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

Crispin in Yogayakarta
Your views are out there in La-di-da land about coal.
Aerosols can also be tested by sampling, so the scattering light argument is bogus. I was simply pointing out that changing away from coal reduces aerosols. In China, people wear masks on the streets in some cities.
Do you have a lot of coal up in Canada, because coal contains mercury, arsenic and, of course, sulfur, along with any bad thing it’s been exposed to for millions of years. When a Chemist wants to capture bad things, the first thing he would think of is carbon.
I’ve posted sources saying natural gas costs half as much to produce electricity as coal. I see the market works fine for conservatives as long as it isn’t coal. These power plants have a cheaper and cleaner alternative than using coal. The reason they are being told to change is they have been told to get their act straight for over 40 years. Now that natural gas is cheaper, they have no excuse. The EPA isn’t strict telling a company to use a fuel at half the costs to solve it’s pollution
problems after more than 40 years.
I’ve also posted the data in a chart on snow cover at least twice on this thread, so it’s data collected in June for many years. You can find a chart of snow cover in google images. Here it is again:
http://scitechdaily.com/images/snow-cover-anomalies.jpg
I’ve made the point several times that area is more than three Greenlands. Warming is right back on schedule.
You don’t believe adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere causes warming or that losing sea ice is a bad idea. I don’t believe in the tooth fairy and one of us is right.
Global warming may be good for Canada, but it isn’t going to be good for the United States. Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia have carbon resources to sell and we only have coal, which is the dirtiest of them all. We probably could develop enough natural gas, but why bother?

Gary
I was interested in your comment
“You have been told that the jet stream guides weather patterns and is determined by differences in temperature of the poles and tropics. You have been told if that difference in temperature is reduced that the jet stream meanders further north and south and gets stuck in a location. Being stuck in a location causes repeat weather conditons, so it’s a good way to get unpleasant things like floods, droughts and heat waves.”
I think the jet stream is a major-but as yet little understood-feature of our climate.
I have spent some years searching through actual observations of the weather in an attempt to reconstruct CET from 1660 back to 1000 AD.
I wrote of the first phase from 1660 to 1538 here, and also examined the temperature reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb (you will appreciate the latter had a much better grasp of historical records than the former.) This research included-amongst many other places-the excellent archives at the Met Office. I wrote the following article
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf
Amongst the notes I recorded in the general caveats were these; Especially please note 13)
1) When accessing historic observations and records, certain caveats need to be made, although generally the information portrayed is reliable as the information of harvest dates, weather patterns etc would be essential for the continued welfare of an agrarian based society. In the context of the time notable events would be chronicled, as even short periods of extremes might have serious consequences for people often living at the margins.
11) Whilst frost fairs may be seen to be a good proxy for extreme cold, during Puritan times this activity may have been frowned on. Also changes in the course/flow of the river may have precluded this activity even though the temperatures might suggest a frost fair was possible. A list of frost fairs is included in the references. As Mann and Jones mention when quoting Lamb 1977 in their own 2004 paper ‘Climate over the past millennia’ there were only 22 frost fairs on the Thames recorded between 1408 and 1814.
12) CET is seen as a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. See article ‘The Long Slow Thaw’ for evidence and caveats.
13) Due to its geographical location British weather is often quite mobile and periods of hot, cold, dry or wet weather tend to be relatively short lived. If such events are longer lasting than normal, or interrupted and resumed, that can easily shape the character of a month or a season. Reading the numerous references there is clear evidence of ‘blocking patterns,’ perhaps as the jet stream shifts, or a high pressure takes up residence, feeding in winds from a certain direction which generally shape British weather.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf
It is obvious that the jet stream meandered very considerably throughout the period in question which started off warm, turned cold, then oscillated between the two states. It is also obvious that the catastrophic weather events were much more frequent in what is termed the LIA than during the MWP or Modern times. Not surprising as there is less energy if the air is has a moderate temperature gradient than if there are extremes of heat and cold as happened during the LIA.
So the weather can get ‘stuck’ whenever the jet stream meanders, but the consequences are likely to be much worse during extremes. The evidence through tens of thousands of observations is that the modern era-like the first few decades of the 1700’s and the 1400’s/early 1500’s and the MWP-is that the modern climate is benign, not severe.
I do hope you will continue to participate in future threads as we need dissenting voices but please do realise that we are not ignorant and adjust your comments accordingly. Hopefully some from ‘my’ side will also moderate their tone thereby allowing a reasoned discussion.
tonyb

Gary Lance,
you said
“To melt out of those conditions, volcanos needed to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to reach 13%. ”
you also said
“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!”
Something like 17 probes have been to Venus and more are planned. We know what the temperature profile of Venus is and at a depth in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is the same as the atmospheric pressure of Earth, correcting for distance to the Sun, the temperature is the same as on Earth despite an atmosphere of 96.5% co2.
Yet you claim that 13% of co2 miraculously melted ice.
What’s more, an atmosphere of 13% co2 equates to 130,000 parts per million. Where is your evidence that co2 levels ever reached such a figure. Divide by ten and you might be nearer reality.
Also what scientific evidence, mathematical, and or lab based experiment shows how much heat is provided by 13% of co2. Presumably you have a graph somewhere that shows that increasing percentages of co2 result in a temperature increase of hundreds of degrees centigrade ?
Sorry, but co2 has an ever decreasing effect as its percentage volume is increased, the maximum effect of co2, ie. at 100% co2 is just 2 degrees centigrade. Temperature levels on this or any other planet are not controlled by co2.
TSI. You quote values of tsi in isolation and insist that this cannot account for temperature changes and so you resort to ascribing imaginary powers to co2 which neither exist in theory, laboratory experiments, or on Venus.
What governs temperatures on this planet is a complex interaction between many different agencies, with time lags and mostly negative feedbacks with one or two positive feedbacks thrown in for good measure.
You blame the Maunder and Dalton on changes in albedo due to deforestation, yet today we have even more deforestation and a greater area of arable land than then, yet your prediction for temperatures is that they will increase. Mankind has undoubtedly made planet wide changes to albedo, but these have never been shown to relate to historical temperatures.
You acolytes of co2 are effectively modelling a rally car (temperatures) picking up speed as it goes down a hill (co2), but now your explanation is running out of steam as your model tries and fails to explain why the speed of the rally car has levelled off. This is hardly surprising as you left out two rather important factors from your model, the rally car has an engine (the sun) and a driver (negative feedbacks).
An increasingly attractive explanation is that the same forces that most probably influence tsi are the same forces that also provide the forcing or magnification effects that allow tsi to show a good match for temperatures going back to and including the Maunder minimum / LIA. In other words the magnetic field of the Sun influencing tsi and the magnetic field of Earth influencing cloud cover. Both are declining at a steady rate, no one has any idea why or when it it will stop or reverse or what will happen.
Graphs of magnetism against tsi and temperature show a far better match than co2.
The graph which shows the best match against tsi includes the Dalton, the Maunder, and the warm bits in between, also suggests a deeper minimum than the Maunder by about 2100. co2 was not included in that graph, the match is good enough without.
The prophets of co2 have failed to deliver on their promises for the last 16 years, and now it is too late, solar activity can only decline from now and a cold, possibly severe cold period is our future. co2 hasn’t delivered because it can’t deliver.
How many years of flat temperatures are needed to cause you to question your belief in co2.?
How many years of decreasing temperatures are needed to cause you to question your belief in co2.?
If we have a repeat of the Dalton in the next 10 or 20 years will you start to question your belief in co2.?
If conditions then continue on to a repeat of the Maunder or worse, will you then start to question your belief in co2.?
I was a co2 acolyte two years ago, but then I broadened my reading and after spending every evening for 3 weeks and about a solid week of holiday time looking at the conflicting evidence I realised that a great deal of mainstream climate science was and is downright fraudulent, and completely ignores the far more likely and dangerous outcome, namely impending global cooling.
I can see why you worship at the church of co2, the prophets of that church promise you that if you reform and stop producing co2 then you can live happily in La La land ever after. Whereas the prophets of the church of the Sun tell you that things are going to get so cold that life will be tough for many and that there is nothing that can be done about it, so you need to shape up, grow up and face up to it and adapt. No cushy La La tellytubby land on offer.
I guess in your case no amount of cooling and no amount of time will shake your blinkered belief in co2. If you do ever change your mind, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, will you have the honesty to return to this blog and make that admission ?

Crispin says
I have tried moving South
Henry says
I know you guys think this is a joke. But remember my forecast of ca. -0.4 or -0.5 by 2020 is only a global average. It does not sound like a lot. Initially I also thought so. But in some places it is a lot more. In fact, I noted that in Anchorage (Alaska) average temps. have already fallen by as much as 1.5 K since 2000. I have the reports from two weather stations there to prove it. The poor tomato farmers there did not have much of a crop up there this year. And nobody tells them that next year is not going to be any better….
I think it is a sin that the local weather stations (in the world) are not forced to report a trend for the past 11 or 12 years (to cover at least one sun cycle), to warn farmers.

richardscourtneysays :
October 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm
I can just write it and I can’t make you read and comprehend it.

Gary Lance Aka zedsdeadbed the troll that infects other sites, right now i will go back to lurking, and leaning ( but not from him)

J Martin says:
October 21, 2012 at 3:02 am
Try sticking with one mistake at a time!
You brought up Venus at a certain depth of atmosphere and that’s not apples to apples. Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot. Venus gets a certain amount of sunlight and so does Earth. They both have their unique albedos, so explain why it’s so hot on Venus!
I gave you the dates for the Maunder Minimum and it couldn’t have started the LIA, like you said. The Europe of the LIA wasn’t the Europe Caesar visited and there was enough deforestation to cool Europe during that time period.
The data for 13% CO2 works like this: First there is the evidence of a Snowball Earth and a book can be written about it, so find the evidence and notice when it was. The issue then becomes is there enough evidence to believe such an Earth existed and if it did, how could it stop from existing? A person who is truly a scientist and knows the greenhouse effects of gases can be tested and the tests prove it is true can calculate how much greenhouse gas is needed to warm a Snowball Earth. Water is a greenhouse gas and is a major part of that Snowball, but it’s too cold to get much water in the atmosphere, so what other gas can it be and how can it get there? Volcanos give off CO2 and a frozen world prevents that CO2 from leaving the atmosphere. Since our present world has places that have recorded temperatures to make dry ice, that Snowball Earth could also do it. It probably took tens of millions of years, but eventually enough greenhouse gas was put into the atmosphere to melt through the Snowball and once the albedo effect started to assist, it melted the ice away.
The data does show the O2 levels in our atmosphere increased significantly following this time, so where did the O2 come from, if it wasn’t CO2? Volcanos can give CO2, but not O2. Much of the original O2 was used to get rid of iron and methane. There is evidence O2 levels had to drop to around 6%, eventually rose to 35% and declined to our present 21%. I’ve never heard a scientist suggest any other way to get our atmospheric O2 without plants and CO2.
The relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature is established science, which works as a trigger for increases and decreases.

D Böehm says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:31 am
I’ve given you plenty of examples of changing CO2 changing temperature and it’s the basis of geology. It’s your agenda to claim CO2 doesn’t trigger warming or cooling events that determines this new pseudo-science.
Here is another one no mentioned and that’s our present temperatures are a product of the weathering removing CO2 with the formation of the Himalayas. That is established Geology, but you choose not to believe science.
You still haven’t shown where that approx. 100 ppm CO2 originated between glacial and interglacial periods.
I’m not objecting to established science and you are, so the burden of proof that CO2 can’t change temperature is on you. Science says it can and has been saying for nearly 200 years.

“Richard M says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:36 am
Gary Lance says:
October 20, 2012 at 10:58 am
Richard M
I don’t accept cherry picked data and I’ve told you over and over the antarctic ice mass has nothing to do with global warming.
I never said it did. I simply responded to one of your increasing number of incorrect statements. You obviously get your science from Propaganda ‘R Us. If you ever decide to actually look at the real data and use some kind of critical thinking then get back to me. Until then I will assume you will never even consider real data over the propaganda continually fed to you.
When a scientist looks at data, they look at all the data. When a scientist sees someone posting charts that deceive or flat out lie about dates, then they know the person isn’t interested in science.
Thanks for the nice self-diagnosis. I’ve noticed when you have been pressed to provide “real data” you have provided zero, zilch, nada, none. Your projection is totally hilarious.
The rest of your comment is nothing but repeats of alarmist propaganda that you clearly can’t understand. Claiming people don’t believe in the greenhouse effect because they understand there is much more to the physics of the atmosphere than the simple GHE is quite hilarious. The fact is you have such a simplistic view that you are easily swayed by the propaganda. Educate yourself and come back in a few months (or years) when you can converse intelligently.”
I pointed out your latest data on ice mass in Antarctica came from a satellite that stopped working over two and a half years ago. I also said the latest data I’ve seen shows mass decreases in both Antarctica and Greenland. The Australians have set up meeting to discuss changes in the ice and ocean currents that they are alarmed about. See what IceSat has to say about that!
I get primary sources of scientific information and not material manufactured on blogs. When was the last time you visited science and not Propaganda ‘R Us?
Do you think nature is law of Physics? Milankovitch Cycles say we should be cooling since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, so claiming we have been warming since the LIA, because of nature is not an explanation. Anything you call nature still has to have a mechanism recognized by science.