. This would only lead to increased evaporation after the ocean has warmed up first because evaporation depends on temperature difference.
That doesn’t make sense. First you say the CO2 causes the oceans to warm, but then imply that because of the heating, the oceans will surrender moisture to the atmosphere which will thence cause clouds, themselves surrendering the added heat to space, and reflecting light such as to cause the planet to cool.
The net effect of CO2 in the water then, is planetary cooling.
But again: You’ve neglected to address the phase between planetary heating and the lag of atmospheric CO2, followed by cooling even with a high CO2 content.
In virtually every case of heating and cooling, atmospheric CO2 content lags the thermal signature.
Jim D says:
June 26, 2010 at 10:38 pm
899, you still keep trying to bring it back to Ice Age time scales. I just came here to talk about the basics of radiative transfer, which people here seemed to be having trouble with. CO2 is much more steady than clouds as a forcing, especially at a given point, but also as a global mean. Do I have to explain this? I don’t say clouds aren’t important. The global mean albedo is as important as the mean CO2.
Funny thing, Jim, CO2 hasn’t been shown to affect either heating or cooling to any significant degree.
And by ‘significant’ I mean to imply just this: It is statistically insignificant such as to not be any kind of agent worth worrying over.
For evidence of just that, consider Mars, the prime atmospheric component gas being CO2, and what’s the mean temp. on Mars? Pretty darned cold.
Ergo, the whole CO2 argument is just the worst sort of deception ever foisted upon humanity.
villabolo says:
June 27, 2010 at 12:52 am
[–snip rest–]
So in other words your prime purpose for posting here is essentially nothing other than to put forth CAGW/CC propaganda.
Alexander Feht says:
June 27, 2010 at 12:20 am
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
If you know how to remove the malicious software infecting my site, I would welcome any suggestions. That Google warning harms my reputation by making people think that my site is an “attack site.”
If you’ve been sufficiently assiduous in making backups of your important information, then merely dumping everything which is there and starting over would be the safest bet.
Several of my friends who operate websites, have copies of their sites on DVDs and do a clean install periodically.
899 writes,
“And by ‘significant’ I mean to imply just this: It is statistically insignificant such as to not be any kind of agent worth worrying over.
For evidence of just that, consider Mars, the prime atmospheric component gas being CO2, and what’s the mean temp. on Mars? Pretty darned cold.”
Some people, reasoning differently than 899, might believe that Mars’ temperature results from its thin atmosphere, 1/200th the mass of Earth’s; and the fact that it orbits about 50 million miles farther from the Sun.
899, why do you assume more evaporation leads to more clouds? It doesn’t follow when the air is warmer too.
I also believe in the Milankovitch cycles, which show how warming and cooling are related to the solar forcing changes due to orbital effects. In that situation CO2 is just responding to the temperature changes.
Other climate changes may be due to atmospheric composition changes, such as dust from asteroid impacts or volcanic activity, or CO2 injection by volcanoes or other means.
In the current situation, the atmosphere has more CO2 in it than in the last 15 or so million years. Maybe that will do something? It was certainly a warmer equilibrium 15 million years ago, Greenland had no ice cap, and there were no ice ages. It seems CO2 and temperature go together, and are highly correlated in past climate, but the order can vary.
Gneiss says:
June 27, 2010 at 8:02 am
You’re very quick with this style of response. But take just a second to scroll back up to the top of the page, where stevegoddard shows two graphs. What are they? He refers to NSIDC. What about NSIDC? He titles his post “The Trend.” What trend is that?
The meadow muffin extent?