More crack in the Antarctic

Prof. Rott says “Climate models are predicting drastic warming for high latitudes” but climate models do not predict. They “project.”

Birdieshooter says:
April 5, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Could someone give me a scientifically defensible reconciliation of the Antarctica ice shelves retreat and the SH Sea Ice anomaly being above average per Joe Bastardi link. To this simple mind one doesnt follow the other
I hope so. Mt. Erebus is an active volcano, close to the Antarctic Peninsular. So there is evidence of vulcanism in that area. There is speculation that some of this vulcanism is actiive on the sea floor around the Antarctic Peninsular. If this has increased in recent years, and there is no data one way or the other, this could explain the abnormal warming of the oceans surrounding the peninsular.

What we really need is the “Hugh Pepper in a cage” phenomena. We would place the cage in the center of the Antarctic – ground zero if you will. We would record the results. The following year we would place the cage, with contents, at the North Pole and record our findings.
This would allow us to determine the exact effects of extreme warming of the poles.

How do we know this is caused by global warming. I have always suspected erosion from the ocean on the penninsula could cause the breakup because some parts of the pennjunsula are exposed to the ocean almost year round and are not protected by the sea ice like most of the continent. ??

imoira says:
April 5, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Thank you Gail Combs! You’ve made my exploration much easier.
_________________________
Your welcome. I had the darnest time figuring out just where everything was down there. Geologically it is not exactly what you would call quiet. Given the japanese tsunami hit Hawaii ( 3ft wave) you could have something interesting going on with a decent size underwater earthquake or volcano.

The crack in the ice cannot be caused by radiation from carbon dioxide, because not even the radiation in a microwave oven can melt ice directly.
In my view we need to focus on the assumed problem, namely carbon dioxide and, to a lesser extent, methane perhaps. If I refer to trace gases take it to mean these, because I refuse to call them greenhouse gases.
We have what we have in the Earth’s total system. Somehow, in some way we may never fully understand, a long-term near equilibrium situation has developed. We have some energy being generated in the core, mantle and crust, most likely by fission I think, but I won’t go into that. But it does set up a temperature gradient from the core to the surface which is very stable below the outer kilometre or so of the crust. However, it may vary in long-term natural cycles that have something to do with planetary orbits. Likewise, the intensity of solar radiation getting through the atmosphere to the surface may also vary in natural cycles which may have something to do with planetary influences on the Sun, and on the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit and on cosmic ray intensity and on cloud cover, ENSO cycles etc.
There is much to be learned about such natural cycles, and we have seen papers by Nicola Scafetta for example which appear to provide compelling evidence of the natural cycles. I believe that in fact such natural cycles are quite sufficient to explain all observed climate change, including what has happened in the last half century or so, right up to the present. The world has just been alarmed because the 1000 year cycle and the 60 year cycle were both rising around 1970 to 1998, just as they did by about the same amount 60 years earlier, and 60 years before that and no doubt further back. We cannot escape the obvious fact that there is a ~1000 year cycle which is due for another maximum within 50 to 200 years. Then there will be 500 years of falling temperatures.
But the central issue is whether or not trace gases are really having any effect at all on climate.
In my paper I have explained the physics of heat transfer and demonstrated why trace gases cannot have any effect whatsoever on what we call climate.
Climate may be thought of as the mean of temperature measurements, usually made in the air between 1.5 and 2 metres above the ground. Thermometers are affected by the thermal energy in that air near the surface. As you can read here thermal energy is distinct from heat. It is transferred by molecular collision processes (conduction and diffusion,) by physical movement (convection) and by radiation. . The energy in radiation is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is first converted to electromagnetic (radiated) energy and then that EM energy has to be converted back to thermal energy in a target. Hence, in a sense thermal energy only appears to be transferred by radiation.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) tells us that in any (one way, independent) spontaneous process, entropy cannot decrease unless external energy is added. There are no two ways about it. If spontaneous radiation emanates from a cooler object (or atmosphere) its EM energy cannot be converted back to thermal energy in a warmer target, such as Earth’s surface. This point is not debatable. A violation of the SLoT cannot be excused on the grounds that there will be some subsequent independent process (maybe not even radiation) which will transfer more thermal energy back to the atmosphere. If you disagree, you are mistaken.
However, the radiation from a cooler body can affect the radiative component of the cooling of a warmer body. Although such radiation undergoes what I call “resonant scattering” this does involve the “resonators” in the warmer body and uses up some of its radiating capacity. Because the incident radiation supplies the energy, the warmer body does not need to convert an equivalent amount of its own thermal energy. Hence it cools more slowly.
But, the resonating process involves all the (potential) different frequencies in the incident radiation. There will be far less effect when there are limited frequencies as is the case for radiation from a trace gas in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the effect depends on the temperature of that gas and is less when it is cooler. It is far less from space (equivalent to about 2.7K) and so there is no slowing of cooling for that portion of radiation which gets through the atmospheric window.
The remaining radiation (when we look at net figures, not all that backradiation) represents less than a third of all the cooling processes from the surface to the atmosphere. The other non-radiative processes can, and will, simply speed up in order to compensate, because they do so if the temperature gap increases. There are further reasons discussed in Q.3 in the Appendix of my paper.
So there is no overall effect at all due to trace gases on the rate of cooling of the surface. Thus there can be no effect upon climate.
Discussion on this continues on this thread.

Hi All,
Is the data from Werner Brozek for the entire planet or just for the Antartic Region?

What?
Only one troll?

There is no link to the article!

This looks more like a cooling event than a warming event. 3200 square miles is a lot of cold water when it melts. This is the counter to Trenberth’s missing heat – now we know where the missing cold is, though.
Also – do the alarmists believe that we are in a glacier building period? I think that has not been the case since the end of the LIA. Coincidence the snout ice age in many parts of the world is from that time?