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 5, 2010 at 11:50 am
And you call us Chicken Littles?
================================
Correct. I do.
VILLABOLO:
Why a rebound from the Little Ice Age? Why not from the end of our last Ice Age or 2,000 years ago? This is an arbitrary statement.
And your point is ?
I notice you have no comment on the link I posted, a peer reviewed scientific study that refutes AGW, that would be much more interesting than a silly statement like above.
Dave Wendt says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:56 am
Thanks for the +ve feedback. I’m not sure how important it is to the AGW argument that IR “radiative diffusion” should be either isotropic or downward. The latter seems very unlikely for the reasons discussed. These are my thoughts from first principles, I would have to research the subject more deeply before coming to more general conclusions.
@ur momisugly villabolo, Curious Yellow
In the following paper:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9p_cojT-pflYzNhMTc3NzktMWYyOS00ZTRkLWI4YjgtNzgzY2JiOTNkZWNl&h
Take a look at figure 6. A really good look. Now tell us why it is so urgent to keep CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from rising?
Tired of life already?
Dave Springer says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:20 am
phlogiston
I don’t think that IR scattering vs. absorption is correct. An IR photon is either absorbed or it isn’t. There’s no deflection. It it’s absorbed it’s quickly reemitted in a random direction. Thus CO2 acts as a layer of insulation slowing down the transport of heat from higher to lower temperatures in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It accomplishes this through absorbing IR photons coming from the direction of the higher temperature and reemitting them in a random direction. It doesn’t actually trap heat like a pane of glass in a greenhouse but rather simply slows down the transport like a layer of fiberglass insulation between wall panels.
I’m sure that CO2 does slightly warm the atmosphere / climate. It cant not. Its a question of the significance. One can use the same argument that Leif Svalgaard uses about solar TSI – its changes are too small to affect climate (UNLESS an amplification mechanism can be found). The question of the pattern of IR photon radiative diffusion is also one of degree – however it seems clear to me that, in the open atmosphere >50% of IR propagation must be upward.
The best way to look at the significance of CO2 to climate is look at the climate history over the whole earth’s history, e.g.
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
and
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9p_cojT-pflYzNhMTc3NzktMWYyOS00ZTRkLWI4YjgtNzgzY2JiOTNkZWNl&h
Essentially, two things transformed climate, (a) big glaciations around 6-700 MYA and and the end Ordovician, combined with (contributory to) the evolution of land plants, generated soils (silicate weathering) which combined with the plants and trees themselves, retained more water at the land surface and sharply reduced global temperature by creating the hydrological cycle. At this point any influence on climate that CO2 might previously have had, was completely overwhelmed by the hydrological cycle and clouds. CAGW is only true on an arid bare rocky lifeless planet.
villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Jack Simmons says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:56 am
Villabolo,
When I ask why I should be concerned, I want real physical proof that all the bad things being predicted by computer models are, in fact, going to happen.
Have they happened in the past? What happened to all the methane and positive feedbacks during the Medieval Warming Period, a period much warmer than today?
Obviously, nothing too serious, because we are all still here, including the fauna of the far north.
Computer models and conclusions drawn from same are not evidence. They are too susceptible to the biases and assumptions of the programmers. I could take the same models used in the models you refer to, make some adjustments to the parameters, and come up with a completely new set of projections. Nice quiet boring projections.
Why don’t we all sit back for a few decades and see if the models are correct?
We will find out. China, India, and others will do nothing to stop their production of CO2. Their scientists are telling them there is nothing to worry about.
The CO2 is going to increase, like it or not. The grand experiment continues. We will see the effect of increased CO2 on world temperatures and the consequences.
I am very sanguine about the relationship. See http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#CO2 montly since 1958
Read the whole thing. Increases in CO2 do not lead to increases in world temperature. Obviously, something else is driving the climate.
My link did not come across well, try this.
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#Temperature records versus atmospheric CO2
Better yet, take a day or too and read the whole website.
Well done.
Or this http://tinyurl.com/29q9fzd
Jack Simmons says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:39 am
Or this http://tinyurl.com/29q9fzd
How do you propose to say that there’s any degree of correlation, when in fact at several points along that graph, the temperature proceeds to seriously depart from any possible relatedness?
The old saying ‘correlation does not equal causation’ fits there in spades.
Oh, and there’s that other thing regarding the siting of the various weather stations.
Was that factored into the graph to eliminate any and all possible siting biases? If not, then the graph is essentially meaningless.
And finally, just how much of that temperature record was –ahem– ‘homogenized,’ to produce ‘likeable‘ results?
899 says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:19 pm
899, that is the reason I pointed everyone to climate4you.
The author assumes all the temperature datasets are what they claim to be; even those ‘massaged’ such as CRU and GISS. BTW, even with all the massaging, all the datasets pretty much follow each other in trend.
He then shows how all the data sets demolish the notion CO2 increases are paralleled by temp increases. They don’t. Which is why I’m not worried about increasing CO2.
As you properly observed, correlation is not necessarily causality. In this case, there is not even correlation.
The temperature of the South Pole has been declining over the last half century. And the ice Mass Balance of Antarctica keeps increasing. So, what if some ice is breaking loose at the Penninsula? What do you expect with warming oceans and underwater volcanoes nearby!
Meanwhile at the other pole, here’s something to ponder. The Arctic Sea Ice Thickness divided by it’s extent is equivalent to a film of ice with the thickness of a sheet of paper covering the area of about 4 football fields, oscillating with the seasons. With this thickness to area ratio the Arctic Ice Cap should disappear and re-appear often and chaotically, due to the smallest upset in conditions. It is obvious there is a powerful dynamic keeping this delicate film of ice intact.
Jack Simmons says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm
899, that is the reason I pointed everyone to climate4you.
The author assumes all the temperature datasets are what they claim to be; even those ‘massaged’ such as CRU and GISS. BTW, even with all the massaging, all the datasets pretty much follow each other in trend.
He then shows how all the data sets demolish the notion CO2 increases are paralleled by temp increases. They don’t. Which is why I’m not worried about increasing CO2.
As you properly observed, correlation is not necessarily causality. In this case, there is not even correlation.
My apologies then, for my misunderstanding of your post.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The temperature of the South Pole has been declining over the last half century. And the ice Mass Balance of Antarctica keeps increasing. So, what if some ice is breaking loose at the Penninsula? What do you expect with warming oceans and underwater volcanoes nearby!
Meanwhile at the other pole, here’s something to ponder. The Arctic Sea Ice Thickness divided by it’s extent is equivalent to a film of ice with the thickness of a sheet of paper covering the area of about 4 football fields, oscillating with the seasons. With this thickness to area ratio the Arctic Ice Cap should disappear and re-appear often and chaotically, due to the smallest upset in conditions. It is obvious there is a powerful dynamic keeping this delicate film of ice intact.
Oh, really now? Just “4 football fields” with the thickness of a sheet of paper?
Enquiring minds would like to know: Precisely HOW THICK is that ‘sheet of paper’ of yours?
Since a football field is 120 yards long and 160 feet wide, then 4 times that dimension equals: 480 yards by 640 feet, or 1440 by 640 feet.
That’s akin to the flight deck surface of 4 modern U.S. Navy aircraft carriers …
Do tell: May you present a picture of such a minuscule piece of ice in any satellite data from any modern period?
And one other thing: Aren’t you forgetting that the thickness of the ice varies with its seasonal movement?
The highlight of this thread was comments sparked by rbateman’s graph http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg .
Some have overgeneralized (suggesting reliable anticorrelation). Note what happens around ~1998. Cross reference with AAO, SAM, Barkin, and
Vershovskii, M.G.; & Kondratovich, K.V. (2007). South Pacific subtropical anticyclone – intensity and localization. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 32(12), 738–742.
I’m surprised the title of this article hasn’t been corrected yet since Antarctic ice hasn’t peaked but rather the ice extent anomoly has. And it’s still increasing. The Antarctic sea ice extent doesn’t peak for another month or so….
“”” villabolo says:
July 4, 2010 at 1:00 am
harvey says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.”
VILLABOLO:
Now, now Harvey, let’s be polite.
…………………….
2) GREENLAND. According to GRACE satellites it lost 137 billion metric tons of ice in 2002 and 286 billion metric tons in 2009. The first figure is a trickle in comparison to both the total amount of ice in Greenland and ocean level rise. The second figure a double trickle. The fact that it doubled is the important figure.
Doubling in just 7 years indicates, that in just 10 doublings, there will be a 1024 fold increase. That is no longer a trickle. Assuming that the same 7 year period is taken into account this increase will take 70 years. “””
Well now I’ve heard everything.
Just where is that peer reviewed paper that says that melting of ice caps is exponential with time. So in 70 years we have 1000 times the recent loss, and in 140 years it will be a million times.
I haven’t heard about that before. So the earth Temperature goes as the Logarithm of the CO2, and the ice melt goes exponentially with time .
We really are in big trouble.
Graphs measuring ice in area from satellite images are meaningless. They say nothing about the amount of ice present and are analogous to a Hollywood set background. Mass or volume measurements/estimates are needed.
Although this is true, it’s important to look at the big picture. It was also the warmest land-surface July on record, the second warmest global year-to-date, a year of many all-time extreme highs and the second lowest Arctic sea-ice level on record.
Here’s your original source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100813_globalstats.html
While cherry-picking may convince some onlookers, it blindly overlooks the fact of how dynamic the Earth’s systems are in reality.