We covered this earlier, but this is a new press release on the subject today.
From the University of Washington via Eurekalert
Model shows polar ice caps can recover from warmer climate-induced melting
A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth’s warming climate, there is no “tipping point,” or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down. New University of Washington research indicates that even if Earth warmed enough to melt all polar sea ice, the ice could recover if the planet cooled again.
In recent years scientists have closely monitored the shrinking area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in warmer summer months, a development that has created new shipping lanes but also raised concerns about humans living in the region and the survival of species such as polar bears.
In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.
However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model’s carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned.
“We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times,” said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.
“All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter.”
Bitz and members of her research group are co-authors of a paper about the research that is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Kyle Armour, a UW graduate student in physics, and other co-authors are Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth and Kelly McCusker, UW graduate students in atmospheric sciences, and Ian Eisenman, a postdoctoral researcher from the California Institute of Technology and UW.
In the model, the scientists raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 1 percent each year, which resulted in doubling the levels of the greenhouse gas about every 70 years. The model began with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 355 parts per million (in July the actual figure stood at 392 ppm).
In that scenario, it took about 230 years to reach temperatures at which the Earth was free of sea ice during winter. At that point, atmospheric carbon dioxide was greater than 3,100 parts per million.
Then the model’s carbon dioxide level was reduced at a rate of 1 percent a year until, eventually, temperatures retreated to closer to today’s levels. Bitz noted that the team’s carbon dioxide-reduction scenario would require more than just a reduction in emissions that could be achieved by placing limits on the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide would have to be drawn out of the atmosphere, either naturally or mechanically.
“It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It’s just an exercise, but it’s a useful one to explore the physics of the system.”
While the lack of a “tipping point” could be considered good news, she said, the increasing greenhouse gases leave plenty of room for concern.
“Climate change doesn’t have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous,” Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.
“The sea ice cover will continue to shrink so long as the Earth continues to warm,” she said. “We don’t have to hypothesize dramatic phenomena such as tipping points for this situation to become challenging.”
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Davidow Discovery Fund and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For more information, contact Bitz at 206-543-1339 or bitz@atmos.washington.edu, or Armour at 858-610-3812 or karmour@uw.edu.
The paper is available at http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2011GL048739-pip.pdf.
Bottom line :
Heat ice above zero degrees and it melts. Cool the water below zero degrees and it re-freezes.
Anyone need a multi-million pound computer model to tell them that?
AH yes, computer models tell us; that super models cannot compute…and super models tell us that computer models cannot model…ssoooo who do we believe… personally i’m all about the super model, but then again thats just me
Anything is possible says: August 17, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“Anyone need a multi-million pound computer model to tell them that?”
I know of a similar folly. A researcher here, an IPCC author, used his supercomputer to draw a colorful map showing the coastal areaa that are domed to be inundated if the sea level is to rise by 1 m or so. His “remarkable result” made a story on TV! I guess an elementary school boy/girl could do the same once he/she is given a cheap color pencil and a white contour map.
“In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.”
So why are we all trying to predict this year’s minimum? Can’t these models just tell us what it will be? ;o)
… and I won’t even touch the “model so sensitive to warming” bit.
30 year averaged, measured solar irradiance (NREL redbook) in Nome, Alaska (64.5 N latitude) in kWhr/m^2/day-
Oct (1.0), Nov (0.3), Dec (0.1), Jan(0.2), Feb(0.8).
1 kWhr/m^2/day = 41.7 W/m^2 on average.
Thus, average solar insolation is-
Oct (41.7 W/m^2), Nov (12.5 W/m^2), Dec (4.2 W/m^2), Jan (8.3 W/m^2), Feb (33.4 W/m^2).
Open ocean at 273 K emits 315 W/m^2.
Any open water at this latitude or higher will re-freeze in winter.
All you need do is tune the model to CO2.
Not sure of the exercise.
If they want it quicker just raise the positive feedback.
If you’re going to lie might just as well reach Gore’s level.
(sigh)
It never ends.
So then, it isn’t worse than they thought? We aren’t doomed? Hallelujah! sarc/off
No tipping point, huh. Well I guess that’s something. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Serreze.
Wait – so now models are OK to use for forecasting?
I thought models were bad evil things thaty cannot be trusted?
“A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth’s warming climate, there is no “tipping point,” or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down.”
—————-
1st. What warming climate?
2nd. Why on earth would a scientist with god knows how much knowledge and experience ever in this context use the word “IF”?
Could it be this “growing body” doesn’t believe in re-occurring Ice Ages?
Talk about denial!
Well Bystander, for once, you seem to agree with the rest of the commenters, whom even you may have noticed, are pretty dismissive of “models”.
Am I missing something here, they say ice free winter that means above freezing right. Sooo the winter tempeature must have increased from 30 to 50 below freezing to above freezing to melt, right. I would then say we will have just a few more issues besides melting ice.
Did they also leave out the logarithmic characteristic of increasing CO2. I did not read the paper.
You really are a bystander. Here’s a hint, we’re making fun of these people and their goofy model.
If you want to play, you should suit up.
Doesn’t matter.
At the actual latitudes of actual sea ice minimums (80 north latitude at minimum to the pole), there is no difference between the amount of energy absorbed by the so-called “black” low-albedo open oceans and “white” (high reflectivity) sea ice.
Both reflect within 1 percent of the same amount of energy, or, to phrase it differently, both absorb within 1% of the same amount of energy.
And, making things worse – as usual – the open oceans contribute MORE towards cooling the world than ice-covered waters. So …. open water in the Arctic (regardless of reason) cool the planet.
As we have recently seen, since the DMI measurements of summertime Arctic temperatures at 80 north (the southern boundary of the minimum sea ice extent) have been steadily decreasing since 1958.
If. If you take a climate model with very high climate sensivity then the ice melts. If…
You are missing the point – the point is that models that show warming are dismissed but along comes a study that is appears useful in spreading skepticism and all of a sudden models are useful.
That sure looks like whole lot of pre-decided belief selectively embracing “evidence’.
And that ain’t science folks..that is a belief system.
.
As a retired geology professor, whenever I see an article like this I want to shout (and do so to the point of annoying my wife), “For Christ’s sake, hasn’t anyone ever taken basic physical and historical geology courses?” It seems to me that a great majority of the nonsense that constitutes the panic over “climate change” or whatever it’s being called these days would be no surprise at all to anyone who took (and passed) intro geology courses. This amazement that ice melts when it gets warm or freezes when cold is almost a simple definition of the Pleistocene with its periods of ice sheet advance and interglacial ice melt. For gripes sakes, quit dorking around with worthless “environmental studies” in college and take some real science courses.
Bystander,
Incorrect, as usual. GCM models confidently predicted a “tropospheric hot spot,” which was said to be “the fingerprint of global warming.”
But the models were wrong.
“Climate change doesn’t have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous,” Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.”
===========
And this would be different, how, of any species on Earth.
Get used to it, the barbarians are always crashing the gate.
Wow they need a model to understand that melted water can refreeze? Amazing.
So a complete absence of sea ice in summer within 40-50 years. Hmmm.
As for the other scenario, they are talking about no sea ice in *winter.” All resulting from an average 6C increase in temperature. I’ve personally witnessed sea ice forming and it doesn’t have to be very far below freezing for that to happen. Color me skeptical, but how does a 6C warming eliminate winter sea ice? That is a pretty amazing claim.
Byastander, go back and read the comments more carefully from the top. No-one is putting much stock in these model scenarios. You make a valid point that one should not knee-jerk embrace models just because they fit one’s viewpoint. Well stated. However, I don’t see that happening on this thread.
Speaking of belief and ignoring the evidence, Bystander can you point me to one of the comments here that suggests these models are useful?
Everyone misses the point: They’ve used up all the scremongering they can get out of “ice-free arctic”. The persistence of ice in the arctic is starting to make their model predictions look bad.
So, voila, the models now predict persistent ice in a warming world.
“All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter.”
Back to the drawing boards! According to http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php, it would take a 30 C increase at the north pole to make it ice free in winter.
This article was obviously not reviewed by WUWT readers.
Wow – you guys are still missing the point. Why select this model driven study to report here given all the other model driven activity?
That ain’t science folks..that is a belief system.
REPLY: Looks like a case of too many drinks at the Boca.
Update: Upon further inspection, I note that this “bystander” is none other than the troll known previously as “moderate republican” who has been banned. Sir, you’ve violated policy (twice now) and have been banned, so off my blog. Next time you pull tricks to get around that, I fully out you. Be upset if you wish, but that’s the deal. – Anthony
Duh!
If the earth cools, polar ice will increase? And this the resulst of the billions of dollars spent on climate science?
We are all suckers.
I wonder what we get for a million dollar study these days. Anybody know?
Let’s see, this study:
1) Reaffirms the role CO2 in regulating the earth’s temperature
2) Says there’s less ice with more CO2 and that ice can recover if you lower the CO2.
3) If it gets warmer the ice goes away, but if it gets colder, the ice comes back.
Hmmm….they got paid how much to do this study?
Bystander says:
Please give your tired canard a rest will you?
R. Gates says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Simply replace CO2 with H20 and you’ve got some very sound physics.
It takes heat energy to make less water ice and more liquid/vaporous H20.
So, where does this heat energy come frome?
Direct from the Sun, and stored from the Sun.
Ah, darnit, R.Gates, there’s that blasted Sun again.
Tell you what: If somebody were to calculate the heat energy released from all the burning of fossil fuels per year, then we could have a really nifty dataset to look at. And, not only that, but we could have a first look at how much Solar Energy has been stored over millions of years by Life on Earth.
We did this at school. Glass of water in freezer turns to ice. Take the glass out it melts.
Amazing what tax dollars can do. A study that finds that cold causes water to become ice, even after it melted while it was previously warm.
There is not enough recoverable fossil fuel in the world to generate more than 5 – 600 PPM atmospheric CO2 even after it was ALL burnt up according to Peter Tans (2009) Further he estimates given current consumption rates, peak values will be reached and will start to decline by 2029 – 2069.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/22_4/22-4_tans.pdf
So, if you are going to model CO2 from fossil fuel consumption, you would need to have some baseline reality injected into your model about just how much CO2 CAN be generated, rather than fantasy values resulting in 3,100 ppm in 70 years.
Oops
@ Allencic 7.46pm: exactly what I wanted to say 🙂 Why on Earth don’t these so-called researchers actually research the real world instead of inventing computer models and ignoring what has happened many times before?
The latest results from Spencer and others indicates that a quadrupling of CO2 would cause under 3 deg of warming, not 6. Winter sea ice will never be gone. Summer ice has disappeared at the North Pole several times in the 20th century, and it won’t be a disaster the next time.
Meanwhile, our only climate worries are the Solar Minimum and a Big Volcano.
R. Gates says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Let’s see, this study:
1) Reaffirms the role CO2 in regulating the earth’s temperature
2) Says there’s less ice with more CO2 and that ice can recover if you lower the CO2.
3) If it gets warmer the ice goes away, but if it gets colder, the ice comes back.
Hmmm….they got paid how much to do this study?
===========
You ask how many college education loans this study paid off ?
That is another transparent fact our Government is holding in reserve, until the election is near.
Not to worry though, it’s all about the science.
However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model’s carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned.
“We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times,” said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.
“All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter.”
Completely ignoring the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been much higher—over 10 times the current level in the the late Ordovician—during an ice age and around the same level during much warmer regimes.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
“It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It’s just an exercise, but it’s a useful one to explore the physics of the system.”
Only if the physics were correctly modeled.
“Climate change doesn’t have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous,” Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.
Polar bears don’t need ice to survive and entire villages have been abandoned when glaciers expanded in the Alps.
This “study” is so full of … FAIL.
…one of two computer-generated global climate models…
They are able to generate models by computers now? Give me a break. They may throw millions of models at us in a very short time to keep us busy refuting them. Meanwhile…
Besides, “one of two”? The other one was a denier? Why not three of fourteen?
“BioBob says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm
There is not enough recoverable fossil fuel in the world to generate more than 5 – 600 PPM atmospheric CO2 even after it was ALL burnt up according to Peter Tans (2009) Further he estimates given current consumption rates, peak values will be reached and will start to decline by 2029 – 2069.”
Estimates of the amounts of recoverable “fossil fuels” — especially clathrates are all over the place. But your basic point has a good deal of merit. It is quite unclear that we humans could push atmospheric CO2 to the levels used in this simulation even if we wanted to. Unless, of course the CO2 sequestration mechanisms — which we do not remotely understand — quit working.
“Werner Brozek says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter.”
Back to the drawing boards! According to http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php, it would take a 30 C increase at the north pole to make it ice free in winter.”
Werner, I’m inclined to agree that the likelihood of the North Pole — which has nearly six months of no sunlight at all and very low sun angles even during “Summer” not being well below -2C in Winter is very low. But you do need to keep in mind that the hypothetical 6C rise is not expected to be evenly distributed. What is modeled is — I’m sure — no or slight warming in the tropics and rather dramatic warming — way more than 6C — in the high latitudes.
Is it just me or has science training abdicated the role of commonsense in recent years?
It’s not long since a UK university funded an expensive, long study to discover if sheep could recognise individual humans ! That they can is something known to shepherds throughout history (I keep a few sheep) and that could have been ‘researched’, recorded and ‘discovered’ in at most 3 days by visiting a handful of shepherds with their flocks.
It seems to me that it has become an industry in itself where for too many universities and scientific institutions try to create a marketplace for research (with scare stories) to generate income. Too often that seems to result in worthless studies carried out to establish nothing new and nothing of value.
This study, as so many have pointed out, is not only pointless but fails to appreciate that the artcic winter temperature would need to rise by 30 degrees and more for it to become ice free.
If public money has been used to fund research such as this then whoever authorised it needs to be held to account for wasting tax-payers money.
Anything is possible says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Bottom line :
Heat ice above zero degrees and it melts. Cool the water below zero degrees and it re-freezes.
Anyone need a multi-million pound computer model to tell them that?
Anyone earning a living out of government grants.
I just read the book “The Farthest North” by Frijodolt Nansen. It chronicles their trip across the polar ice in the ship the “Fram” in 1893-1896. A very interesting read and some absolutely first rate science with temperatures, depth soundings, salinity measurements (at depth) and a plethora of other data regarding conditions across the polar ice. The ship reached as high as 85 degrees 47 minutes and Nansen and his crew mate Johansen made it to 86 degrees 14 minutes.
The detailed records of this trip would be a valuable addition to climate science.
Hint there is a lot of information there that I have NEVER seen included in the computer models of the ice, including the intrusion of the gulf stream as high as 85 degrees latitude.
Did you hear about the scientist who originally went to university to become a model.
I really like the idea that they have more than one model and then pick the one that suits their current argument. With only two models to play with at the moment I can see that they would need a lot more “investment” in a full range of models to ensure that all bases are covered.
It would be interesting to see if the model reproduced the greater temperature variability during periods of falling global temperatures compared to rising periods, that is observed over both short (decadal) and long (millenial) time scales – e.g. Vostok ice core.
I would guess not.
Has anyone told the drinks industry that water freezes? could help keep my Pimms cold during the summer.
Might have to run a few thousand more sims to confirm that water does freeze though, just to be sure, now where’s my grant.
Post normal science full of newspeak, big brother would be proud,its good news week, idiots pretending to do science.
Anthony
Seems a shame to ban the clown (bystander). He does no harm and provides some rare laughs in these difficult times. But, there again, you’ve banned him so why not out him. That could be real fun.
Old England says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:50 am
You are highlightinga point I made a long time ago. When the UK dumded down universities and dumbed up polytechniques ,it created a massive group of student’s with no intentions of working for a living. So they became experts in grant application in order to remain at school for the rest of their lives at your expense. Climate change-global warming became the holy grail.
Fridtjof Nansen NOT Frijodolt Nansen
If the press release is anything to go by, this piece of ‘research’ is pathetic on so many levels. The authors appear to believe they can:
… explore the physics of the system.
Surely, physics is what goes into the model not something that you learn from the model. These are kids playing with computers – they need to grow up.
So this model required more than 3000ppm of co2 and “centuries” to melt winter ice. So what was the point of this study, as co2 ain’t ever going to get near that!
As BioBob indicated, the warm-ongers are always telling us that we are approaching peak oil if not already there. So where’s all the Co2 gonna come from? I feel a grant application coming on.
Scientists have discovered that ice can turn into water and back into ice again! Bloody brilliant – we’re all saved!
So yet another model that only holds true if their linking of CO2 to warming ratio is accurate, which incidentally just so happens to be proven in, oh, after a couple of hundred years or so.
Since there apparently exist warmer climate induced melting is there any such thing as colder climate induced melting? o_0
I’m thinking I’m not going to hold my breath, even though my computer model strongly indicates I should be able to do so for any length of time (the crazed climate communist hippies say so too), nor save any popcorn. :0
There are no evil models, just evil modelers.
I would like to remind to all the fellows that are placing here their sarcastic comments about how these people needed a super computer model to find out that the water can refreeze, that in the 21st century the “consensus” about the scientific truth requires it to be the result of a model, not of the observation of the nature like in the ol’ good times. It doesn’t matter how many times you can melt and refreeze your ice cubes by taking them out and putting them back in your freezer. If the computer model says it will not refreeze, that ain’t going to happen. The science is settled.
Ignoring for the moment that this is pure fantasy … exactly what would be bad about this scenario? It would mean much of Canada and Siberia would be far more habitable without changing much of the rest of the world more than a couple of degrees. Lot’s more farm land would also be available. It would also open shipping lanes as well, not to mention improving living conditions for thousands of species that prefer warmer weather (that’s most of them).
Sounds like a win-win-win situation.
Allencic
As you’re a retired geologist I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you the climate of the Pliocene, but for those who don’t know it was about 2-3 degrees warmer than today* and average sea levels were ~25m higher than today**. Surely you can see that a rise in sea level of that much would be devestating to the population that inhabite the deltas of the World and produce much of the food we eat.
*http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Robinson_etal.pdf
**http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Dwyer_Chandler.pdf
re: Kelvin Vaughn. How about a blonde joke about the blonde who went to Penn State to study climate science because she wanted to become a super model?
Umm. they claim 11 degrees F will result in ice free arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Hardly!
Another model not worth the a plugged nickel.
Bloke down the pub says:
August 18, 2011 at 4:29 am
As BioBob indicated, the warm-ongers are always telling us that we are approaching peak oil if not already there. So where’s all the Co2 gonna come from? I feel a grant application coming on.
—————–
I’d imagine burning gas and coal for fuel would be the most likely source…
This is a general question that applies to this article as well as all aspects of AGW. I ask this of all my warmist friends. I tend to get blank stares or nasty comments that I’m crazy or worse. Here goes. Global warming is supposed to have been taking place for at least the last thirty years or so, if NO AGW had been happening, what would the climate of the last thirty years have been like? How would it have been different than what we’ve experienced? Would the climate have been better or worse? Please answer with specifics. No fair using words like could, might, perhaps, it is possible that, etc., etc.
Old England says:
This study, as so many have pointed out, is not only pointless but fails to appreciate that the artcic winter temperature would need to rise by 30 degrees and more for it to become ice free.
———–
The global average temperature during the Pliocene was 2-3 degrees higher than today, however Northern latitudes above 70N were as much as 10-20 degrees warmer than todays temps, so that’s certainly possible.
AGW is a failed theory. Where is the tropospheric hotspot?
Allencic
The reason that you get blank stares is because it’s a loaded question and you know it. Tell a person with skin cancer that they’ve had it for a while now and haven’t had any problems with it so why operate on it and see the response you get.
Did you notice that CO2 had to be raised 8 X 355 to get 6C of warming? Not 2 X by 2100 to get 5C of warming ….
The IPCC models are so different from the one(s) used here, right?
SteveE says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:22 am
Allencic
The reason that you get blank stares is because it’s a loaded question and you know it. Tell a person with skin cancer that they’ve had it for a while now and haven’t had any problems with it so why operate on it and see the response you get.
Oh come on. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The blankness and nastiness stem from fear and anger stem from the fact that they know the answer would tend to threaten their warmist Beliefs which they hold so dear.
Skin cancer? Please. It is real and it is dangerous to human health and life. CAGW, on the other hand belongs in comic books along with other wild sci-fi adolescence-crazed fantasies.
SteveE says:
August 18, 2011 at 6:31 am
Just remind me…. how are deltas formed?
“..polar ice tipping points ahead..”
Well, only if you’ve been tipping a bit too much of the AGW ‘Kool Aid’ (Jonestown flavor)!
SteveE,
Thanks for your smarmy reply. As someone who has had very radical surgery for prostate cancer I really appreciate your serious answer to a serious question. Putz!
How short are our memories anyway?
Back in the 1960’s there were cries that the ice caps would be gone in 10 years.
“Don K says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:40 am
But you do need to keep in mind that the hypothetical 6C rise is not expected to be evenly distributed. What is modeled is — I’m sure — no or slight warming in the tropics and rather dramatic warming — way more than 6C — in the high latitudes.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that in the tropics, there is so much water vapor in the air that the effects of the CO2 are almost completely masked by H2O. But at the poles, since air at -30 C can hold so little water vapor, the effects of the CO2 are more dramatic. It does make a certain amount of sense. However if the high latitudes were to go up by 30 C just for argument sake, then the air would be able to hold a lot more water vapor so the effect of the CO2 would not be as strong at the poles as now. So I would not be surprised there is some sort of a logarithmic function in terms of how much warmer the Arctic will be relative the rest of the world should warming occur.
Allencic
I’m sorry to hear about your prostate cancer and hope that the surgery was successful.
I’m sure you’re fully aware of the importance of treating something early then rather than waiting and seeing if it gets any worst. And as a geologist I’m also sure you are aware of how radically the climate and sea-level can change and understand the effects it would have on our planet.
roger says:
August 18, 2011 at 11:08 am
Just remind me…. how are deltas formed?
——-
Deltas are formed where a large river meets the sea. An example is the Ganges delta in Bangladesh. This flooded in 1998 and left 30 million people homeless.
Hope that helps!
Actually, when the ice goes for a century or two, the polar bears de-methylate one of their jumping genes and turn into Kodiaks. It’s all in the program.
SE;
peak oil is just another fantasy marker. All the fossil fuel available wouldn’t double CO2. So my plan for reaching the agricultural stimulus goal of “2,100 by 2100” is to use coal-fired plants and solar furnaces to break down limestone and release all the good stuff.
My new montra, revealed to me by The One we’ve been waiting for, is:
“If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear,” he said. Obama Alpha Il, Aug 17, 2011
to SteveE regarding Allencic
“I’m sorry to hear about your prostate cancer and hope that the surgery was successful.”
“I’m sure you’re fully aware of the importance of treating something early then rather than waiting and seeing if it gets any worst (sic). And as a geologist I’m also sure you are aware of how radically the climate and sea-level can change and understand the effects it would have on our planet.”
____________
I doubt that Allencic had his prostate removed (that if if he did) without having a biopsy that proved definitively that he had cancer. He did not have his prostate removed because it was a little swollen, or removed on a theory that all men will have prostate caner by age XX, 10, 20, 30 years down the line. We don’t treat things we don’t have.
Smokey says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Bystander,
Incorrect, as usual. GCM models confidently predicted a “tropospheric hot spot,” which was said to be “the fingerprint of global warming.”
But the models were wrong.
————–
Smokey, we’ve discussed this before and I have explained to you that the tropospheric hot spot, or lack of it, is NOT a “fingerprint of global warming”. I would be interested to hear what you have to say about Dr Roy Spencer’s take on the matter:
“Some have claimed that this somehow invalidates the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming.
But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source.
…
the lack of a hotspot no more disproves manmade global warming than the existence of the hotspot would have proved manmade global warming.”
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/
No. Not true.
An atmospheric “hot spot” is most definitely a required, essential and also necessary cause, symptom, and explanation of the “theory” of CAGW: The uprising radiation from the earth MUST BE intercepted and absorbed by CO2 molecules (and be re-radiated downward from a point in the atmosphere and re-absorbed by the earth) ..
If this theoretical “hot spot” cannot be found, cannot be measured, then the whole premise of CAGW is falsified.
John B fails to accept that the models were, as usual, wrong:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
But like any true believer, when observations trump models… John B goes with the models.
[8,400+ results in a search for “fingerprint of global warming”, 29,000+ results for “tropospheric hot spot”. Both are figments of CAGW true believers’ imaginations.]
Smokey says:
August 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm
John B fails to accept that the models were, as usual, wrong:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
But like any true believer, when observations trump models… John B goes with the models.
[8,400+ results in a search for “fingerprint of global warming”, 29,000+ results for “tropospheric hot spot”. Both are figments of CAGW true believers’ imaginations.]
————-
Smokey, I was asking you what you think of Roy Spencer’s position, that’s all. He doesn’t appear to agree with you or RACookPE1978. I’m not “going with” anything.