AGW Mathematics : -30 + 5 = 0

By Steven Goddard,

From The Vancouver Sun, a survey of leading climate scientists.

“More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we’ll get five degrees C warming under that scenario,” he says. “And five degrees C is gigantic,” says Keith, noting it is enough to “knock out” the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The meltwater would eventually raise sea level by as much as 100 metres.

The experts seem to be having a little difficulty with their maths. Temperatures have risen a whopping 0.7C over the last 120 ppm CO2 – but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles. At least 95% of the ice sheet would remain below freezing all year round. Ice does not melt below freezing. Warmer winter temperatures would mean more snow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png

The video below shows in green the areas of Antarctica which would move above 0C in summer with 5C warming.

Ah – but what about Polar Amplification? While the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.

Must be the Ozone? I’m curious how one gets to be a “climate expert.”

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
– Richard Feynman

Advertisements

147 thoughts on “AGW Mathematics : -30 + 5 = 0

  1. The Climate optimum (9,000 – 5,000 BC) was about 4C warmer. It didn’t melt even Greenland which has been like this for at least 650,000 years.

  2. Here…let me translate the article…

    “It is known the climate will warm as a result of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide bumped into the atmosphere each year through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. But it is still not clear how much, says Keith, director of the U of C’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.”

    I need some climate ca$h and publicity for my institute, so I’m supplying hysterical statements on my research for an alarmist AGW article for the MSM. Global warming is a BIG DEAL! Please send me lots of climate ca$h – quickly.

  3. A survey by Keith, an engineer, and colleagues, canvassed 14 leading climate scientists mostly from the IPCC. And concludes “There is more than a 10 per cent chance the planet could undergo dramatic warming even if humanity manages to curb emission in coming decades”.

    Keep making it up as you go along. And a news paper prints this stuff?

  4. “but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles.”

    Comparable to temperature rises at the end of an ice age. It DOES melt the Scandinavian sheets, for example. It does so from the low lying edges. Thicker ice in the centre then runs out with accelerating speed, thinning the entire cap until it eventually reaches the freezing level.

    But that 5° C is just a scary daydream, of course.

  5. So, half of Climate “experts” think there is a 90% chance that the planet won’t warm by 5°c the other half are certain it won’t. Uh uh looks like high quality climate science stats to me. :)

  6. Is there any info out there on snow accretion rates on greenland and antarctica? Particularly interesting would be the deposition rates as during the early holocene when we know it was warmer than now. That would give a pretty good basis for deciding it there would be growth or shrinkage of the icecaps with more warming.

  7. Your real world observations and maths do not jive with my agenda, infidel. In computer models and leftwing virtual realities ice’s melting point is -20C and water’s boiling point is 0.1C.

  8. Frank K . . . You’ve nailed it.

    When it looks like their Gravy Train is slowing down, or they feel the need for more time on the Fame Train, they just make up some sh*t and issue a press release to the media.

    People become journalists because math & science were too difficult for them at college.

  9. “The risk just builds with every extra kilogram of CO2 we put in the air,” says Keith, who likens CO2 to nuclear waste.”
    C02 is like nuclear waste? Amazing. Belief in CAGW/CC really does seem to be a type of mental illness.

  10. “More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we’ll get five degrees C warming”

    So more than half the experts think there is close to a 90% chance we won’t.

    Which is more robust?

  11. Must be the Ozone? I’m curious how one gets to be a “climate expert.”

    Easy, you must first start trying “Kool-Aid”….and you will end, after receiving the Nobel prize, soliciting XXX massaging.

  12. Actually I can’t see much science in this post, unless we should call science trivial math applied to complex problems.

  13. temperature is measured in 1.5 m high and shadow.

    monthly averages might hide temperatures that allow melting.

    Steven, your ideas about temperatures below 0°C seem confused to me.

    ps: how about that Barrow ice?

  14. Suppose at some time an increase of 400 ppm to 500 ppm of CO2 occurs. This means 1 CO2 molecule is added to a group of 10000 air molecules and 4 CO2 molecules.
    If this extra CO2 molecule increases the average temperature and therefor the average kinetic energy of the group of 10000 airmolecules with say only 1% then it should have an kinetic energy equal to the total kinetic energy of 100 airmolecules !!!.

    The extra CO2 molecule receives its radiation energy from a small band in the infrared spectrum radiating from a surface with an average temperature of only 15 degrees Celcius .

    The CO2 molecule must also transfers all the radiation energy it receives into kinetic energy and not into internal energy ?????.

    If all this is true we should have great respect for CO2 the SUPERMOL

  15. Take a look at this paper by Hansen:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1984/Hansen_etal_1.html

    Click on the Download PDF at the bottom, and you’ll see where he gets his figures.
    He assumes a feedback of 1.6 for water vapor, 1.3 for clouds, and 1.1 for ice/albedo effects.

    I think the feeback factors are overestimated, but take a look at equations
    #10 and #12. Anyone who has taken high school algebra should be able to figure out that they’re obviously wrong.

    for a multiplier of 1.6, lambda must be 0.375 for water vapor, since 1/(1-0.375) = 1.6.
    likewise, lambda must be 0.231 for clouds and 0.091 for ice/albedo feedback, using Hansen’s figures.

    Hansen plugged in 1/(1 -.375-.231-.091) and got a multiplier effect of 3.3 total times the original increase of around 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.

    Using Hansen’s equation, with 3 multiplier effects of 0.333… each, you get a combinded multiplier effect of
    1/(1 – .333… -.333…-.333…)= infinity.

    Using 4 feedbacks with lambda of 0.333, each, you get a multiplier of 1/(-.333) = MINUS 3, so instead of an increase of 1.2 C, you plug in that -3 multiplier and get a DROP of 3.6 C – obviously the equation is flawed badly.

  16. Achab

    So you are suggesting to hide error behind complexity? That is funny, because it is indeed the MO of climate science – like the hockey stick.

  17. Indeed. The Alps, which are about the same height as the mountains in Antartica, are 20Celsius warmer than those at the COAST at the south pole. Doesn’t stop them having glaciers at the top however.

    These “scientists” seem awfully keen to prove we are all going to be inundated with water. As I keep saying, the way to test this is not by awkward satellite measurements and models of ice sublimation at the poles. The simplest approach is to look at how much land mass is actually disappearing under the waves. Now why don’t they actually apply themselves to the simple task of comparing maps of the world’s coastlines from the last 100 years or so and measuring the difference? A few weeks spent in the British Museum Library and a paper could readily be put together. Interestingly the British Museum has a special exhibition on “Magnificent Maps” right now.

    Why are they so intent on peering closely at an individual tree when they could take a good look at the whole forest?

  18. sod

    You are quite confused. The UofA mass balance site is 8 miles NE of the city of Barrow webcam, and there is still plenty of ice there.
    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

    Here is a video to help you understand. A chunk of ice broke off from adjacent to the city of Barrow a few days ago.

    The North Pole never sees any melt until average temperatures get above zero C.
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/

    Looks like you just struck out.

  19. RR Kampen says:
    July 2, 2010 at 5:26 am
    “but just for fun, let’s pretend that the next 150 ppm increase really did raise temperatures by 5C. What would that do to Antarctica? As you can see below, it would move the summer 0°C line inwards maybe 50 miles.”

    Comparable to temperature rises at the end of an ice age. It DOES melt the Scandinavian sheets, for example. It does so from the low lying edges. Thicker ice in the centre then runs out with accelerating speed, thinning the entire cap until it eventually reaches the freezing level.

    But that 5° C is just a scary daydream, of course.
    ———————————————————————————

    Um, but you forgot something. It still snows on glaciers….Glaciers are about snowfall… not temperature. With a 5C rise there would be higher snow fall…. Glaciers would probably advance, not retract.

  20. “Ah – but what about Polar Amplification? While the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.”

    Therefore, a 5C rise in global temperature couldn’t melt much of the Antarctic ice sheet?

    I don’t know about that logic.

  21. In response to Hank W : July 2, 2010 at 6:04 am .

    LoL… Aye, that’s the way I’ve looked at it also….. If a CO2 molecule was that powerful…. It’d have to wear its underpants on th’ outside;-)

  22. One of the signs of bad theories or science, i.e. research headed off on the wrong track, is an enormous amount of complexity. The basic idea behind AGW is simple, but trying to make it fit with what we actually observe, involves incredibly tortuous adjustments and explanations.

  23. E = hv, where v (“nu”) is the frequency of black-body electromagnetic radiation EMR, is trivial mathematics, high school algebra. On this basis, quantum physics is not complex, but rather subtle to the nth degree. Maxwell in the 1860s stated that all of physics’ fundamental equations could easily be traced upon his palm… if that offends credentialed sensibilities, so be it.

  24. RR Kampen says:
    July 2, 2010 at 5:26 am
    Comparable to temperature rises at the end of an ice age.
    You can’t seriously be comparing our current climate to that at the end of an ice age. Apples to rutabagas.

  25. Current levels of CO2 have a historical precedence for an Ice free Arctic at much higher temperatures, as discussed here,

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/uoca-acm062910.php

    “A new study shows the Arctic climate system may be more sensitive to greenhouse warming than previously thought, and that current levels of Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide may be high enough to bring about significant, irreversible shifts in Arctic ecosystems.

    Led by the University of Colorado at Boulder, the international study indicated that while the mean annual temperature on Ellesmere Island in the High Arctic during the Pliocene Epoch 2.6 to 5.3 million years ago was about 34 degrees Fahrenheit, or 19 degrees Celsius, warmer than today, CO2 levels were only slightly higher than present.

    Our findings indicate that CO2 levels of approximately 400 parts per million are sufficient to produce mean annual temperatures in the High Arctic of approximately 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F),” Ballantyne said. “As temperatures approach 0 degrees Celsius, it becomes exceedingly difficult to maintain permanent sea and glacial ice in the Arctic. Thus current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere of approximately 390 parts per million may be approaching a tipping point for irreversible ice-free conditions in the Arctic.”

    Considering CO2 levels have only really hit significantly ‘anomolous’ levels in the last 40 years, and the Arctic is well on the way to becoming summer ice free, seems that a measily 30% rise in CO2 has a pretty big influence on the geosphere.

  26. @Bruce Cobb

    ‘“The risk just builds with every extra kilogram of CO2 we put in the air,” says Keith, who likens CO2 to nuclear waste.”

    C02 is like nuclear waste? Amazing. Belief in CAGW/CC really does seem to be a type of mental illness.’

    Aye, CDPD–Carbon Depraved Personality Disorder. Common symptoms: Grandiosity, Megalomania, Paranoid Delusional, and eventually Self incrimination.

  27. “Ice does not melt below freezing. Warmer winter temperatures would mean more snow.”

    Last time I watched a snow covered house, (temperature -4C) with ice pinnacles hanging from the gutter. The shadow side reflected that fact, but on the sun exposed side the snow had mostly melted and the pinnacles were dripping.

  28. RR Kampen

    The viscosity of ice at Antarctic temperatures is extremely high. You aren’t going to see any rapid flow of ice with a +5C change in temperature.

    Much of the ice is also burying mountain ranges, and the assumption that there is a downwards slope under the ice is incorrect. Not to mention isostasy, which has formed a very deep bowl shaped depression in the mantle at the center of Antarctica.

  29. Curious Yellow

    What is the angle of the sun at the South Pole? Hint, the highest it ever gets is 23.5 degrees above the horizon. Do you think that Antarctica receives much solar energy?

  30. Curious Yellow

    Also, do you think that Antarctica is underlain by dark shingles and a central heating system? Have you ever seen icicles form at -30 to -80 C?

  31. Fred says:
    July 2, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Frank K . . . You’ve nailed it.

    When it looks like their Gravy Train is slowing down, or they feel the need for more time on the Fame Train, they just make up some sh*t and issue a press release to the media.

    People become journalists because math & science were too difficult for them at college.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Actually journalism is controlled by who OWNS the presses. I have seen this first hand on two occasions where the power of the nationwide press was used to spread lies and intentionally destroy an industry.

    There seems to be some good news on this front though:

    Transcript/Video Daniel Estulin Bilderberg Speech at EU Parliament

    “..We can all congratulate ourselves in that today, Bilderberg has become the mainstay of corporate media. Not because corporate media has suddenly remembered their responsibility to us, but because we the people, have forced them into this uncomfortable position by becoming very aware that Presidents and Prime Ministers and your little shrinking Queens and Kings are puppets of powerful forces working from behind the scenes….”

    Bilderberg by the way are the financial power brokers.
    “..In the world of international finance, there are those who steer the events and those who react to the events. While the latter are better known, greater in numbers, and seemingly more powerful, the true power rests with the former. At the centre of the global financial system are the financial oligarchy today represented by the Bilderberg group… The idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting is … the best way to manage the planet. In other words, the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity…”

    Remember the dust up at Copenhagen when the “Danish text” draft agreement was leaked? “The “Danish text” hands control of the global adaptation fund to the World Bank”

    You can not separate CAGW from the politics involved or the money. Actually CAGW is all about politics, “science” is just the candy coating used to disguise the poison. If it was only about science Climategate and the IPCC gates would have killed it dead by now and the media would have had a feeding frenzy that would have made the original Watergate look like an old ladies’ tea party. Instead the journalists have ignored the potential Pulitzer Prize-winning opportunities, and that takes big money and tight control.

  32. Steven Goddard: You wrote, “While the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.”

    Then you show a GISTEMP Land Surface Temperature trend map (1950 to 2009) to further confirm that the “Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c.” Apparently you didn’t plot the data, because, if you had, you would not have used it as an example. GISTEMP Antarctic Land Surface Temperature anomalies (1200km smoothing) show a positive linear trend of 0.13 deg C/decade.

    Also Polar Amplification does not apply to the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. Refer to the Wikipedia discussion on Polar Ampolification. They write in the opening paragraph, “Polar amplification is defined by International Arctic Science Committee on page 23 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ‘Polar amplification (greater temperature increases in the Arctic compared to the earth as a whole) is a result of the collective effect of these feedbacks and other processes.'[1] It does not apply to the Antarctic, because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink.”

  33. jcrabb,

    An intelligent person might have concluded that the increase in temperature had nothing to do with CO2. We are currently at 400ppm, and temperatures in the high Arctic remain very cold. Do you realize how daft this is?

    Led by the University of Colorado at Boulder, the international study indicated that while the mean annual temperature on Ellesmere Island in the High Arctic during the Pliocene Epoch 2.6 to 5.3 million years ago was about 34 degrees Fahrenheit, or 19 degrees Celsius, warmer than today, CO2 levels were only slightly higher than present.

    Our findings indicate that CO2 levels of approximately 400 parts per million are sufficient to produce mean annual temperatures in the High Arctic of approximately 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F),” Ballantyne said.

  34. The movement that demands we impose policies to manage the climate by regulating CO2 is a social mania, not a science-based movement. Scientists who enable this movement in the way that this report and so many others have only serve to make the mania worse not better.

    Pielke, jr. at his site shows a direct correlation between decarbonization and AGW hype.

    The relationship is inverse – as the hype has increased, the rate of decarbonization has decreased.

    Not one thing the AGW movement has predicted has come to pass. Not one policy the AGW movement has imposed has worked to reduce CO2. The only people who have benefited from AGW have been those who profited off of promoting it, studying it or selling AGW imposed purchases for software, programs or equipment.

  35. David Keith is riding the wave of guilt that gripped rich oil executive in Calgary. An American, obscure researcher and as this piece of junk alarmism proves, a perfect candidate for a Canadian university to promote his own research on gullible people who feel they need to get on the bandwagon of green, sustainable… funding for self serving average scientists.
    The fact this reporter cannot identified the colleagues -most IPCC members of course who else and in Canada we know well who’s funding depends on keeping the alarmism going- shows how biased, uninformative this drivel is. This is not information but advertisement.

    So David Keith, mister CO2 bubble on UofC ads, whose research on wind turbine fields and climate change are among the most questionable pieces of literature out there, is preaching and selling his institute for guilt ridden retired oilmen and this newspaper obliges.

  36. Wouldn’t less ice be a good thing? If I was trying to live there, I would want less ice.

  37. As the article states, Keith is an engineer, not a “climate expert.” I haven’t seen “100 metres” or “knock out the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets” in any mainstream analyses of the effects of 5°C increase.

  38. The “risk of rapid or extreme warming are larger than what you would get by reading the IPCC” reports, he says. The UN reports are used at international talks aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions.
    But on the flip side, Keith says the survey also found a higher than expected chance of seeing less warming than expected.

    Aaaaaah, yeeeeesssss, the old double whammy of simultaneous warming and cooling.

    Curious Yellow: July 2, 2010 at 6:51 am
    The shadow side reflected that fact, but on the sun exposed side the snow had mostly melted and the pinnacles were dripping.

    Hmmmmmm — could the shingles on the roof possibly have been *black*?

  39. Achab says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:00 am

    “Actually I can’t see much science in this post, unless we should call science trivial math applied to complex problems.”

    “More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we’ll get five degrees C warming ..”

    That’s not trivial math, that’s bs statistical acrobatics. But the fact of the matter is, climate science is in essence, mathematics. Even climate science apologist Oxburgh understands the relationship between climate studies and math. “it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.” Your “complex problems” are nothing more than math as an expression of the problems. No matter how trivial, it is of the utmost import to get it correct. So, now you are armed with knowledge, the next time you hear someone whining about melting polar caps, you know that H2O still freezes at 32 degrees F or 0 degrees C. Will you share your new found knowledge or will you remain silent quietly believing the end justifies the means and it is for the greater good?

  40. dorlomin says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Eemian interglacial was only 2C warmer with oceans about 7m higher.

    Oh and scienceofdoom had something to say about Mr Goddards Venus theory
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/

    But I have yet too see him respond, clearly Steve needs to teach scienceofdoom some science.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Why should he? The debate was already pretty fierce here at WUWT in the comments on his two articles on Venus.

  41. Gail

    Yea, anyone who believes that atmospheric composition has more effect on air temperature than does pressure, should try opening the door on their airplane at 35,000 feet.

    The CO2 concentration is about the same up there. Temperatures should be about the same?

  42. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:57 am

    As much as the North Pole

    stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:59 am

    You were talking about 0.0C

  43. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Wren

    What do you get if you multiply5C by 0.0?
    —————————————-
    thanks for the good laugh this morning Steve. It makes me realize how little you actually know about the physical climate system.

    I would love to see you give a name of a scientist that says a 5oC warming is enough to melt all of Antarctica, or Greenland for that matter. There must be a paper published someplace that can back this up right? Some engineer is doing a survey and makes a flippant statement to a reporter and you conclude that scientists have no idea how to do math? You must be getting desperate.

    I’m curious why you didn’t bother quoting other lines from the article? What I got out of it is that scientists are very uncertain how much the planet will warm by the end of the century.

  44. Climate sensitivity is logarithmic. The last 120 ppm produced 0.7C warming. How does the next 150 produce 5C warming?

    Climate sensitivity is not “logarithmic:” it’s a static measure of the temperature increase caused by a doubling of CO2.

    What you’re probably referring to is the relationship between radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (let’s see if HTML escape codes work here) Δ T = &#923 Δ F, since the formula for calculating forcing due to CO2 – Δ F = 5.35 ln(C/C0) – involves a logarithm.

  45. According to AGW theory Conjecture, the greatest warming should occur in the coldest latitudes. The fact that the Antarctic, along with the rest of the planet, is in a cooling trend pretty much debunks the CAGW conjecture. And Prof Richard Lindzen notes that equatorial temperatures have not varied by even 1°C for the past billion years.

    And of course there is still zero empirical, testable evidence that CO2 has any effect on global temperature; the jury is still out, but no smoking gun has been found. At this point the CO2 bugaboo is looking more and more like a magician’s smoke and mirrors, designed only to keep the grant gravy train from being derailed.

  46. R R kampen says:

    “Comparable to temperature rises at the end of an ice age. It DOES melt the Scandinavian sheets, for example. It does so from the low lying edges. Thicker ice in the centre then runs out with accelerating speed, thinning the entire cap until it eventually reaches the freezing level.”

    Not so. The temperatures in Scandinavia after the end of Younger Dryas were actually warmer than today (which is proven by the treeline which was higher than at present), so a very large part of the ice-cap would have been above zero in summer. This is also proven by the fact that in very large areas in northern and central Scandinavia the ice-cap melted as “dödis” (dead ice), i e it it had stopped accumulating and moving and was just lying there and melting by downwasting. Even so the melting took about 2000 years.
    During the previous interglacial it was about 5 degrees warmer in Greenland, and while the icecap shrank a bit it was certainly not “knocked out”.

  47. sod says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:02 am
    temperature is measured in 1.5 m high and shadow.
    monthly averages might hide temperatures that allow melting.
    Steven, your ideas about temperatures below 0°C seem confused to me.
    ps: how about that Barrow ice?

    How about daily mean! http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  48. Paul Daniel Ash says:

    “Climate sensitivity is not “logarithmic:” it’s a static measure of the temperature increase caused by a doubling of CO2. ”

    Yes, so each doubling causes an equal increase in temperature. From 300 to 600 ppm has the same effect as from 600 to 1200, from 1200 to 2400 or from 2400 to 4800. Pray what is that, if not an inverse logarithmic response?

  49. I Love CO2
    Carbon Dioxide Can Be Fuel for Cars

    Solar-powered reactors can take carbon dioxide and turn it into carbon monoxide. The same reactors can also be used to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen. The two can then be reacted together with a catalyst to form hydrocarbon fuels, in a technique known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. Fuels made in this way are sufficiently similar to those currently used in cars that major redesigns of engines and refueling stations won’t be needed.

    Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington at Stanford University, California told New Scientist. “This area holds out the promise for technologies that can produce large amounts of carbon-neutral power at affordable prices, which can be used where and when that power is needed. It is one of the few technology areas that could truly revolutionise our energy future.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18993-green-machine-cars-could-run-on-sunlight-and-co2.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=motoring-tech

  50. Paul Daniel Ash says:
    July 2, 2010 at 8:07 am

    And you know only too well that the constant 5.25 is fictious.

  51. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 7:48 am
    Matt

    The ice has broken away at the city of Barrow, but has not changed at Point Barrow where they are currently estimating breakup on July 7.

    This page was updated today
    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

    No they are currently estimating breakup at NARL as July 7, however they are continually forecasting the shortwave flux low, certainly no longer on target for “Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?”.
    Compare this: http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/melt-out_small1.png
    with the current plot: http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

    You also asserted that “there has been no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week”, whereas several miles of landfast ice broke up and left the shoreline. Current radar is showing losses from the pressure ridges off NARL so it may not make it for a further 5 days.

  52. hunter says:
    July 2, 2010 at 7:12 am

    The movement that demands we impose policies to manage the climate by regulating CO2 is a social mania…

    The only people who have benefited from AGW have been those who profited off of promoting it, studying it or selling AGW imposed purchases for software, programs or equipment.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    You forgot two other groups, the most important two groups:

    Organized Crime:
    EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS “In the early hours of Friday morning, UK tax authorities raided a series of homes and businesses nabbing four men that are believed to be part of an organised criminal gang suspected of ETS carbon trade fraud worth £38 million (€44m)….

    However, the development is unrelated to the 25 arrests made earlier this month in the UK and Germany when authorities engaged in a blitz of raids on hundreds of sites in the two countries, including on Deutsche Bank and energy firm RWE, in a case involving the theft of an estimated €180 miillion from state revenues.”

    The other group is more subtle: the bankers.

    Think about it they collect interest on ALL that money that is changing hands. All the new factories, wind mill farms, solar farms and all the government borrowing to pay for the subsidies to those “Green Companies” not to mention the carbon derivative market, and all the money borrowed to get in on the next big bubble. Bankers are the ones set to win really really big since they collect interest on most of the revenue streams.

    Speculating on Carbon: The Next Toxic Asset
    “The carbon derivative market could be worth $2 trillion USD by 2017… Since cash prices follow
    futures prices, a carbon derivatives market will have a systemic
    effect on agricultural prices
    ….. the
    sharp projected increase in the volume and value of carbon
    derivatives contracts will induce volatility in agricultural
    cash and futures prices.
    ..”

    Just what we need higher energy costs ,higher unemployment and volatile food prices.

    A few things to remember:

    “….90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.”

    AND

    * One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.

    * Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.

    * With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” PRESIDENT’S PRIVATE SECTOR SURVEY ON COST CONTROL: January 12, 1984

  53. Matt says:
    July 2, 2010 at 7:12 am
    Steve,

    The mass balance probe in Barrow is no longer operational. From http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel

    “The Mass Balance Probe was recovered from the ice and is not operational anymore since 14 June 2010.”

    Every indication I’ve seen shows the shorefast ice is gone. I believe it is you who is quite confused.

    Nope, still some shorefast ice there at 1215 Zulu time today, though it will probably be gone in another day or two, see for yourself:

  54. Phil.

    That was one of your worst posts.

    As discussed yesterday, long range weather forecasts change constantly. The WRF cloud forecast has changed over the last week – you surprised?

    And yes, the ice did break away from the city of Barrow, after I wrote the article.

    Are you one of those people who bets on the outcome of games after they are played?

  55. Mr Goddard’s maths seem to be a bit askew.

    Although not specifically mentioned in the source article, I think we ought to assume that the 5°C they are talking about is a change in the average temperature of the planet. It should not be taken as an even temperature rise around the whole surface of the globe.

    An average temperature for the surface atmosphere of the planet at any moment has to be derived from temperature measurements taken from the entire surface, the more the better. It is perfectly possible to conceive of two sets of temperatures (or any numbers in fact) that differ in their average by only a few degrees and yet which contain massive differences in individual temperatures.

    In addition, do not forget that the Earth is (nearly) a sphere and that the area around a few degrees of longitude at its middle (the tropics) is much greater than the same few degrees at the poles. Depending how the sets are constructed, this will of course have a dramatic effect on the way averages come out – polar temperatures being proportionately less significant for the average.

    So someone can posit a 5°C average temperature rise with 40+°C at the poles. I’m not saying this will happen, just that it is not an illogical statement, as Mr Goddard seems to think.

    Does WUWT need some peer review before posting? The AGW crowd will pounce on this post (quite rightly IMO).

  56. Kate says at 8:29 am [ … ]

    I have a question: why would anyone go through the hassle of converting CO2 into CO, and H2O into O2 and H2, to make a product so similar to fossil fuel that it can be used in internal combustion engines?

    Doesn’t it make more sense to cut out the middle man, and just use highly efficient, readily available, abundant fossil fuel?

    Oh, wait… Ken Caldeira… New Scientist. Now I see the agenda.

  57. Temperature moves upwards by a constant amount with each doubling of CO2. That is a logarithmic function. T ~ 2^n

    2^n is an exponential function, genius.

  58. Smokey says:
    July 2, 2010 at 8:16 am
    And Prof Richard Lindzen notes that equatorial temperatures have not varied by even 1°C for the past billion years.

    If he says that the data says that he’s wrong.
    E.g.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5650/1551
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104706.htm

    “The new proxy was used in this sediment core to obtain both a continental and a sea surface temperature record. A comparison of both records shows that ocean surface and land temperatures behaved differently during the past 25,000 years. During the last ice age, temperatures over tropical Africa were 21°C, about 4°C lower than today, whereas the tropical Atlantic Ocean was only about 2.5°C colder.”

    Etc.

  59. See what a good education at Harvard will get you? Since its beyond 20 they do not have enough fingers and toes. One fellow there recently got a PhD by explaining how to get to 26 by using both ears, both eyes your nose and your mouth. More seriously the Smithsonian Astro Lab is a good place, but you can keep the rest of that section of Cambridge. Harvard, because not everyone is smart enough to get into MIT.

  60. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 2, 2010 at 7:32 am
    Curious Yellow: July 2, 2010 at 6:51 am
    The shadow side reflected that fact, but on the sun exposed side the snow had mostly melted and the pinnacles were dripping.

    Hmmmmmm — could the shingles on the roof possibly have been *black*?

    Yes they could have; under a layer of snow!!!

  61. hhmmm…. if the oceans cool….they retain atmospheric gas….. hhmmmm if the oceans warm…they release atmospheric gas.

    Therefore, whence the oceans are warmer, the atmosphere must be thicker? hmmm …Let us think now. Oh my gracious, could it be that Death Valley CA (-282 MSL) is warmer than Central City CO (8510 MSL)? Does a thicker atmosphere mean warmer???

    Now then, whence the sun goes down at night….hmmm it gets colder and…..hmmm whence the sun returns it gets warmer. hhmmm Oh my goshess… There must be more solar affect during day than at night… uffda….. I wonder if total solar irradiance could possibly affect the temperature…hhhmmmm… of the surface?? How brilliant!!! (Punn intended). ;)

  62. T ~ log2(N) or N ~ 2^T

    What does this mean… what is N (CO2 concentration?), what is ~ (“approximates?”) and what is your argument? Temperature increases as the common log of CO2 concentration?

    The formulae used are:

    Δ T(s) = λ RF
    where T(s) is surface air temp, λ is climate sensitivity and RF is radiative forcing.
    λ is currently estimated at 3°K ± 1.5°, RF for CO2 alone is 5.35 ln(C/C0)

    Note that looking at this forcing alone doesn’t take into account forcings for other GHGs, solar cooling, volcanic emissions, ocean heat uptake etc. etc. etc. Yes, it’s complex. We live on a planet.

  63. S Goddard,

    Indeed it does sound daft, but considering just how quickly, on a Geological scale, the Arctic is collapsing, one wonders if the system is more sensitive to rising temperatures than previously thought.
    Also, CO2 levels have only been around 400 ppm for a very short time, so it could be pre-emptive to consider Global temperature rise thus far to be the total result.
    To hazard a guess I would say that over time, a long time, once heat sinks have been exausted, ie ice melted, seas warmed etc, perhaps ‘low’ CO2 levels can drive up temperatures to that proposed in the paper.

  64. Common sense would indicate that the logarithmic effect of CO2 is only an APPROXIMATION, and cannot be accurate for all values. Consider the drop in CO2 from 1 molecule to zero molecules. Plug in the logarithm difference and you get something like minus infinity. For a small number of molecules the effect must be roughly linear. As the quantity of molecules increases gradually, the forcing APPROXIMATES a logarithmic effect once a certain density is reached. Incidentally, even that approximation refers to WATTS rather than temperature. Since temperature is proportional to the 4th root of the wattage flux, temperatures will increase even slower than that logarithmic approximation.

  65. Peter Czerna

    Apparently you either didn’t read the entire article or didn’t understand the part about polar amplification. Antarctica is the slowest warming place on the planet. Satellite data shows it cooling.

    Try reading the entire article before writing long-winded criticisms.

  66. I have just read the following, about MODELS (non-fashion related, just in case):
    ectoplasm generated by a previous excursion into computer models and equations….
    ……..The most important issue separating the Electric Universe from conventional views is that evidence based in laboratory experiments can be used to support EU theories of cosmogony. The mainstream sinks its foundations in ground where computer models and complex equations are used for support. It is this philosophical divergence that inhibits the general acceptance of plasma and electricity as active agents in space.
    By Stephen Smith

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100702truth.htm

  67. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 8:52 am
    Phil – this satellite image might help out

    http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/barrowcloseup1.jpg

    Yeah it proves you don’t know where NARL is!

    Try this one: http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup/bathymetry.png

    stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 8:48 am
    Phil.

    That was one of your worst posts.

    As discussed yesterday, long range weather forecasts change constantly. The WRF cloud forecast has changed over the last week – you surprised?

    No, but you saw fit to rely on it to make a post predicting a record late breakup of the Barrow fast ice! I didn’t notice any lack of confidence in the WRF cloud forecast when you wrote a post that relied on it.

    And yes, the ice did break away from the city of Barrow, after I wrote the article.

    I don’t know when you wrote it but the post was dated June 26, 2010 whereas the fast ice off Barrow broke up early morning June 25th according to the radar.
    Here’s a webcam view for the morning of the 26th:

    Are you one of those people who bets on the outcome of games after they are played?
    No I don’t bet. However to continue the betting analogy you appeared to bet on the loser after the game was over!

  68. How about daily mean!

    daily mean also is irrelevant. melting will be caused by daily max temperature above 0°C.

  69. stevengoddard replied, “UAH shows cooling in Antarctica.”

    My comment was not about UAH TLT anomalies. It was about the GISTEMP trend map you posted that showed a warming of Antarctica, not a cooling.

  70. stevengoddard replied, “Quick question for you. If GISS shows 1.7 global and 1.3 for Antarctica, just how much polar amplification is that? ;^)”

    I already answered that question in my earlier comment. But here it is again:

    Also Polar Amplification does not apply to the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. Refer to the Wikipedia discussion on Polar Ampilification. They write in the opening paragraph, “Polar amplification is defined by International Arctic Science Committee on page 23 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ‘Polar amplification (greater temperature increases in the Arctic compared to the earth as a whole) is a result of the collective effect of these feedbacks and other processes.’[1] It does not apply to the Antarctic, because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink.”

  71. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 7:44 am
    Bob Tisdale

    UAH shows cooling in Antarctica.

    Interesting considering UAH can’t make TLT measurements there.

  72. Steve,

    You keep referring to this 0°C number, which of course is a magical number, but I’m curious what the actual melting temperature is for ice (by zone) in the antarctic? Can’t sit in the middle of all that salt for zillions of centuries and not pick a little bit up, can it?

  73. [snip]

    I’m still waiting for a response to my post from almost anhour ago asking what your argument is. What are you trying to express with all these exponential functions and common logs?

  74. Buffoon

    Glacial ice comes from snow. Snow comes from freshwater evaporated (distilled) out of the ocean. The freezing point of fresh water is 0C. That is how 0C is defined.

  75. lol, dang Steve, you sure bring out the critics. Uhmm, definition —-the logarithm of a number to a given base is the power or exponent to which the base must be raised in order to produce that number. ——nice circular discussion, ladies. I’m not sure if it is even pertinent to the discussion. What I took from the article is there is really a great bit of uncertainty about our climate, and specifically the polar caps. Of course, the uncertainty is expressed in alarmist terms. I also believe the thrust of Mr. Goddard’s posting is there really shouldn’t be too much concern about the melting of the caps……not that I was worried to begin with. As it has been pointed out, H2O freezes at the temperature of 0 degrees C. It doesn’t really matter what the anomaly is, as long as the actual temp stays under 0 in most of the area. I think we’re safe so far. Or, we could panic and run out and buy life jackets if that would make people sleep better. I don’t know why you guys don’t just go ahead and get to the base of the argument and start talking about chickens and eggs.

  76. sod

    Over huge bodies of ice which are close to the melting point, the daily mean temperature in the summer only varies by a degree or two maximum. The heat absorbed by the melting process doesn’t allow the temperature to ever get more than a degree or so above freezing. This is clearly evident at the north pole.

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

  77. Wikipedia, ouch. Now there is an authoritatively legitimate peer reviewed consensus source of real science periodically corrected 10% of the time by 50% of users. Not…

  78. Paul Daniel Ash says:
    July 2, 2010 at 9:17 am

    ….simply that no matter how much CO2 you add to the atmosphere, temperatures WOULD increase just very, very little.
    But that’s taking that factor ALONE. But if you consider that:
    The atmosphere, the air you know, does not have the capacity to “hold” enough heat, it only “saves” 0.001297 joules per cubic centimeter, while water , the sea you know, has 3227 times that capacity (4.186 joules).
    Would you warm your feet with a bottle filled with air or filled with hot water?

    You will arrive at the conclusion that: No matter how beautiful models are, they couldn’t get what they expected: A HOT SPOT of saved heat in the tropical atmosphere. Sorry, the earth has no CEILING, so warm goes up, up and away!
    If we had no seas we were not talking about these things but frozen under miles of ice.
    So, the next time you go to the sea shore, thank Mare Nostrum, our sea, our Holy Mary. See?

  79. Paul Daniel Ash

    I have responded numerous times, you just don’t seem to be up to speed with the science.

    As Gavin clearly states at RealClimate, temperature should increase by a fixed amount with each doubling of CO2. That is a logarithmic function. Each additional 100 ppm has less temperature effect that the previous 100 ppm. The first 100 ppm has by far the most effect.

    If you want confirmation from Gavin, go ask him at realclimate.com

  80. Bob T. quoted: “It does not apply to the Antarctic, because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink.”

    Bob, on your website (post dated July 28, 2008) you show a profile of projected warming from a doubling of CO2:

    While smaller than the Arctic, the southern polar region shows a warming as great as at the north pole or up at 300mb.

  81. Post modern climate experts will be remembered as the meta psychologists of the beginning of the XX century but spending your tax money in virtual ectoplasmatic formations generated by previous computer models and by aplying esoteric equations from a well known astrophysicist who came from the realm of the twilight zone..

  82. Buffoon says:
    July 2, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Steve,

    “You keep referring to this 0°C number, which of course is a magical number, but I’m curious what the actual melting temperature is for ice (by zone) in the antarctic? Can’t sit in the middle of all that salt for zillions of centuries and not pick a little bit up, can it?”

    While I don’t believe Wikipedia is authoritative, it’ll suffice for this question, because of the generality of the answer. Sea water freezing point is defined by the salinity, so it varies. But it only varies in a couple of degrees F. I believe the coldest liquid form of H2O found naturally occurring was at 27 F. However, if you’re referring to the Antarctic continent, then you’re talking about fresh water which again, freezes at 0 degrees C.(slightly dependent on elevation or gasp, pressure.)

  83. @Curious Yellow says:

    ‘Last time I watched a snow covered house, (temperature -4C) with ice pinnacles hanging from the gutter. The shadow side reflected that fact, but on the sun exposed side the snow had mostly melted and the pinnacles were dripping.’

    The obvious response might be, where in antarctica is your house situated?

    Another obvious response might be, do you heat your house at all during winter? If so, Where do you think that heat goes? And what do you think happens with the ice when it is heated from two sides at once?

    And actually the snow on the shadow side of a house also melts, faster the thicker the snow cover is due to stuff like pressure, insolation, and heating the roof from the inside, it’s just not as obvious.

  84. Phil,

    Have you crawled or walked 8 miles lately? Missed a runway by 8 miles? 8 miles is huge when put into the appropriate perspective.

  85. Foley says: “Wikipedia, ouch. Now there is an authoritatively legitimate peer reviewed consensus source of real science periodically corrected 10% of the time by 50% of users. Not…”

    Yeah, I laugh every time a troll comes on here and thinks he’s going to blow away the post by referring to something in Wankapedia. It’s like trying to refute Galileo by citing a Papal bull.

  86. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 10:18 am
    Phil,

    The mass balance site is located 8 miles away from the web cam. The ice has not broken up there yet. Is that difficult to understand?

    The break up prediction which you based your post on referred to the NARL which is not at the former site of the mass balance measurements. Is that so difficult to understand?

    stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Phil,

    AMSU covers almost all of Antarctica

    But UAH to which you referred does not! You should read up on how the UAH tropospheric temperatures are measured, you appear not to be up to speed despite repeated attempts to explain it to you.

    stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 10:08 am
    The freezing point of fresh water is 0C. That is how 0C is defined.

    Not since 1954, the definition of the Celsius scale is defined as the triple point of water = 0.1ºC.

  87. Foley says:
    July 2, 2010 at 11:12 am
    Phil,

    Have you crawled or walked 8 miles lately?
    I run or bike that much every day.
    Missed a runway by 8 miles?
    Only once, but in fairness it was at night and the rotating beacon was out, it only delayed me by about 10 mins.

    8 miles is huge when put into the appropriate perspective.

    Indeed, but it is Steve who’s out by about 4 miles!

  88. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:57 am
    What is the angle of the sun at the South Pole? Hint, the highest it ever gets is 23.5 degrees above the horizon. Do you think that Antarctica receives much solar energy?
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Yes, Antarctica receives a lot of solar energy. At the South Pole, an average of (pi/4)/2 * sin23.5 * (~1kW/m2) = ~157W/m2, sufficient to melt over 20m of ice a year from a temperature of -30C, or evaporate 2m/yr! Realistically, given the high albedo of 80-90% it will only manage about a tenth of that. This still means that ablation and sublimation can remove ~200mm of ice per year, which is far from insignificant.

    In the absence of wind, which removes heat by ablation and sublimation, the ice would melt at the surface during the summer, to a depth ~1m. Remember that the day is six months long.

    It does your case and your reputation no good to keep repeating the “ice does not melt below freezing” fallacy. Ice is lost through ablation, sublimation and glacial flow at temperatures far below freezing; and the magnitude of these effects is comparable with that of precipition (snow) and deposition (frost) or, at equilibrium, equal. However cold it is, these losses are still temperature dependent. If the temperature rises, they will in general increase. Now, you are very likely correct in thinking that in a warmer, wetter climate, precipitation and deposition will increase more than ablation and sublimation, and that there will therefore be a net ice gain. But this is by no means a foregone conclusion. Depending on the details of the weather patterns, the opposite could be true. Or both could be true, at different phases of the PDO or El Nino, etc.

    Whatever the loss mechanisms, the quantity of ice in the Antarctic is so huge that no plausible climate shift could seriously deplete it on timescales less than tens of thousands of years, so the more apocalyptic scenarios are clearly bunk; but this does not exclude less drastic but still significant changes.

  89. Enneagram says:
    July 2, 2010 at 10:57 am
    Post modern climate experts will be remembered as the meta psychologists of the beginning of the XX century but spending your tax money in virtual ectoplasmatic formations generated by previous computer models and by aplying esoteric equations from a well known astrophysicist who came from the realm of the twilight zone..

    ____________

    This is fairly funny…completely wrong…but funny.

  90. Phil. says:
    July 2, 2010 at 11:32 am

    “Not since 1954, the definition of the Celsius scale is defined as the triple point of water = 0.1ºC.”

    While we’re nitpicking, I believe that’s 0.01 C. But then, the difference is so slight, that its hardly worth mentioning.

  91. Now that the trolls have done their work for the day, I would like to see more talk about the Venus story. We have a great opportunity to simply refute an article written up about how Venus is hot “because of CO2”. Lets not let the trolls distract us with their silly comments that show they are paid undergrads getting Government funds to troll these forums.

  92. Phil,

    What is it that you are arguing about? The ice has not broken up at either the NARL site or the mass balance site. Both are several miles up the coast NE of Barrow. Do you think that your arguing about it is going to make the ice go away?

    People were claiming that the ice is gone, but it isn’t. Why don’t you make a very clear statement that the ice has not broken up yet? Or is it your purpose to create confusion?

    Unbelievable.

  93. Phil,

    Again, UAH reports Antarctica temperatures. You stated that they can’t do that. Your statement was incorrect. Why don’t you make a clear statement of correction?

  94. Ben

    If you replaced earth’s atmospheric composition with that of Venus (at one atmosphere pressure) Earth would be much colder than it is now. That is because of the lack of water vapour.

  95. @Steven Goddard 9:25

    “Apparently you either didn’t read the entire article or didn’t understand the part about polar amplification. Antarctica is the slowest warming place on the planet. Satellite data shows it cooling.

    Try reading the entire article before writing long-winded criticisms.”

    Little thin-skinned today, aren’t we?

    Your response assumes too much. I read but took no issue with your remarks about polar amplification or with the warming or cooling of Antarctica. I entirely agree with you that the article in the Vancouver Sun is nonsense.

    But your article has the headline: “AGW Mathematics : -30 + 5 = 0” and then you go onto write “The experts seem to be having a little difficulty with their maths.” The title is rubbish and you should correct it.

  96. Matt says:
    July 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    James,

    “You might want to look at supercooled water… water can be liquid at temperatures far lower than 0C/32F. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSPzMva9_CE

    Yeh, I’m aware of the under-cooling process, I was referring to the naturally occurring process of ice formation of H2O found in nature, close to earth’s surface, not in a lab. Sorry for the confusion.

  97. Peter Czerna: Does WUWT need some peer review before posting? The AGW crowd will pounce on this post (quite rightly IMO).

    Note that Goddard does not post his own threads – so he is reviewed prior to ‘publication.’
    My theory is that WUWT is using Goddard to drive up readership.
    Everyone enjoys watching a train wreck. :D

  98. Dear Colleagues and non colleagues,

    I would like you to read my paper on the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide at: http://biocab.org/ECO2.pdf, which is related with this excellent report by Steven Goddard.

    I have also stumbled upon some AGWers who thinks that cm^2/cm = cm^2.

  99. Peter Czerna

    When the world’s preeminent climate” expert” (Hansen) talks about 6-20 metres sea level rise this century, what do you think he is talking about?

  100. Steven, you have written a serious of more than 11 posts, which are basically all based on the false assumption, that ice can not melt while recorded temperature is below 0°C.

    you simply have ignored many facts about the measured temperature. regional averaging, daily averaging, location choice for thermometers and the shadow offered by the weather station allow melting of snow and ice, long before the thermometer will rise above 0°C.

    most of us have experienced melting at below 0°C and extremely resilient snow in the shadow, at temperatures above 0°C.

    your Barrow article was posted on the day, AFTER the landfast ice was blown away (as visible as things get!). it was based on completely false assumptions.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/26/latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-record/

  101. “But your article has the headline: “AGW Mathematics : -30 + 5 = 0″ and then you go onto write “The experts seem to be having a little difficulty with their maths.” The title is rubbish and you should correct it.”

    Mr. Goddard may have had something different in mind, but I read it like this; The -30 is an average summer temp in the Antarctic interior, the 5 is the warming some doomsdayers are saying the temp may raise. 0 is the temp(or therein about for the nitpickers) necessary to achieve melt.

    http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml
    “The annual average temperature is -50°C (-58°F). Winter temperatures drop quickly, then level out. Summer is short, from mid-December to mid-January, however, temperatures can reach a balmy -30°C (-22°F)! ”

    I’ll repeat -30 + 5 = 0. It has to be true to achieve ice melt of the whole Antarctic……Or the entire assertion of total ice melt is rubbish, which I believe was the point of the posting. In which case, we could go back to a more traditional form of mathematics and -30 +5 would equal -25 once again. And we’d still have ice in the Antarctic and we could save some money and leave the life jackets on the shelf! For those that ran out and made the purchase, you’ll have to check the return policy of the store you bought it from………….Can one return a poor science study for our money back?

  102. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    Ron Broberg

    Instead of making pathetic ad hominem attacks, how about acting like an adult and challenge the science?

    You’re asking for the impossible, Steven.

  103. stevengoddard: You replied, “Read Hansen’s 1988 paper about polar amplification, instead of Wikipedia.,” and provided a link to a 22-year-old paper, noting that I should refer to Plate 4. ”
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is a poor resource? Because you used them as a reference in your post. Also, please identify where Polar Amplification is discussed in the paper.

    You concluded with, “He forecast symmetrical warming at both poles.”

    Do you perceive that 22-year-old paper to be the final word, the last study, the ultimate resource for information about Polar Amplification? Do you think that maybe in the 22 years that followed there might have been updates to that Hansen et al (1988) study, Steven, or possibly other studies? Did you try the links on the Wikipedia webpage about Polar Amplification, which isn’t quite so old? Or did you try Google scholar? A search of “polar amplification”+Antarctic brings 532 returns.

    Also, here’s the Zonal Mean Plot from GISS that accompanies the trend map you presented in the post:

    The rise from 60S to 75S is the much-discussed warming of the Antarctic Peninsula. There’s no Antarctic Polar Amplification shown in the Zonal Mean Plot of the GISS data you provided as a reference in your post.

  104. I’m missing the “pathetic ad hominem attack.”
    Controversy is popular means to an increase audience.

    And why should I challenge the science before I have a decent understanding of it? I would think that learning the territory before issuing challenges would be the wiser course.

  105. Phil. wrote, “Interesting considering UAH can’t make TLT measurements there.”

    It is my understanding that MSU measurements are made south of 70S and that RSS elects not to use them because of perceived problems due to continental boundries and Antarctic altitude. I’d have to search for the study (sometime around 2003), but that’s my recall.

  106. sod says:
    July 2, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    “…….you simply have ignored many facts about the measured temperature. regional averaging, daily averaging, location choice for thermometers and the shadow offered by the weather station allow melting of snow and ice, long before the thermometer will rise above 0°C.
    most of us have experienced melting at below 0°C and extremely resilient snow in the shadow, at temperatures above 0°C.”

    sod, your argument goes both ways, as you point out. I’m not sure what you mean by “long before the thermometer will rise above 0°C.” I suppose that’s relative. It’s not like you’re going to observe melting at -10 C at normal atmospheric pressure. True, you may see snow and ice recede, but that’s not melt, that’s an entirely different dynamic. Most of the H2O you see isn’t distilled, so yes, the freezing and melting points are slightly off of the 0.01 degree C melting point, one way or the other. Regarding sea ice, 27 degree F is the coldest observed natural water melt that I know of.

    True, if the days average is 0 C, then some of the day was warmer than 0, where melting would occur. However, if that is true, then some of the day was also colder than 0 where ice formation would occur. Likely, for a net zero change or close to it in total ice. However, 0 isn’t the daily average for the interior of the Antarctic, it is -30. (See one of my prior posts.) So, you point is moot, unless you’re asserting that we can observe ice melt in those temperatures.

    It is also true that the temp sitings may give us an altered view of the reality of the local temperatures, but, if we insist they’re not accurate(which I don’t have an issue with) then this entire discussion is moot. I wouldn’t have an issue with that statement, either.

    DISCLAIMER! I don’t speak for Steve Goddard. These are simply my views on the current discussion. I’m not an expert in anything related to climate art-craft. But I’m fairly sharp on basic math and algebraic equations.(temps are numbers and sine waves aren’t very complicated.) So maybe I’m more of an expert than, say, the CRU. I know I’m way better at data retention than they are. I’m simply a guy(like most of us) forced to seek knowledge because of a few pinhead’s unreasonable and irrational fear of a molecule and the political exploitation of the mentioned fear.

  107. Bob Tisdale says:
    July 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    Phil. wrote, “Interesting considering UAH can’t make TLT measurements there.”

    It is my understanding that MSU measurements are made south of 70S and that RSS elects not to use them because of perceived problems due to continental boundries and Antarctic altitude. I’d have to search for the study (sometime around 2003), but that’s my recall.

    MSU TLT measurements can be made north of ~82ºS, however high altitude ice causes interference is also a problem, hence RSS doesn’t present data south of 70ºS.

  108. There’s an even better quote in the story:

    “[…] substantial probability of the climate warming eight to 10 degrees C” — a heat wave that Keith says would be “stunning.””

    I encourage everyone to read the article – it’s not long:

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Magnitude+global+warming+uncertain+survey+finds/3212837/story.html

    Bear in mind that Vancouver is David Suzuki’s town and that BC has had a carbon tax for long enough that people seem to have forgotten about its existence.

    Note to others in jurisdictions that don’t yet have a carbon tax: That’s what happens — people make a fuss when it’s new – and then Stanley Cup playoffs, plans for the weekend (…or whatever) come along, wiping minds clean, much to the delight of politicians who are busy implementing the next tongue-in-cheek joyriding scheme (currently “HST” here in BC). All you need is a severely ineffective & disastrous opposition (in the legislature) to set the stage (for a bold ruling party to be able to get away with pretty much anything they want).

    By this stage it’s hard to miss the comedy. One irony is I wouldn’t mind at all *IF* they spent the tax revenue on pursuits matching my ideology — parks, natural forests, reduction of toxic pollution – stuff like that [but nevermind this nonsensical climate freak-out-ism stuff (based on anthropogenic computer fantasies, which are based on untenable assumptions – a practice which is disrespectful of nature)].

  109. Phil. says: July 2, 2010 at 5:00 pm: Thanks for confirming that TLT meaurements are made south of 70S and that Antarctic altitude is a problem.

  110. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    “GISS takes a different approach to the poles from UAH. They use little or no data, and extrapolate out 1200 km.”

    Well ya, how else would we “know”? You surely wouldn’t expect them to be able to put a thermometer out there, would you? I mean, why? They only get a couple of billion dollars a year. Think of all the money wasted if you put a thermometer out there when all you have to do is extrapolate and know what the temps are. I like burnt orange on my maps!! If we put a real thermometer out there, then our maps might have to change to that yucky blue or some such horrible colour!

  111. stevengoddard says:
    July 2, 2010 at 6:43 am
    Wren

    What do you get if you multiply5C by 0.0?
    ====
    I like your way of thinking.

    Having passed age 50 without dying (50 x 0 = 0), I should be able to pass age 100 without dying(100 x 0 = 0).

  112. @Steven Goddard 9:25 am and passim
    @James Sexton 2:10 pm

    Both you and Steven Goddard appear to be having problems seeing what I thought was a simple point about the statement “AGW Mathematics : -30 + 5 = 0”. Mr Goddard has already accused me of writing a long-winded criticism: it looks as though is wasn’t long-winded enough. Frankly, I’ve lost patience with this thread, but here are the steps of the argument for anyone who still cares.

    1- The Vancouver Sun article is bunkum. In its hipy-dippy way it talks of a temperature rise of 5°C, by which we can only assume that a rise of 5°C in the global average temperature is meant.

    2- It is however incorrect, even just for sarcastic effect, to then paraphrase this as “-30 + 5 = 0”. The first term is a point temperature, the second term an average change and the result is a point temperature again. There are an infinite number of series (sloppily expressed, because it really depends on the permitted limits of the series) that can be constructed that will have a particular arithmetical average. If you don’t believe me, open a spreadsheet, put in a few numbers and set a function to calculate the average. You can easily pass the time until the gin and tonic is due by changing numbers in the series in such a way that the average stays unchanged.

    3- So it is possible to conceive of a series that gives an average global temperature rise of 5°C which contains some values that are +30°C (or anything in fact). The sarcasm doesn’t work and in fact it seems that it is Steven Goddard is the one who is having difficulty with his maths. That was my point.

    4- I’m not saying these numbers are real or to be expected or anything else. I’m not discussing ‘polar amplification’ or the seasonal variations of Arctic or Antarctic temperatures. The fact that Goddard could even write “-30 + 5 = 0” as a summary of the source article – whether sarcastic or not – leads us to be suspicious of some of the other stuff he put in the post.

    5- He writes, for example, that the polar amplification is zero because “while the earth has warmed 0.7C, Antarctica has warmed about 0.0c. That gives us an amplifcation factor of zero.”, later condensed in various responses to 0.7 x 0.0 = 0. Just think about it a moment: a zero amplification of 0.7 produces 0.7, there is no change. To reduce a change of 0.7 to 0.0 we have to apply a negative amplification, i.e. an attenuation.

    I can’t be bothered with this anymore: If Goddard were a waiter I’d count my change very carefully.

  113. Peter Czerna

    One of the nice things about wordpress blogs is that you can link back to posters comments. Reviewing yours, it is abundantly clear that for one reason or other you completely missed the discussion of Polar Amplification, and the fact that it is not occurring in Antarctica.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/agw-mathematics-30-5-0/#comment-421814

    Perhaps you should start by actually reading the WUWT article, rather than the criticisms made by idiots on other blogs?

    .

  114. Steven Goddard

    At what point in any of my comments did I state that polar amplification was occurring in Antarctica?

    In the comment to which you refer I wasn’t even talking about polar amplification. I never got beyond the first few lines of your post.

    There is clearly nothing I can write that will get you to read my long-winded criticism with any accuracy, so let’s agree to differ now before we go all ad hominem on each other. It may not sound like it, but I am on your side…

    Peter

  115. Steven Goddard

    PS: I haven’t read about this topic on any other blogs and have no idea to what you are referring. WUWT and CA are the only climate blogs I track.

    Peter

  116. an interesting little tidbit here. At present, we’re about 115 ppm greater co2 than 1750 and about 155 ppm away from the mystical co2 doubling point. Using a fairly sophisticated radiative transfer program, the co2 forcing (for clear sky and wavelengths from 0.2 to 75 um) turns out to be 1.85 w/m^2 for this 115 ppm increase til now at the tropopause. The additional 155 ppm will result in an additional forcing of 1.80 w/m^2, slightly less than half of the 3.65 W/m^2 of the total doubling. That means that half of the effect has already occurred and that means the 0.7 deg C rise (or rather the fraction of the rise not associated with the co2 and feedbacks) is the vast majority of what that effect is going to be, leaving the doubling at a maximum of around 1.5 deg C average. Those long term effects promised to be coming are going to have very little effect as the heat flow involved is not sufficient to have much effect.

  117. How much does the ocean need to warm before we start to get snowfall on the mile-high mostly-now-barren Antarctic plateau? It’s the size of the U.S. and has scars similar to those caused by mile-high glaciers seen in other parts of the world. Any of this show up in the models? Perhaps warming will lead to seas falling… :-) (just as CO2 is a trailing indicator of increasing oxidation/combustion/outgassing as temperatures increase.. well, ok, least in high-school laboratories where they still do experiments v. pretend computer models are real )

  118. Foley says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:28 pm
    I have never missed a runway. But now I know someone who has. :)

    Yeah, no GPS back then, tough when the lights go out.

  119. Two small, late notes.
    1) Sometime in the recent past I read about how
    wonderful it would be for Egypt to take care of
    that 5M rise in the oceans. An astonishing amount
    of the western desert of Egypt is lower than sea level.
    It is hot there, with strong evaporation. Cut a canal
    and drain the Med. into Egypt. It would refill through
    Gibraltar. In the mean time, the hydroelectric plant
    would generate one or two gigawatts for centuries.

    2) The article starts with a few nibbles at statistics, and
    seems to hint at use of Gaussian analysis. Anybody that
    paid attention in 2nd year calculus knows that the
    underlying data must be Gaussian in nature for Gaussian
    methods to be valid forms of analysis. Weather is not
    solely Gaussian in nature; Gaussian analysis will not give
    any valid results.
    Please take a read through “The Black Swan” for a more
    crushing and pithy destruction of Gaussian statistical
    analysis.

  120. The approach used by David Keith in canvassing only 14 leading climatologists in fact harms the authority of the IPCC reports since one could arbitrarily pick 14 climatologists who do not support the AGW theory for example and state that what they say is the truth. In the article published in the Vancouver Sun, David Keith states: “The “risk of rapid or extreme warming are larger than what you would get by reading the IPCC” reports”. So what is the point then of writing the IPCC reports which are based on the work of hundreds of climatologists ?

Comments are closed.