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

“HenryP says:
October 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
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….”
What name calling?
You claim to not believe a connection between CO2 and temperature, so Paleoclimatogy is a branch of Physical Geography, which is a branch of Geology. I told you to put that in your thesis and see if you get the degree. It’s like putting flat Earth in your Astronomy thesis. You are treating something fundamental to the science as if it’s an opinion.
I think using maximum temperatures is stupid. The temperature varies due to all kinds of conditons, both daily and seasonally, so the logical thing to do is average continuous temperatures annually, if you want to compare things throughout long periods of time and carve up the Earth with a grid, if you want it globally. The way they usually do it is to find temperature measurements to represent the whole area of a grid and average continuous temperatures for daily, weekly, monthly and annually. They use an average of a large base period to compare the particular data to the norm. Since a grid can have various features with different temperatures, they try to estimate what temperature is representative of the average temperature in that grid.
It harder doing all that, but they think it’s the smart way and so do I.
The biggest problem is, new stations can have good data, but they may not be part of the base period.
My only interest in a high or low is a record high or low.

“D Böehm says:
October 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm
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.”
The people in my state have the common sense to know the temperature has increased with time. They don’t have to be told what is, they have memories and know other people with memories too.

Gary Lance says:
“The people in my state have the common sense to know the temperature has increased with time.”
Show us where any skeptic has stated that global temperatures have not increased with time. That response is deliberate misdirection, intended to cover up the fact that Lance lacks any coherent argument. The central point is whether human emissions cause any measurable rise in temperature. So far, the answer is that any effect from anthro emissions are too small to measure. The Null Hypothesis and the Principle of Parsimony say that the default position must be that the rise in global temperatures since the LIA is entirely natural. No one is denying that the planet is recovering from the LIA. But there is no scientific evidence showing that human activity is the cause.
And regarding H.D. Huffman’s Venus paper, Lance asks:
“Why would I waste my time reading that?”
If ignorance is bliss, Lance must be one happy camper.

Around 2006-2007 something changed in the Arctic ice dynamics, such that the change from minimum to maximum ice abruptly increased, and the ice extent curve transitioned to wider swings between summer and winter. This happened at the same time as a transition between an ENSO phase dominated by el Nino events to one dominated by La Ninas. The sudden growth in variation in Arctic ice resembles a transition between phases in a Lorenz type strange attractor. Swanson and Tsonis (2009) proposed that change in synchrony and resonance of atmospheric and/or oceanic oscillations could cause a climate regime shift, associated with nonlinear dynamics although they placed it as happening in 2001-2.
Its not clear if this upturn in winter-summer range will lead to more ice loss on average, or gain, or stasis. A look at recent temperature history might suggest a downturn is more likely.

“richardscourtney says:
October 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Gary Lance:
At October 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm you say
I’ve never heard of the guy and wonder why anyone has.
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”
So what you are saying is your litmus test of someone knowing about climate science is whether a person believes the Earth has a greenhouse gas balance policy, such that adding more CO2 causes it to have less water vapor.
Why would a planet behave like that? What mechanism would control that?
Does it work for other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs?
Are we removing CO2 with our cooling tower emissions of water vapor?
Why does CO2 just pick on water vapor and not other greenhouse gases?
Did those early land animals which lived with much higher CO2 levels evolve from deserts, like the ancestors of crocodiles? Does this mean you are stating for the record that greenhouse gases actually exist? I’d be careful and not allow others on this site hear you say that.
I find it amazing that someone would actually believe there could be a greenhouse gas balance policy on Earth.

Phlogiston says
….could cause a climate regime shift, ……
Swanson and Tsonis (2009) states
Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred
in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend
from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred
Henry says
the downward trend from 2002 is here for everyone to see:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
(note the rather suspicious looking peak on hadcrut4 for 2007)
I analysed ca. 650000 maximum temperature recordings and came to this curve:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The blue curve is actual speed of warming/cooling measured. Maximum temperatures (energy-in) started dropping in 1995. Earth energy out (global mean) is lagging a bit but we can agree that that lag time is now over (from 2002). Follow the blue curve: where else must it go, but fall further down – a logical conclusion that simply escapes our friend Lance (hope he is not related to Armstrong).
So YES, we do have a change in “climate regime” and my prediction is that we will fall a further 8x 0.035 = 0.3 degrees C by 2020, globally, at least.
Before they started with this carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly, to explain an apparent 100 year weather cycle, if you study the height of the flooding of the Nile over time. See here.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)
So, indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) during and at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding during and at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more), it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain/snow). At the same time you would also have more clouds, naturally, so to speak.
Now put my sine wave next to those dates?
1995 end of warming – minimum Nile flooding
1950 end of cooling – maximum Nile flooding
1900 end of warming – minimum Nile flooding
Not too bad, heh?
The wetter weather is also the reason why some places still benefit, (i.e. “warming”) like Norway and the USA east coast.
I am amazed that I am the only one who has figured it out. I think that even Moses was aware of it (remember 7×7 yr + 1 jubilee year?), so the Egyptians must have know about this ages ago.

From Gary Lance on October 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm @ur momisugly D Böehm:

Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist?

Since when did D Böehm claim that water vapor doesn’t exist?
Your desperation over having your condition being revealed is obvious, driving you to make baldly false accusations as a distraction.
But your problem is very easy to notice, as you copy entire comments in your replies. If you were able to really read them, you would selectively copy only the relevant parts.
As you are doing it now, you even leave out any formatting, and run your words and theirs together into an indistinguishable blob.
Not that we’re judging you about that, as with your obvious disability the original comment must look like a blob of words anyway.
Stop hiding in the closet, Gary. Help is available.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Your post about nuclear energy is full of nonsense and I don’t need to hear nonsense about greenies. People who claim there can be safe nuclear energy are by definition not greenies, which only proves you can’t even get that concept right.
Calling something CANDU doesn’t mean it can do. Your heavy water CANDU reactors are about the best commercial reactors that exist to make materials for nuclear weapons and Germany was trying to build them in Norway in WWII. They use cheap unenriched natural uranium as fuel and therefore generate much more spent fuel than reactors using enriched uranium. If the purpose is just to generate electricity, producing hugh amounts of transuranium actinides is not the way to go about it, in fact, it’s the opposite way to go about it. You can’t put that spent fuel too close to the sides of a nuclear reactor, so there are two choices and that’s to just store it in the reactor, until the reactor gets full, or process it. If you store it, the reactor gets full of spent fuel and has to shut down. Now, you have to maintain a reactor that is costing you money and is not making electricity. Eventually, you will have to process that spent fuel, because it can’t stay there forever and that means it costs you to process and dispose of that spent fuel.
The economics of heavy water reactors works out like this: You avoid the costs of uranium enrichment, but have to pay more for heavy water. That’s an economic trade off in the now, but when the eventual cost of processing additional spent fuel is considered, it’s more costly than other designs. If you aren’t planning on making nuclear weapons to offset those processing and disposal costs, then the full costs of producing electricity with a heavy water reactor are too expensive to compete with other methods. People interested in pushing this technology believe they can make their money and have someone else pick up the tab for their free lunch.
The safety concerns of CANDU is it’s a pressurized water reactor. Instead of listing all the bad things, I’m going to show you what I want in a nuclear reactor and why you can’t get it in heavy water reactors. First off, I want a commercial nuclear reactor that can built in any country throughout the world and not contribute to nuclear proliferation, so CANDU gets an F for that subject. I want a reactor that doesn’t make much transuranium actinides and cleans up fission by-products, so there isn’t a chance that an accident can release things like cesium and iodine. I want a reactor that you can blow a hole in the side of it and not contaminate the environment around the reactor. I want a reactor that has no problem if there is a complete power failure and has no need for backup systems. I want a reactor that doesn’t need expensive containment. I want a reactor that doesn’t make the costs of electricity skyrocket, if it’s built on a smaller scale. I want a reactor that doesn’t have hydrogen or water near it. I want a reactor that produces cheap electricity and isn’t playing a game of making someone else pick up the tab for nuclear waste disposal costs. In other words, I want a reactor that has the nuclear material removed once it can no longer be operated and doesn’t need maintenance costs, because you clean it up and dispose of it.
Now, I can’t resist in pointing out that for what I want in a nuclear reactor that CANDU is better named CAN’TDU. There is a kind of nuclear reactor that can do what I want and would be a blessing to the world and not a curse.
The first thing I want clarify is no nuclear reactor “burns” thorium. Thorium is like super lead in absorbing neutrons and is non-fissile, meaning it can’t be used as it is in nuclear fission. It’s radioactive, but an alpha emitter with a half life three times the age of the Earth. Thorium is a by-product of rare earth metal production, is about 4 times more abundant than uranium and is in nature effectively all one isotope, thorium 232. Thorium now adds to the costs of rare earth production, because it is treated as a nuclear waste. Rare earths are needed and it wouldn’t hurt bringing down the costs and preventing people being contaminated like they are in China. In short, thorium is cheap.
The concept of the Thorium MSR is to use a thorium fluoride salt to shield or blanket a nuclear core that does have fissile material. Both the blanket and the core are diluted by a lithium and beryllium fluoride salt. Lithium and beryllium are moderators meaning they slow down neutrons like the deuterium in heavy water does. The core is made of a graphite shell which is also a moderator. Both the core and blanket are processed to remove nuclear wastes and the blanket is processed to produce the fuel for the core, meaning uranium 233. A Thorium MSR is a breeder reactor that converts non-fissile Th 232 to U 233 and cleans itself in the process. It has a higher neutron economy than any existing commercial nuclear reactor.
A Thorium MSR is a high temperature reactor that only uses pressure to pump liquid material when it needs to add or remove small amounts. It’s contents are held in place with a freeze plug in the drains, so if power is lost, the system cooling the salt to make the freeze plug is lost and it heats up draining the contents of the reactor to storage vessels. The original recommendations were to make 250MW reactors, but based on our present reactors they would replace and the need for processing, multiple reactors in the 1000MW to 1500MW total range are needed. The processing areas can also function to process spent fuel from existing nuclear reactors and the logical thing is to build at existing nuclear facilities, replacing the dinosaur technology we presently use. The sites of our existing nuclear facilities were logistically chosen to be the best sites available for the area they serve. The good thing about a thorium program is it can process spent fuel from existing reactors and may even allow some existing nuclear units to continue to operate, because some units are shut down from the buildup of spent fuel. To meet future energy demands, you just add another 250MW Thorium MSR and you don’t have to build those large MW units needing expensive containment and shut down much existing electricity production capacity to operate them.
Now the critics are always quick to point out these commercial reactors weren’t built, but the Cold War was going on when Weinberg proposed using them and the government was building a nuclear arsenal. The criticism that the thorium reactors that were built were only heating air is disingenuous, because there was no need to add to the cost of research by building power generation around the reactor and power generation was already researched. There wasn’t a power shortage at Oak Ridge with all those TVA dams near them.
Here is a link for details:
TWO-FLUID MOLTEN-SALT BREEDER REACTOR DESIGN STUDY (STATUS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1968).
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/4093364-qQG01M/4093364.pdf

climatereason says:
October 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Did I quote you saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA? I asked you why you people allow such misinformation that suits your agenda to go unchallenged, while you challenge real science that doesn’t support your agenda.
The agenda against CO2 is the only concern the people on this site have. Science is only brought up to distort science.
Lamb didn’t hide the fact that he used Church records, so why are you people trying to hide it? Why do you people pick out certain things Lamb said in his life and ignore the fact he changed his mind later?
What are you people going to do when events happen and no one is going to listen to the bull that global warming isn’t happening and isn’t causing major problems?
This nonsense has about three years left and no one is going to fund the misinformation.

eric1skeptic says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:45 am
Wasting time with your ad homs, just shows you can’t handle the subjects.

Gary
This reply is surely ambigous;
“Did I quote you saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA? I asked you why you people allow such misinformation that suits your agenda to go unchallenged, while you challenge real science that doesn’t support your agenda. ”
Well yes you appeared to imply that, and are doing it again. ‘You people’ surely implies me and I have never said that. You seem to want to lump everyone on this site together in one pigeon hole. .
Of course Lamb used Church records. He also used numeroius other reference sources so why try to pretend otherwise when you said ‘Lamb’s primary source were Church documents.’ That simply isn’t remotely true, nor is it true of other climatologists such as le roy ladurie .
You are certanly alarmist. We can quote all the events from the past that illustrate the current era is not unusual -jet streams to arctic ice to catastrophic weather events to a warming trend that has existed for 350 years- and you simply ignore them.
Please clairify what you mean by saying ‘this nonsense has about three years left?’ Are you saying that by then the cooling/static temperatures of the last 15 years or so will have reached a stage whereby they can’t be ignored, or that there will be a sufdden major warming or what?
tonyb