While everyone seems to be watching the Arctic extent with intense interest, it’s bipolar twin continues to make enough ice to keep the global sea ice balance near normal. These images from Cryosphere today provide the details. You won’t see any mention of this in the media. Google News returns no stories about Antarctic Sea Ice Extent.
Here’s the graph, see for yourself.
Here’s global sea ice:
click image to enlarge
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“[…]
VILLABOLO REPEATS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/the-trend/#comment-418293
“Just ask and ye shall receive”, but Jack, you have to keep your eyes open!
”
Methanocalypse Now! Hey, Villabolo, you’re a full-blown catastrophist. Simple question to you: Why has there been no warming in the past 10 years when the methane release is already happening?
Smokey says:
July 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“Unless all countries agree to reduce CO2 equally, then it makes no sense for the U.S. to commit national suicide over a harmless and beneficial trace gas that has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects. The people who propose that are from the ranks of the insane.”
VILLABOLO:
How sane is the idea of increasing 20 times the amount of CO2 in our present Earth? How sane is it to make judgments about the ancient Earth when you have not learned the most basic facts about the extreme geologic past?
You know, like the fact that our SUN WAS COLDER REQUIRING THAT WE HAVE MORE CO2 TO MAINTAIN TEMPERATURES AT OUR CURRENT LEVELS OR EVEN WARMER!
You are comparing apples and coconuts when you make such frivolous parallels between Ancient Earth and Modern Earth.
Also, the fact that you hold on to the TRACE GAS argument shows an ignorance of an elemental part of Nature that we all should understand. It’s not how large in size or quantity something is, but how POTENT it is relative to an equal proportion of something else.
The commonly used example is that of poison. It comes in a wide range of lethal dose per gram, milligram or microgram. Who would be foolish enough to believe that a Neurotoxin cannot have a harmful effect because it is so tiny a dose by his reckoning?
The beneficiality of something, within a certain situation, is irrelevant. It should be common sense to realize that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
For example, take that other gas, Oxygen. Let’s start with the obvious according to your view. Oxygen is good for animals therefore more is better. OK, just double its percentage in the Atmosphere and you will get a situation where everything flammable on Earth will burn down in short order.
DirkH says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“There are many disciplines dealing with chaotic elements that do pretty well in figuring some things outs. It seems that some do not want to acknowledge that the current breed of Climate models fall short in this respect.”
VILLABOLO:
Many Climate models have indeed fallen short. I’m referring to the estimates of when Arctic Ice Cap would be ice free during the Summer. It was not due to “chaotic” elements but to the simple fact that the Climatologists were not able to take every factor of Global Warming into account.
Therefore the Arctic was melting faster than predicted. I have a feeling that is not the type of model failure that you would like to emphasize.
Smokey said:
The problem is those, like Al Gore, who believe that some of us should reduce our standard of living so they can continue to live the high life.
R. Gates says: July 4, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“If take the intergral of the anomaly of global sea ice (plot the the area below or above the line) since 2001 you’ll see there is indeed a negative global anomaly. The reason for this is simple– Arctic sea ice has had a larger and more continual negative anomaly than the Antarctic has had a positive one. So before you say there is no trend in Global Sea ice, study the charts.”
It looks to me that there has been a slight uptrend in the last several years, after a slight down trend that preceded it. In terms of the overall trend, maybe a very slight downtrend (possibly related to the warm phase of the PDO or continued recovery from the Little Ice Age), but it’s certainly not indicative of alarmingly catastrophic runaway global warming…
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:40 pm
“[…]Therefore the Arctic was melting faster than predicted. I have a feeling that is not the type of model failure that you would like to emphasize.[…]”
I’m not unfair, i won’t expect GCM’s with a raster width of 100 miles to model local circumstances like how much ice is pushed out of the Bering strait. The Arctic melts partially each year, then it freezes again, who cares, no, let’s concentrate on “global warming” for the moment, that’s where the models at least have no principal problems with their coarse resolution, right?
You’re a methane-head so let’s take this from the wikipedia:
“NewScientist states that “Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought.”[19]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
Ok.
^ Pearce, Fred (28 March 09). “arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity”. newscientist. Reed Business Information. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500-arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity.html?full=true. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
“I AM shocked, truly shocked,” says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them.”
Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. “Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It’s unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing.” […]
”
So that was written in 2009, the Methane is blubbering out there like crazy. Shouldn’t we feel the effects of a mightily enhanced greenhouse effect already? Like, some warmth, maybe?
Why is all that we see an ordinary El Ninjo? Where is all the heat retained by the thick blanket of CO2 and methane?
Katey Walter having some fun with methane:
Katey Walter again, she explains a little and they blow up more methane bubbles:
Mr Grant, let me join the list of questionsers
One piece of hard evidence that any current warming is not caused by natural variation.
If it is then one piece of credible evidence to show that it will result in catastrophe rather thean the very gentle and beneficial effects we are seeing now given that there is no evidence of positive feedback now or in history.
What would be the benefit for the Western economies to commit economic suicide by reducing CO2 emissions when their competitors will quite rightly have no part of it?
Curious Yellow says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
Just The Facts says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
R. Gates says: July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm………
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 1:00 am ……….
Just The Facts says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.
The land-locked arctic ice is different because unlike Antarctica it can build multi-year ice. As to your question which is a more accurate proxy for the earth’s temperature, I’ll answer that it is the Northern hemisphere arctic region. That is in the short to medium term; for as long as the winter vortex of Antarctica blows. In short, the Arctic responds fast, as you can witness, and Antarctica will follow more slowly. In the neantime the Arctic sea ice will have become seasonal.
Well, no, they did no such thing. Not at all did they.
Rather, what both of them have done is push yet MORE ‘CAGW’ propaganda.
So, DO TELL us –once again– how it is that CO2 causes anything, save for the burp upon being consumed?
You know: It’s trapped in the ice, the water, and in the air above both, and yet there’s no temperature increase in any of those.
Once again: IF CO2 is supposed to be any kind of agent of so-called ‘CAGW,’ then PUH-LEEZE inform the rest of us why the ice doesn’t melt and flash into a steaming hot vapor upon being exposed to Sunlight?
Why isn’t the water ROILING, and why isn’t the air verily flooded with hot, steaming vapors?
You’ll be ‘splain’n that, won’t you? Real soon now, right? Because to date, you have not.
“Therefore the Arctic was melting faster than predicted.”
Villa, the models do not have a clue what they are predicting. If the Arctic was melting faster, or slower, the models being right is just a coin toss. A 50/50 chance of being right.
With the claims that are being made based on these computer programs, models, I would think they would be claiming in the high 90% right on their computer games.
Gates, I’m not confused about anything. The climate is too extremely chaotic for “the smallest of factors” as you put it, to take the system out of equilibrium.
The more chaotic a system is, the less it is effected by small changes. A chaotic system has to deal with too many small changes of it’s own all the time. It take a major whack to adjust an extremely chaotic system.
Relax, Villabolo, no need to SHOUT. Emotion blocks knowledge uptake, didn’t you know that?
OK, first, there is no possibility of CO2 rising to twenty times current levels. Or ten times, or six times, or four times. None. Too much has been sequestered. It’s very doubtful that CO2 can even double from current levels. Besides, most of the warming effect has already happened.
And your faint Sun argument is destroyed by this chart, showing no correlation between CO2 and temperature. A rise in CO2 doesn’t cause a measurable rise in temperature. Rather, a rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2. Didn’t you know that?
And if CO2 is so “potent,” it seems to need some Viagra. It really gets way more respect than it is entitled to.
Next, look at this chart, and compare the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O [and methane, for that matter]. You will see that water vapor has a much greater “greenhouse” effect than puny little carbon dioxide. And water vapor comprises up to 4% of the troposphere, while CO2 is only 0.00039 of the entire atmosphere. But water vapor can’t be regulated and taxed. CO2, on the other hand, is very easy to regulate and tax.
Equating CO2 with poison is one of the more recent alarmist arguments. But it fails badly. My boy spent 6 years on the Helena [SSN-725, a nuclear attack submarine]. The U.S. Navy allows CO2 concentrations up to 5,000 ppmv for extended periods; months. So at 390 ppmv, or even double or triple that, no one but plants would even be able to tell the difference. And there is not enough fossil fuel available to even double atmospheric CO2 from current levels.
CO2 is no more a poison than H2O. Both can kill in sufficient amounts; you can drown in six inches of water. But at the levels we’re discussing, bringing up the ‘poison’ argument only means that’s the best one you’ve got.
So to recap: CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas that has been demonized in order to transfer wealth on a scale that would be totally resisted if it were a proposed tax. That is the central purpose of the CO2 scare: to separate the citizens from a large chunk of their earnings by making everything across the board much more expensive — with the government collecting the difference, while insisting it’s not really a consumption tax.
It’s just sad that so many gullible folks are taken in by the scare tactics, and still believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that a minor trace gas can cause a climate catastrophe.
But if they had told us that doubling CO2 from here might lead to only another 0.6° or 0.7° of warmth, the populace wouldn’t be nearly alarmed enough to go along with the immense cost of Cap & Trade. So their scare stories ratchet up and up, endlessly repeated by people who should know better.
R. Gates says:
July 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
This graph:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
Do you think for 1 second that IF ALL the ice melted in the Arctic in September I would switch over to the Warming side? The answer is NO because I have seen plenty of evidence that shows drastic Arctic sea ice melt in the past as well as swings in fears of warming and cooling over 150+ years. I don’t want to waste moderators’ time by re-posting info again and again and again…
Show me 1 piece of evidence that clearly demonstrates that man-made co2 was responsible for MOST of the warming in the last 3 decades of the 20th century. Melting Arctic ice is not evidence, it has happened MANY time before!!! Sheesh!
R. Gates says:
July 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
This graph:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
By the way the graph you provided includes something very contentious indeed: future projections / predictions / scenarios [take your pick, I don’t care].
Have you ever thought about how ‘strong’ c02 forcing really is? Within the past year we have some good news:
“Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
“Temperature and CO2 feedback ‘weaker than thought'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483722.stm
“Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
Smokey: “But I understand how cognitive dissonance works: you see what you want to see, even when it’s not there.”
I think you mean cognitive bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
Are climate sceptics “largely immune” from cognitive bias? Not on the evidence. See these comments from the recent Spanish “bomb threat” story.
“Calzada messed with the Family, and if he keeps it up, he gets to swim wit’ da fishes. Capice?”
“And then they wonder why scientist not swallowing the AGW scam are not coming out in the light… those are still dangerous times to speak out, it seams.”
“Blacklists,bombthreats,these are acts of terror and not a peep from MSM !!”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/green-energy-company-threatens-economics-professor-%e2%80%a6-with-package-of-dismantled-bomb-parts/#more-21015
A number of WUWT posters were suitably sceptical of this story. But by no means all. So at least some climate sceptics are susceptible to cognitive bias. What proportion? Hard to say, but I doubt that a general claim of “largely immune” is supported by the evidence. And of course our susceptibility to cognitive bias depends very much on the subject in question.
REPLY: Maybe you could write a paper judging the published skepticism of …oh wait… that’s been done. -A
Smokey says:
July 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm
@ur momisugly RGates
“Bad reading comprehension as usual, Gates. But I understand how cognitive dissonance works: you see what you want to see, even when it’s not there. Fortunately, skeptics are largely immune from CD because we simply ask questions, such as: do you have any testable, empirical evidence showing how much warming, if any, is attributable to human CO2 emissions?”
“Well? Do you? If so, you will be the first one to show real world evidence. That will also settle the climate sensitivity question, and put you on the short list for the now worthless Nobel prize.”
==============================
He won’t present the real-world evidence…because he can’t. There is none.
Plus, his incessant use of the term “AGW models” rather than “General Circulation Models” shows that he simply knows some things, but in the long run, hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.
As I said before…”A little knowledge….in the mind of someone who thinks he knows much…is a dangerous thing.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
NEW CONVINCING EVIDENCE FROM “NEAR POLAR REGION TEMPERATURE SIGNATURES” THAT THE EARTH HAS STARTED TO ENTER A COOLING TREND Saturday 3rd July 2010 at http://www.holtonweather.com/article2.htm
Jimbo says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm
@ur momisugly R. Gates
“Show me 1 piece of evidence that clearly demonstrates that man-made co2 was responsible for MOST of the warming in the last 3 decades of the 20th century. Melting Arctic ice is not evidence, it has happened MANY time before!!! Sheesh!”
=============================
Exactly!
latitude says:
July 4, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“Gates, I’m not confused about anything. The climate is too extremely chaotic for “the smallest of factors” as you put it, to take the system out of equilibrium.
The more chaotic a system is, the less it is effected by small changes. A chaotic system has to deal with too many small changes of it’s own all the time. It take a major whack to adjust an extremely chaotic system.
______
I don’t know what an “extremely chaotic” system is, but Chaos theory does indeed say that the smallest of “whacks” can send a system into a whole new arrangement, seeking a new attractor or state of equalibrium. A big whack simply destroys the system entirely and that’s not what we’re talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.
DirkH says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“Methanocalypse Now! Hey, Villabolo, you’re a full-blown catastrophist. Simple question to you: Why has there been no warming in the past 10 years when the methane release is already happening?”
VILLABOLO:
First, Dirk, why did you respond to the “Secondary Effects” of the Arctic Sea being ice free when the “Primary Effects” are predicted to be much closer in time and based on simple laws of physics? You know, warmer water evaporates more; more evaporation leads to more intense rain activity; more warmth leads to altered weather systems etc..
Furthermore what does it matter whether you or I believe that it’s AGW, NGW or whatever, that is causing it when it’s obvious that it’s happening, happening quick, and that the Corn in Kansas is not going to be too happy about it.
It’s like worrying whether Martians or natural Cosmic forces sent a small asteroid our way. Don’t you think that preparing for it is a far more fruitful endeavor?
As far as Methane is concerned, oh, never mind! Methane being a greenhouse gas that
–oh, whatever! I forgot that the Principles of Nature are being rewritten by the Gods themselves. What’ the name of one of them? Lord . . ., Lord . . ., Lord something or other.
Tell me, Dirk, what will punishment in school be like in a Skeptic world? I can see little Timmy, in the library, hunched over a piece of paper. In it you see written over and over and over again:
Methane is not a Greenhouse Gas.
There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas.
Methane is not a Greenhouse Gas.
There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas.
Methane is not a Greenhouse Gas.
There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas.
Now for the simple (minded) question you posed about Methane not contributing to Earth’s warmth which you state has not gone up in the past 10 years. First the temperatures have gone up in the past 30 years, starting in 1995 with the La Ninas and 1998 with the El Ninos. What’s more, this year, 2010, has had the hottest Jan through May records. But don’t take my word for it, just check Roy Spencer’s reproduction of Nasa’s UAH Satellite Temperature Chart. It’s right at the top of one of this site’s posts: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/june-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-44-deg-c/
Simply because simple minded people expect hyper gradual increase on a yearly basis doesn’t mean that reality has to oblige. The are plenty of Stops and Goes and Roller Coaster fluctuations in the SHORT TERM.
As I explained, in a previous post, the Earth would have to be an artificial planet made smooth as a bowling ball with lakes and oceans in exact geometric shapes and spaced equally apart. Only in such an artificially smooth world would you have an artificially smooth temperature rise.
Finally, as for your implication that Methane is not increasing the heat of our Earth that only shows a combination of ignorance and lack of deductive abilities with arrogance as the foundation.
When have YOU figured out the amounts of Methane and it’s heat insulating capacities? So far it’s not that much. What is worrisome is the fact that it is beginning to exponentiate, that is increasing more out of proportion to the previous years. This obviously implies that it will become a problem in years to come.
Richard Sharpe says:
July 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm
The problem is those, like Al Gore, who believe that some of us should reduce our standard of living so they can continue to live the high life.
VILLABOLO:
Tell that to Hex-Onmobil and the Kock Sisters who have spent 10s of millions in propaganda to maintain their Plutocracy. Yes, go ahead and hallucinate make believe conspiracies and money making schemes while being blind to the sight of your masters.
Lighten up, Villabolo.
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm
It’s like worrying whether Martians or natural Cosmic forces sent a small asteroid our way.
==========================================
NO.
[And lets leave the “Martians” out of this]
Its like….um…..questioning whether or not the “small asteroid our way” is even real at all….since it has only been modeled….and not observed.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R Gates says
I don’t know what an “extremely chaotic” system is, but Chaos theory does indeed say that the smallest of “whacks” can send a system into a whole new arrangement, seeking a new attractor or state of equalibrium. A big whack simply destroys the system entirely and that’s not what we’re talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.
Coals asks: Isn’t the classic dictum of the chaos theory a declaration of sensitive dependence on initial conditions? That is, the first breath of air from the butterfly wing is important. I don’t think it postulates that after the hurricane gets roaring and the chaos is in full flower that the butterfly updraft has any effect. Just asking, because the climate surely is well established as a chaotic system is it not with multiple feedbacks that tend to keep the chaos within certain limits regardless of how many or how few butterflies flap their tiny wings? Just substitute C02 for “butterfly” if you want. I guess I need a lesson in chaos theory.
DirkH says:
July 4, 2010 at 4:54 pm
“So that was written in 2009, the Methane is blubbering out there like crazy. Shouldn’t we feel the effects of a mightily enhanced greenhouse effect already? Like, some warmth, maybe?”
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm
When have YOU figured out the amounts of Methane and it’s heat insulating capacities? So far it’s not that much. What is worrisome is the fact that it is beginning to exponentiate, that is increasing more out of proportion to the previous years. This obviously implies that it will become a problem in years to come.