Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 14 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever

Re Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm:
Oh, by the way:

…what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime, because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so…

You still believe in gravity? How anachronistically Newtonian of you!

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 20, 2012 at 3:22 pm
The government wanted nuclear reactors to provide materials for nuclear weapons. Weinberg wanted to use thorium to make reactors that couldn’t meltdown and for a host of other intelligent reasons.
You aren’t going to find private investment for nuclear reactors.

“richardscourtney says:
October 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Gary Lance:
At October 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm you say to me
Pass a course in Climatology and then explain how good an ice free arctic is! It will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed. The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.
Oh Wise One who knows so much more climatology than me,
Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
And, O Wise One, you tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.” Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?
O Wise One, I need to know more. I beg you to provide me with the knowledge I seek.
Richard”
You can start by learning to read what is said. I said it was related to the Earth.
A child born today is not going to live in an America without rapid climate change and you think the world can just pick up and move to Canada. That child is going to find out people can’t adapt as quickly as the changes and also discover that the whole thing could have been avoided with mitigation.

Gary Lance says:
October 20, 2012 at 6:30 am
>>
P. Solar
If you want to discuss data, post original charts with sources and not more of those tampered charts with cherry picked data!
>>
Well that’s twice you have accused me of using “cherry picked” data. You’d better explain now how using ALL the data in a dataset set is “cherry-picking”.
I don’t do “charts” , I think that is probably something to do with spreadsheets and Excel. All the graphs I have shown indicate the source of that data so you can go and check for yourself if you think they have been “tampered” with.
Unless you are able to say why you think they are “tampered” you had better shut up with the false claims and look at what the data is telling you. Your pathetic claims that data is cherry picked or tampered are absolutely meaningless unless you can back up such a claim. Which of course you can not.
<>
I never mentioned cosmic rays nor neutrinos. What on Earth are you talking about ?
I have presented solid scientific evidence of what is happening in the Arctic and you refuse to look at it and arbitrarily dismiss it without any reason other than that you don’t like it.
You are in denial about climate.
If you are sincerely worried about future climate why do you find it so hard to examine the evidence that shows it is not as bad as we thought in the 1990s ? We have a lot more good quality data than we had then and we have 15 years more of climate change to study.
I’m not trying to trick you or anyone else, I’m just presenting the data. All the data, not cherries.

From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm:

The government wanted nuclear reactors to provide materials for nuclear weapons. Weinberg wanted to use thorium to make reactors that couldn’t meltdown and for a host of other intelligent reasons.

Which in absolutely no way addresses my points. We could have had all of our electricity provided by nukes by now. The Greenies didn’t want nukes. The Greenies are to blame for the carbon emissions that wouldn’t have existed if they hadn’t insisted on killing new nukes.
Next time there’s a “No Nukes!” protest rally nearby, you better be out there as a counter-protester and admonish them for trying to kill the planet by runaway global warming. If you don’t, you’re just another loud-mouthed flaming hypocrite.

You aren’t going to find private investment for nuclear reactors.

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/

The independent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted in February 2012 to grant a combined construction and operating license for two reactors at Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle, near Waynesboro. It is the first combined license ever approved for a U.S. nuclear energy facility, which will become the nation’s first new nuclear units built in 30 years. On March 30, 2012, the NRC issued combined construction and operating licenses to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company for two reactors near Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
Some 19 companies and consortia are studying, licensing or building more than 30 nuclear power reactors. Of the more than 30, there are currently five under construction by three companies and consortia. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively reviewing 10 combined license applications from 9 companies and consortia for 16 nuclear power plants. See New Nuclear Plant Status.

Some day, if you study hard and put in the long hours of practice, if you are truly dedicated to the pursuit, you too will be able to competently Google.

Gary Lance says:
“…if you want a chart corrected for changes in solar irradiance and comparing CO2 to temperature in the Phanerozoic, find it yourself! I’ve seen it and it matches.”
First off, we’re comparing the Holocene climate, not millions of years in the past, when the continents were in different relative locations and the Isthmus of Panama was open. And you won’t mind if I question your secret chart: put up or shut up.
The fact is that you have no chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. I have posted empirical scientific evidence showing exactly the opposite. Your response has been nothing but impotent hand-waving.
Your comment: “…what mechanism is involved to increase CO2 in the atmosphere with increases in temperature?” is so basic that I won’t waste time trying to educate you. The mechanism is clear. But keep in mind that, in any case, skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on the climate alarmist crowd to prove that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. Proof must be in the form of scientific evidence: verifiable empirical observations, and/or raw data. Note that computer models are not scientific evidence.
All you have done in this thread is hand-wave, and present yourself as the climate Authority know-it-all. That will only get you derisive laughter here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. You are just repeating the debunked talking points found in censoring echo chamber blogs like Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science and the RealScienceyClimate bubble chamber. And you still do not understand the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Nothing in the current climate is unprecedented; it has all happened before, and to a greater extent, during times when CO2 levels were much lower.
Now, where is your mythical ‘CO2 causes T’ Holocene chart? It doesn’t exist, does it?

If sea ice continues to decline, the refreeze will continue to get faster and the refreeze area will continue to get greater. The primary reason is geometric. The sun will dip at the same time each year, the loss of insolation will quickly bring about freezing temps (abetted by the uncovered ocean releasing heat energy) and sea ice will form. The timing of insolation loss will be constant, but its effect on sea ice reformation will increase if Arctic sea ice continues to recede Poleward.
Imagine that the area of Arctic sea ice was completely bounded by land and the land edge was well inside the zone of current refrteeze, so that each winter the ocean was completely covered with ice, but each summer the decline continued over the long-term. The summertime minimum recedes over time, but the winter maximum remains constant. Both the melt and the refreeze would necessarily occur faster and over a greater area.
As long as the Arctic winters remain deeply below freezing we will continue to see faster melts and refreezes. Basically, the parabola will deepen. We expect refreeze increased area/rate if the sea ice edge continues to recede towards the Pole over the long-term. And that is exactly what we are seeing.
Albedo loss and insulation loss are complicating and competing factors here, but geometry explains the steepening parabola displayed in the longer-term sea ice area/extent records. And it a result, too, of long-term thinning in the sea ice pack.

Gary Lance cannot produce the chart he claims he has, so he ignores my comment. Readers can decide for themselves if Mr Lance is credible. Lance also says:
“If you don’t think CO2 can cause temperature forcing, do the math on Venus and take it’s albedo into consideration. Tell Venus CO2 is a logarithm!”
If Lance uses the WUWT archive search function, he would learn that CO2 is not the reason that Venus is hot. And since he claims that on earth CO2 causes temperature forcing, I once again ask Lance: where is the empirical evidence?

@ur momisugly Gary Lance
I am from Canada and we are really familiar with permafrost. I know the man who designed the first building (Inuvik) built on permafrost that has underground parking, and seen it.
When permafrost melts, trees grow much more rapidly. There are there in stunted form all over the Arctic tundra (those little bushes are 1-200 year old trees).
“Eventually, there won’t be sea ice present in June.” And the last time that happened was….? Be serious – there is nothing unusual about about an ice-free Arctic summer.
“Aerosols are hard to accurately estimate for their radiative effect,”
Not so. Please see the work of our particle expert Dr Tami Bond and her carefully worded testimony to Congress.
“…but most of our aerosols are gone in a week and are only there because they are constantly replaced.” This is based on the erroneous idea that all particles can be detected by light scattering. Below 0.1 microns (PM0.1) they were undetectable. Now we know better. There are gazillions of nanoparticles (BC and OC) floating happily around the atmosphere for years. Biomass burning creates a lot of them.
“It isn’t that hard to convert a boiler from coal to natural gas.” Why bother? They have a limited life anyway. Coal (which is a form of biomass) has lower H2 than natural gas so per MJ of heat it produces more CO2. So what? It is obviously have no detectable effect. There isn’t even any correlation to falsely connect as causation. Ask yourself how this level of BS got to dominate the science budget! Particles from coal plants are not from the fuel, they are created during the combustion and by blowing the ash into the air (hence, scrubbers). There are coal combustors that actually, literally, clean the ambient particles from the combustion air and emit no PM1.0 at all. It
is a matter of choosing the right equipment for the fuel.
“The trend for aerosols in the US is in decline and that means more warming.” Not during a 30 year cooling cycle 🙂 And those prediction(s) are made based on light scattering measurements, not PM measurements. The answer is not clear at all.
“Antarctica and Greenland are both losing mass,…” That is factually incorrect. Please read this list more regularly.
“… but the albedo changes are nothing like losing 6 million square kilometers of snow cover. ” Global warming alarmists predict more snow from a warming world so let’s watch the real data and see what happens, and more importantly, whether the predicted warming effect is manifested. Because you have made an error about the albedo influence in the high Arctic, be careful how high you pile the arguments so you don’t have to far to climb down later. An ice-free arctic ocean loses heat much more rapidly than an icy one. Just look at the current re-freeze to see what I mean. It is ocean heat that is being lost, not atmospheric heat, in the main. Ice = insulation. Basic physics.
“The antarctic sea ice minimum goes back to the same each year and that’s were the albedo effect is important.” The albedo at the southern ice pack limit is more important than the Arctic because of the latitude. You can calculate this yourself but it is harder than CO2 absorption from melting ice.
“CO2 is important in the long run and it’s hard to remove from the atmosphere,” It is removed from the atmosphere in vast amounts on an hourly basis. As it has nearly no causitive influence on global temperatures (as has been repeatedly demonstrated by comparing the temperature and the CO2 level), why would we want to try to do something that looks expensive and pointless? Do you really, really think we can override natural fluctuations in global temperature? What assurance can you give that it will make a detectable difference? None! Why? Because the influence is so small and the negative feedbacks are so strong (see Bejan).
There will be a drought in Southern Africa in 2021 (part of their 19 year drought cycle). You could rather start drafting news releases about how this is all the fault of the evil coal companies pushing their black death on the misguided global population. At least there will be no harm in the activity, whereas cutting off the electricity supply or tripling its cost causes huge amount of real harm to millions, nay, billions of people.
“We already have enough to mess up the world.” We certainly have, and reformation is good, but it is not caused by CO2. There are many real environmental problems to solve but the resources are being drained from the public purse to chase mirages of fanciful proportion.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm
You have a commercial nuclear industry invented by the same man (Weinberg) who wanted it changed to Thorium MSRs. You have high pressure reactors that can meltdown and don’t remove nuclear waste. You have three quarters of those reactors leaking radioactive tritium in the groundwater and they are regulated by the NRC. You don’t have people wanting to build large facilities because they would have to shut down existing capacity to operate them.
Nuclear power didn’t fall apart by a green movement, it fell apart because it became too expensive when the government wasn’t footing the bill.
Try researching something for a change and do it with sources to let you form your own opinion!
Hear is the deal you characterize with that nonsense about greenies: You can’t economically downsize nuclear facilities, and the electricity needs to be made at capacity, so it’s only good for a base load. Since no one is going without electricity, you are going to have to shut down existing capacity to operate your new nuclear facility. Your location is limited to where you can get large amounts of water. You are building a nuclear reactor with a limited lifespan, so a new reactor will be required in the future and they have been built at those presently operating nuclear facilities. There is no mechanism to get rid of nuclear waste and when that reactor stops making you money, you still have to maintain it. It’s very expensive, costs many years to get approval, because of constant design changes, years to build where it costs you and without you making money from it and the federal government has enough bomb material and doesn’t want to help you out. You may find yourself responsible for that nuclear waste, once a means of disposing of it is made possible.
Nuclear is only cheap, if it’s subsidized and you ignore the cost of building and rebuilding it. It costs more than just fuel and personnel.
Replacement reactors are thought out well in advance, but they usually have design changes requiring a long time for NRC approval. The containment building needed for safety really drove up the costs. I’ve been able to check on new nuclear reactors being built, so why haven’t you? You can find them all listed in wiki, just go to NRC, pick a region and scroll to the bottom for a list of nuclear facilities in all regions!

“richardscourtney says:
October 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Gary Lance:
I still await the answers to my questions which you said your superior knowledge could provide. So far all you have offered in reply is your post at October 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm which claims “the Earth” is “America”.
I admit to being surprised at that because I have spent my life thinking I am living on the Earth.
Anyway, I still await the information you claim to have. Or are the answers to my questions all ‘Inner Secrets’ that can only be shared among the High Priests of the Cult of Global Warming?
Richard”
Your nonsense has been answered and you’re just spamming. You don’t have my full attention.