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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Curious Yellow
Your last message was unintelligible.
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 = Λ Δ F, since the formula for calculating forcing due to CO2 – Δ F = 5.35 ln(C/C0) – involves a logarithm.
(moderator: Λ should be followed by a semicolon (;) above for the HTML to show Λ – thanks)
Bob Tisdale
Quick question for you. If GISS shows 1.7 global and 1.3 for Antarctica, just how much polar amplification is that? ;^)
According to AGW
theoryConjecture, 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.
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”.
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
Paul Daniel Ash
Temperature moves upwards by a constant amount with each doubling of CO2. That is a logarithmic function. T ~ 2^n
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?
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
Paul Daniel Ash says:
July 2, 2010 at 8:07 am
And you know only too well that the constant 5.25 is fictious.
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.
Paul Daniel Ash
Sorry, wrote that wrong – should be :
T ~ log2(N)
or
N ~ 2^T
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
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:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010183/crefl2_143.A2010183121500-2010183122000.250m.jpg
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?
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).
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.
Phil – this satellite image might help out
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/barrowcloseup1.jpg
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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). 😉