After all of the news about a minimum record ice extent last month, this is interesting. As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR. many predictied that as a result of the extra open ocean surface, we see a very fast refreeze in the Arctic. It appears they were right. In fact, this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 1979.
Here’s JAXA data plotted to show what has happened:
From the blog sunshine hours, here’s an analysis using NSIDC data:
=============================================================
Today is day 291 in the Arctic. The minimum in 2012 was on day 260 – 31 days ago.
If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent has increased by 43.8% since the minimum was reached.
Extents are in millions of sq km.
(And note I am using NSIDC data here and their algorithm is making the refreeze appear slow compared to NORSEX)
| Year | Minimum_Extent | Extent Day | Extent_Change | Extent_Change_Pct |
| 1979 | 6.89236 | 295 | 2.55691 | 27.1 |
| 1980 | 7.52476 | 280 | 0.95144 | 11.2 |
| 1981 | 6.88784 | 284 | 1.71672 | 20 |
| 1982 | 7.15423 | 287 | 2.41499 | 25.2 |
| 1983 | 7.19145 | 282 | 1.70096 | 19.1 |
| 1984 | 6.39916 | 291 | 2.08442 | 24.6 |
| 1985 | 6.4799 | 281 | 1.50769 | 18.9 |
| 1986 | 7.12351 | 280 | 1.8491 | 20.6 |
| 1987 | 6.89159 | 276 | 1.37713 | 16.7 |
| 1988 | 7.04905 | 286 | 1.76783 | 20.1 |
| 1989 | 6.88931 | 296 | 2.70935 | 28.2 |
| 1990 | 6.0191 | 295 | 3.46791 | 36.6 |
| 1991 | 6.26027 | 290 | 2.69726 | 30.1 |
| 1992 | 7.16324 | 282 | 1.67903 | 19 |
| 1993 | 6.15699 | 280 | 1.85199 | 23.1 |
| 1994 | 6.92645 | 279 | 1.1014 | 13.7 |
| 1995 | 5.98945 | 283 | 0.5189 | 8 |
| 1996 | 7.15283 | 285 | 1.77882 | 19.9 |
| 1997 | 6.61353 | 277 | 0.65032 | 9 |
| 1998 | 6.29922 | 291 | 2.35169 | 27.2 |
| 1999 | 5.68009 | 286 | 2.68723 | 32.1 |
| 2000 | 5.9442 | 286 | 2.32372 | 28.1 |
| 2001 | 6.56774 | 293 | 1.95252 | 22.9 |
| 2002 | 5.62456 | 287 | 2.41992 | 30.1 |
| 2003 | 5.97198 | 291 | 2.10126 | 26 |
| 2004 | 5.77608 | 294 | 2.37329 | 29.1 |
| 2005 | 5.31832 | 296 | 3.09221 | 36.8 |
| 2006 | 5.74877 | 288 | 1.72446 | 23.1 |
| 2007 | 4.1607 | 288 | 1.39556 | 25.1 |
| 2008 | 4.55469 | 293 | 3.33615 | 42.3 |
| 2009 | 5.05488 | 286 | 1.45951 | 22.4 |
| 2010 | 4.59918 | 293 | 2.88065 | 38.5 |
| 2011 | 4.30207 | 282 | 1.35023 | 23.9 |
| 2012 | 3.36855 | 291 | 2.62409 | 43.8 |
Source: sunshine hours
===========================================================
Here’s the NORSEX plot and NSIDC plot compared:
See all the data on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
In other news. I’ve been in touch with Bill Chapman at UUIC/Crysophere Today to point out this bug:
It turns out to be an accidental issue, and he says:
“I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.
I’ll have it fixed by tomorrows update.”
Stuff happens, no worries.
More nonsense from Lance: “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. “
What latest data? I gave you the ONLY data that is meaningful and you went into full denial. Let’s see you back up your claim and provide later data … hmmm, I won’t hold my breath. You are simply repeating propaganda and hoping people are as ignorant as yourself. You are getting slaughtered here because the people here have seen the actual data and are not suckered in by the propaganda as you appear to be.
One can only wonder how any sane person could claim information over the 2 years is somehow superior to information over 8 years even if it existed. Clearly, it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.
Now for a tough question … is Gary Lance an auto-bot? Hard to believe anyone would go to such extremes to show off their ignorance.
“richardscourtney says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:44 am
Gary Lance:
At October 21, 2012 at 5:21 am you say to me
I can just write it and I can’t make you read and comprehend it.
I WANT TO READ IT SO WRITE IT.
You made the assertions and all I am doing is asking you to justify them.
My questions are clear and simple. I remind that they are
1.
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?
2.
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?
The assertions are yours.
My questions ask you to explain how your assertions can be true.
You say of my requested answers that you “can just write it”, so stop running away and just write it.
Richard”
This has been answered several times, but it could have been deleted by the mod or ignored again. Let me paint you another good picture!
Let’s set the scene as being three years from now and the arctic did go ice free. Do you think the people here who claimed it has stopped warming or who claimed the sea ice would recover are going to be here thinking about an ice free arctic of selling some other bull? I believe that even with more record temperatures, extreme weather events and Greenland melts between now and then, their agenda will not change. I believe that because I have experience with people like that. They don’t take responsibility for what they said yesterday and their agenda controls them.
As I have pointed out, an ice free arctic is going to be the most pivotal time to Earth in human history. Let me spell it out to you, to Earth simply means the physical world we live in and not the most important event for mankind! That has been pointed out to you, but you like to change what is said to suit things you make up about it, like that Earth/US nonsense.
You brought up moving out of Africa, but why is that migration anymore important than other migrations? It isn’t that hard to get out of Africa and it isn’t that hard to venture to an area near a glacier that is retreating. If you think mankind is older than that and experienced a glaciation, it isn’t that hard to move away from a bad area.
All of this has been said over and over, but focus for a change. Why is an ice free arctic so pivotal in man’s relationship to Earth? I’ve pointed out the consequences of having an ice free arctic and I’ve pointed out it can be prevented, even gave details. I’ve pointed out that nearly three times that amount of remain arctic sea ice area, which is about equal to the area of Greenland, has happened in snow cover loss in June. To any reasonable person, changing that much albedo should be alarming and an indication of warming. I also pointed out the Greenland 150 year melt will continue to occur under those circumstances.
So how many alarms does it take for the human race to wake up? There are signs of warming all over the world and in records each year. Random events don’t happen that often.
If we allow the arctic to go ice free, we are allowing a major change to happen to our climate without mitigation. The best weather experts tell us, it has already affected the jet stream and will impact areas with exceptional weather conditions. The data shows a history of that already occurring. I’ve looked at the analysis of insurance companies that insure insurance companies and they listed events and not payouts. Statistics show a rapid increase of extreme weather related events that don’t match natural events and again I emphasize, I’m talking about the number of these events.
The prognosis for an ice free arctic isn’t that hard to diagnose in the short term. The sea ice will still form in winter, but the ice free period should grow beyond the initial period that had multi-year sea ice. Land areas around the Arctic Ocean should continue to thaw and erode. Ice shelves will collapse at a faster rate and glaciers will speed up. There are basically two choices and that involves warming the Arctic Ocean enough to not have winter sea ice or finding a new equilibrium once the sea ice free period is extended. The coastal areas of Greenland and the CAA will change quickly and Greenland should have yearly ice sheet melts in the near future.
I’d say even anticipating an ice free arctic is pivotal and people in the future aren’t going to believe nothing was done to mitigate the damage. The changes people generally talk about adapting to are slow changes and this isn’t a slow change. It’s a rapid change like a large volcanic eruption, but rapid changes of a long duration that will drastically alter the Earth as we know it. When that has happened in the past, it’s resulted in mass extinction.
To Gary Lance from another thread.
dcfl51 says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:50 am
Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
~~~
Have you seen the studies by Ferenc Miskolczi ? Deriving his results from the analysis of weather balloon data compiled over 60 years, he has shown that, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there has been a matching (in its effect) reduction in water vapor thereby maintaining the greenhouse effect in stable equilibrium.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
“tonyb says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:13 am
Gary said
“Now that we have the tools, it would be good to use good proxies to investigate the paleoclimatology of that era. I don’t think it’s good to cherry pick data from around the world to make claims that these events were global and not review all the data. I don’t think it’s good to be so loose with the dates to identify these periods. ”
So you dont think written records from observers of the time and myriad other lines of evidence such as grain and grape prices/yields plus instrumental records are good proxies?
Did you actiually read my article and the research behind It? Its not cherry picked and comes from one location so it can be measured directly against CET.Seriously, what ‘good proxies’ are you suggesting? Do you want to use tree rings which reflect the microclimate of the growing season only?
tonyb”
Let’s keep it simple and to the point for a change! You were talking about Lamb and I told you my opinion, which is the opinion of science, except for the historical parts. You come back talking about instrumental measurements, but there were no instrumental measurements for the period or for the whole Earth. The fact is during Lamb’s research time, they didn’t think tree rings were good enough to get a date.
The only significance of MWP and LIA is whether it’s local or global. I don’t see other people on this site trying to rebut things like the Maunder Minimum caused the LIA, when it’s a fact that the LIA happened before the Maunder Minimum. Lamb did what he did to come to the opinion that the MWP and the LIA happened and he documented how he came to those conclusions, so it’s a fact. It’s also a fact that he didn’t use instrumental measurements to come to those conclusions, but supported the last part of the LIA and recent history with instrumental measurements from central England only. Lamb’s primary source were Church documents.
Scientists are skeptical by nature and they quickly learn not to allow bias to infuence their research.
I said good proxies (remember I mentioned glaciers) and tree rings can be good proxies of temperature, if the tree grew under conditions that temperature would reflect growth, like alpine areas, where a tree is temperature stressed. Otherwise, tree rings are good for dating, if a data base exists, and showing a record of precipitation.
D Böehm says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:23 am
How many examples of changes in CO2 causing changes in temperature do you need? It’s been established science for nearly 200 years and is fundamental to our understanding of Geology.
On your side is someone who can just say words and can’t back those words up with facts.
Explain why temperature fell from that 22 degree C Hothouse Earth, if the Geologists are wrong and the Himalayas didn’t remove CO2 and cause the temperature to drop!
HenryP says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:53 am
Try looking at the problem while writing your thesis in Geology and see if you get your degree!
To Gary Lance.
What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?
Gary Lance says:
“I asked you a simple question about you saying CO2 lags temperature and you didn’t answer it. I asked you what the mechanism was for CO2 to lag temperature. I asked you that specifically because that mechanism shows how ridiculous that lagging indicator argument is.”
Lance, I didn’t answer your question because it is basic common knowledge that ocean outgassing and absorption regulates atmospheric CO2 according to its partial pressure and water temperature. It seems that everyone here except you knew that. Now you know the mechanism, too.
And now you ask:
“How many examples of changes in CO2 causing changes in temperature do you need?”
One will do. Otherwise, you’re just hand-waving. You give no examples of CO2 leading temperature during the Holocene. Either post a chart showing that ∆T follows CO2, or you lose your entire argument. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, and your hand-waving, along with your ridiculous self-referral as an authority scores no points. I have provided a chart showing that ∆CO2 always lags ∆T. That is empirical scientific evidence proving that you have cause and effect exactly backward. No wonder your conclusions are wrong.
Gary Lance:
Concerning my two questions repeatedly put to you, at October 21, 2012 at 10:38 am you assert
NO!
You have NOT answered either question. You do not point to any answer in the thread (there is none). And the mods on WUWT indicate when they have snipped a post (this is not some warmist ‘echo chamber’). You have NOT answered either question.
Then you say
I do NOT want a “picture” be it good, bad or otherwise.
I want an answer from you to my questions asking you to explain and/or justify specified assertions you made to me.
Let me – again – remind you of the questions. They are
1.
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?
2.
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?
Your long-winded “picture” does NOT answer either question.
The nearest to an answer it contains is this.
Yes, I know what you “pointed out”. I am asking you to explain and/or justify it.
You have merely repeated it.
And your stupid comment about the “Earth/US” was all that was in your post at October 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm. It most certainly was “nonsense”, and I am at a loss to understand why you would draw attention to your having provided such “nonsense”.
Enough is enough. You made the assertions. Answer the questions.
The time for weaseling is over.
Richard
gary lance says
Try looking at the problem while writing your thesis in Geology and see if you get your degree!
henry says
dear me, are you down to name calling now?
I note that you have not measured anything at all, but you know everything.
But, pray do tell me how I was able to analyse some 650000 daily measurements and convert it into a proper cooling curve for maximum temps., in degrees C/annum versus time, using geology as my major?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Now, are you going to tell me now which way you think my blue curve will go?
Climate change will happen, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, but it is due to natural cooling.
I am sure you or someone scrupulous will eventually spin a reason as to why to blame the colder and rainier and more snowy weather on
(the poor)
CO2….
Gary Lance’s alarmist hand-waving over natural global warming presupposes that current temperatures are exactly right, and should never rise. But the climate alarmist is wrong, as usual.
The planet is normally warmer than it is now. If global temperatures rise a few degrees, the net result will be beneficial. Warmer temperatures were not a problem in the geologic past:
http://omniclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/28392301.jpg
Lance is arguing that the planet is wrong, a ridiculous position to take. And as we see, he has no scientific evidence to support his beliefs; hand-waving is his stock in trade. For myself, I prefer to listen to what the planet is telling us: that warmer temperatures are normal, natural, and nothing to fear.
“J Martin says:
October 21, 2012 at 8:47 am
Gary Lance, said “Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot.”
Wrong way round. Venus has high temperature because of it’s high pressure. At the same pressure on Venus with it’s 96.5% co2 atmosphere the temperature is the same as on Earth allowing for relative distance to the sun, give or take 2 degrees centigrade.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
On Earth the amount of co2 is trivial, water vapour is the main greenhouse gas.
Gary, you didn’t answer my question. You probably won’t answer my question even to yourself, far less this blog.
What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?”
Thanks for the laugh about something causing the atmosphere on Venus to pressurize. It must be something big to keep it from expanding in volume.
PV = nRT
If you increase the temperature and keep the volume constant, you increase the pressure. Gravity is what holds the volume and it’s about the same as our gravity.
It doesn’t make a difference what the main greenhouse gas is. The Earth was cooling from the Holocene Thermal Maximum, so figure out why they called it the Thermal Maximum! The Earth was cooling with that same main greenhouse gas, but something overcame the cooling trend of Milankovitch Cycles and caused the Earth to warm, when it was suppose to cool. The additional force only has to be stronger than the weak force of Milankovitch cooling.
You can have tons of forces acting on something, but the resultant force may be quite small. What if you have a million pounds of force in one direction and a million and one pounds in the opposite direction? If I add more than one pound of force against the resultant, I’ve reversed the direction of motion.
There is a lot of it can’t be adding greenhouse gases on this site and not a lot of showing a mechanism to overcome the decrease in solar energy from Milankovitch Cycles. Claiming it is nature without a mechanism doesn’t cut it. CO2 is a mechanism and nature isn’t.
“Richard M says:
October 21, 2012 at 9:25 am
More nonsense from Lance: “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. “
What latest data? I gave you the ONLY data that is meaningful and you went into full [snip]. Let’s see you back up your claim and provide later data … hmmm, I won’t hold my breath. You are simply repeating propaganda and hoping people are as ignorant as yourself. You are getting slaughtered here because the people here have seen the actual data and are not suckered in by the propaganda as you appear to be.
One can only wonder how any sane person could claim information over the 2 years is somehow superior to information over 8 years even if it existed. Clearly, it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.”
What did I go into?
“To Gary Lance from another thread.
dcfl51 says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:50 am
Brian Macker says:
October 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
~~~
Have you seen the studies by Ferenc Miskolczi ? Deriving his results from the analysis of weather balloon data compiled over 60 years, he has shown that, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there has been a matching (in its effect) reduction in water vapor thereby maintaining the greenhouse effect in stable equilibrium.”
I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.
Does he bother to explain why adding CO2 reduces H20?
Gary Lance would do well to read:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
That paper thoroughly deconstructs the belief that CO2 is the reason for the high temperatures on Venus.
The rest of Lance’s comment is his usual evidence-free hand-waving.
“J Martin says:
October 21, 2012 at 11:52 am
To Gary Lance.
What depth of cold (global drop in temperature) for what length of time would make you reconsider your philosophy that co2 plays a significant part in temperatures.?”
I pointed out that a drop in CO2 took us away from Hothouse Earth, so let’s get back to the way it was before we screwed it up. Give me 50 ppm CO2 reduction and put the arctic sea ice back and we’ll see if that covers it!
No one has the right to change the world this way knowing others have to live with the consequences.
Gary Lance:
At October 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm you say
Yes, Garry, we have all observed how little you know about climate science. There is no need to tell us about that.
Instead, spend the time answering the questions put to you about your assertions. There are now three people who have asked you specifics concerning different untrue assertions which you have made in the thread.
Richard
Gary Lans says:
[Regarding the internationally esteemed climatologist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi]: “I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.”
Proof that we are dealing with an ignoramus who is just repeating debunked talking points that he gets from thinly-trafficked alarmist echo chamber blogs. It is astonishing to me that Lance would openly admit that he never heard of Dr. Miskolczi. I had thought Lance’s credibility couldn’t get any lower. I was wrong.
From Gary Lance on October 20, 2012 at 10:30 pm:
Science has moved on, Gary. Inherently safe reactor designs have been developed. From Canada comes the CANDU reactor design. There have been safely running CANDU reactors for 50 years.
They can burn the “spent” fuel of other reactors. Fuel can be recycled and reused until there is hardly any high-level nuclear waste.
CANDU’s can burn thorium. Molten Salt Reactors are not needed.
Try to read the Canadian Nuclear FAQ, it is very informative.
You read an AP piece that was in USA Today. Good job, Gary!
You said “leaking” as if 3/4 of the plants are leaking right now, rather than “leaked” as the story said, deceptively changing a cumulative score into an ongoing problem. Bad Gary, bad!
Sorry, but this site is visited by many people with actual experience dealing with the NRC, including real nuclear reactor operators, and know how tough the NRC actually is. We also have extensively discussed the real dangers of radiation. You have more to fear from getting a single CT scan than you do from tritium leaks from reactors.
Seriously? I give a link showing many people who want to build large facilities to add capacity, and you claim the exact opposite.
See Gary, that’s how we can tell you are not really reading. You can admit your problem to us, we already know you have one. Many people have reading and comprehension problems. You are not alone.
Besides, generating companies are loosing existing capacity anyway as older coal-fired plants are being shut down, so your point was moot from the start.
So the endless court battles from Greenies demanding ongoing expensive Environmental Impact Statements and continually fighting all nuclear plant construction on federal, state, and local levels, driving up construction costs to where it was prohibitively expensive to even begin seeking approval for merely considering to build a new nuke plant, had no effect?
I’ve been doing that for decades. I’m doing it right now. I know it is hard with your condition, but please pay attention.
Science has moved forward. Google “modular nuclear reactors”. Example:
Many designs are under development.
CANDU’s can do load-following, they don’t have to be base load.
France has 90% of their electricity from nuclear plants, they learned how to do load-following.
Plus the planned small modular reactors are expected to be more flexible.
Among the many small nuclear power reactors planned and built are those that are air cooled. You can drop them in a bone-dry desert, or in veritable deserts without liquid water like Antarctica and around the Arctic.
Check out the modular designs. Pull out the old one, replace with new one, ship the old one out for refueling or recovery/recycling/decommissioning.
The costs of decommissioning are figured in from the initial planning, gathered while the plant is operating.
Most nuclear waste is low-level, can be as mundane as latex gloves that handled a radioactive tracer dye for a medical test.
The “spent” fuel from an American light water reactor is rich fuel for a CANDU, which can also burn waste actinides. There are several fast spectrum reactors (example) in development that will also burn them.
In the US, nuclear plant operators have been making payments in good faith to the federal government for a long-term disposal facility for decades, which was to have been Yucca Mountain. But as a sop to the Greenies, Obama did fulfill one 2008 campaign pledge and killed Yucca Mountain by defunding it in 2011. The Administration’s “reply” was that the spent fuel can sit in pools until 2050 until “eventually” there will be new processes developed and deployed for fuel recycling.
But this Administration said “Nyet!” to using the proven reprocessing methods successfully used in France and elsewhere.
Since by the contracts by which the payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund were gathered, which stipulated the feds should have been accepting the waste over a decade ago, plant owners are suing the federal government to recover those payments. And winning.
If you want to complain about not being able to get rid of nuclear waste in the US, take it up with the Greenies as it’s their fault.
All thanks to the rabidly anti-nuke Greenies. They’d rather cause the spewing of thousands of gigatonnes of CO₂ and watch the Earth spiral into the hot death of a runaway greenhouse effect than split one atom.
You could replace “nuclear” with “wind and solar” in the first sentence quite easily. But government subsidies in the US for nuke plants are limited to things like loan guarantees and insurance, and the nuke plant will provide reliable electricity.
Containment buildings have been standard in the US for ages, long ago factored into construction costs. Thus that is a non-issue.
With your obvious problems in reading and comprehension, and that practically everything you spew can be easily disproved with but a little quick online research, I find it hard to believe you have conducted any of the research you are now claiming to have done.
You just said to go to the “wiki” for the list, then go to the NRC for the lists, and can’t provide a single link for any of that. Thus I know you didn’t do any of that.
If you keep denying your problem, you are doing a disservice to those with dyslexia and other conditions with similar problems. Acting like you’re successfully getting away with your deception ends up encouraging sufferers who could get help and be treated to instead try to hide their condition as you do.
Please, stop being so selfish.
“D Böehm says:
October 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Gary Lance says:
“I asked you a simple question about you saying CO2 lags temperature and you didn’t answer it. I asked you what the mechanism was for CO2 to lag temperature. I asked you that specifically because that mechanism shows how ridiculous that lagging indicator argument is.”
Lance, I didn’t answer your question because it is basic common knowledge that ocean outgassing and absorption regulates atmospheric CO2 according to its partial pressure and water temperature. It seems that everyone here except you knew that. Now you know the mechanism, too.
And now you ask:
“How many examples of changes in CO2 causing changes in temperature do you need?”
One will do. Otherwise, you’re just hand-waving. You give no examples of CO2 leading temperature during the Holocene. Either post a chart showing that ∆T follows CO2, or you lose your entire argument. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, and your hand-waving, along with your ridiculous self-referral as an authority scores no points. I have provided a chart showing that ∆CO2 always lags ∆T. That is empirical scientific evidence proving that you have cause and effect exactly backward. No wonder your conclusions are wrong.”
So you claim that 100 ppm CO2 was in the ocean and outgased as the ocean received more cold water runoff from glaciers. Now, why wouldn’t the glacier cover the carbon and release it as it retreated?
You’ve be given many more than one example and the entire Paleoclimatic record is an example. Try reading the real science and you can find hundreds of examples!
Gary Lance says:
“You’ve be given many more than one example and the entire Paleoclimatic record is an example.”
Hand-waving prevarication. Post a Holocene chart showing that CO2 leads temperature, or you lose the argument. Simple as that.
I have posted a chart showing exactly the opposite of what you claim. You cannot refute it without posting verifiable and convincing scientific evidence, and you have no such evidence. All you do is vague hand-waving. You have no scientific credibility here, and after your astonishing comment about Dr. Miskolczi your ignorance is on display.
Gary Lance:
re your post at October 21, 2012 at 1:14 pm.
Good grief, man! You were asked a question and your evasion is to reply with another question.
You could have admitted you knew you were wrong instead of so clearly displaying it.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) gave you invaluable advice in the final two paragraphs of his post at October 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm. Every post you makes provides more evidence of your need to take that advice.
Richard
To Gary Lance.
This is my last comment on this thread.
The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), while the pressure is 93 bar.
Venus has 90 times the amount of atmosphere as planet Earth.
It is that massively larger atmosphere held by gravity that creates the pressure which consequently gives the high temperature.
co2 does not and cannot raise the temperature any further than a puny two degrees centigrade.
It is the pressure of an atmosphere 90 times larger than Earth’s which creates the remaining 465 degrees C.
If you cannot understand that then you should never have been allowed to leave school. And perhaps that is the case.
Goodbye.
Gary Lance says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:04 am
“Venus is very hot and has very high pressure because it’s very hot.”
Thanks Gary Lance, at least we now realize that you know absolutely nothing of basic atmospheric physics and can just discard most of you preceding assertions. Sure saves me a lot of time reading them and trying to figure out just where your mind resides. I shall exit now. ☺
For your information, the atmospheric pressure at any level ONLY has to do with the mass of gas above that level and the gravitational acceleration acting on that mass. Integrate if you need better accuracy. You can never constrain the volume of a planetary atmopshere. Later.
Oh, BTW, your ‘projection’ is showing.