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

“kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 22, 2012 at 12:06 am
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.”
Are you saying only water vapor is a greenhouse gas? Some of you are claiming the Earth magically only allows so much greenhouse gas and if CO2 is added then the Earth removes water to keep the greenhouse gas in balance. Do you believe that, too?
Reasonable people research the difference in the amount of solar radiation involved in Milankovich Cycles, locate our position in that cycle, determine the length of the cycle and calculate the amount of radiative forcing our Earth is getting because of the cycle.
Now, without looking at the figures, let’s say the full cycle is 120,000 years, so half the cycle would be 60,000 years. From what I remember about the claim of the difference in solar radiation it was 6%. That works out real easy, because we are about 10,000 to 20,000 years from the maximum, so our present 342 watts per square meter is 1% or 2% less than the maximum. Personally, I think it’s between 1% to 2% and that means the maximum solar radiation is 349 watts per square meter and the minimum is 328, if it’s 2%. If we are only losing 14 watts per square meter in 40,000 years, we only have to add 1 watt per square meter every 2,857 years to counteract the cooling.
The evidence shows the glaciers melted rather quickly, but you could play with the numbers going all the way back to our present solar radiation being 3% to 1% less than the maximum, but the magnitude of how much solar radiation is lost in a given period of time doesn’t change much. It’s not logical that the solar radiation maximum happened after the Holocene Thermal Maximum and I would expect conditions of warmth to lag solar conditions just like summer lags the solar maximum. Even after glaciers left, permafrost needed to be melted and forests needed to repopulate the land to change albedo to warmer conditions. There is evidence of trees much further north in Earth’s recent past, but that is only evidence of it being warmer over long periods of time and it doesn’t mean our present conditons won’t also allow the tundra to be forested and elephants to graze in Siberia during the summer, if we give the permafrost the chance to melt and be reforested.
There are plenty of people with degrees in Physics that can’t find employment in the field and surely a NASA Astrophysicist or two have been cut from the budget, so why haven’t they challenged the radiative forcing claims? Where are the Geologists who work for the petroleum industry, because Climatology is tucked away in the general field of Geology? If the people here know so much about the subject, why can’t they refute the math used to estimate radiative forcing with their own math and propose another cause for warming, like changes in Thermohaline Circulation? They don’t have to have data that it’s happened, but they should be able to refute the measurements that calculate radiative forcing.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 22, 2012 at 5:14 am
You say your CAN’TDU reactors can burn spent nuclear fuel, but all nuclear reactors can do that. You claimed they can burn thorium, which can only mean they transmute thorium to make fuel that will burn and that’s been done in many reactors.
What you can’t understand is, to make electricity you don’t want to make all those bad things and use only the good things to make electricity.
You spend your time talking about small reactors, but do you post the price of the electricity they produce? This isn’t new and I’ve seen the costs. They would only be used in some isolated place that don’t have the normal options to produce power.
When you have something large and hot producing energy or a chemical process, the best thing to do is run it at constant state. You don’t want the metal to heat up and cool down. You don’t want to waste fuel not producing electricity.
Nuclear fission creates many by-products all with their own chemistry and if they aren’t radioactive they will be in time. A reactor that can remove those by-products won’t create a nuclear disaster like the ones you keep telling us can’t happen and do. You can’t shoot a hole in the reactors you recommend and not have a nuclear disaster. Why should we have to settle for your Chernobyls and Fukushimas and be played like a fool being told how safe your nuclear reactors are? We can look up civilian nuclear accidents and see a long list.
Why don’t you try to focus on something more than your own self interest for a change? I said I wanted nuclear reactors that can be put in any country and have a design that makes it difficult to produce nuclear weapons. I understand the realities of electricity needing to be produced on demand and how that demand changes during a day, how it’s better to electricity nearby and how things like wind and solar don’t constantly produce electricity, even if it’s economical to use them in certain places. A country also should have grid storage.
I’ve heard people on this site talk about needing an environmental impact study and know it doesn’t take long to do one and these things are planned out so far in advance that there is plenty of time for it to be done. The United States makes more electricity from nuclear energy than any country in the world and it isn’t France. France uses many copies of proven designs and the United States keeps changing the designs and that’s what makes it a long process to get approval.
The EPA and the NRC are not anything like what is said about them. Marvin Gaye was singing about mercury in the fish about the time the EPA started over 40 years ago and there are still coal fired power plants putting mercury, arsenic and hugh amounts of sulfur into the environment. The EPA regulates toxic wastes and there is a site in America containing toxic wastes for about every 300 Americans. The EPA is mostly involved in handing out money for someone wanting to develop the toxic waste site and they don’t even watch over that much. It’s a joke to think the EPA is strict and the NRC is even worse. The NRC caters to the industry. There was an incident where there was an underground pipe leaking and the NRC didn’t even know it was there. A politician asked the NRC how it was suppose to regulate something if they don’t even know it exists.
There are several countries showing an interest in producing Thorium MSRs and there is no good reason why the United States and many other countries shouldn’t get on board and fast track this process.

“tonyb says:
October 22, 2012 at 6:03 am
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”
I’ve asked three times why you people don’t object to a person saying the Maunder Minimum created the LIA. I’ve pointed out you people don’t care about facts and only your agenda. You know what I meant and just tried to avoid the subject.
I said Lamb primarily used Church documents to form his opinion about the LIA and MWP. I never said that was wrong or it was the only thing he used. If you can handle the facts, Lamb came to the conclusion that the LIA and MWP existed using written historical evidence and not scientific data. Once he came to that conclusion, Lamb supported his theory with scientific data from central England. You people are interested in Lamb because the “Ice Man” was claiming we were going into another Ice Age, he started CRU, which you refute the data from, he mentioned a warm period on the otherside of a cold period and he was reluctant to accept global warming, but changed his mind.
Lamb is just a way to pick apart old science and there is a constant attempt to claim a global MWP without evidence. Lamb was aware of us finding our position on the Milankovitch Cycle and thus his Ice Man reputation. It’s a shame that a lot of that climate record for that period is going to be lost as glaciers melt away all over the world.
I figured what I said about three years left was obvious. I’m predicting in three years the fossil fuel industries will be admitting to climate change and claiming how great it’s going to be. They will embrace the science, because events will convince the world that the science of warming is real. It’s possible we could go 3 years without another every 150 year Greenland melt, but it isn’t very likely. It’s possible the arctic sea ice will last longer than 3 years. People aren’t going to listen to this bull in three years and the fossil fuel industries are going to remember what happened to the cigarette industries, who were sued for spreading misinformation about cigarette smoking.
Major events that the average person doesn’t have the background to find significant are going to continue, just like now. The ENSO stopped dead in it’s tracks and they don’t know why because it hasn’t happened before. There are some interesting things going on with ocean currents too. We are in for some interesting times for people interested in climate.

richardscourtney says:
October 22, 2012 at 7:23 am
Check back through a ton of spam and ad hom attacks! It should be easy to find, you buried it.

“climatereason says:
October 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Gary said;
“I said Lamb primarily used Church documents to form his opinion about the LIA and MWP. I never said that was wrong or it was the only thing he used. If you can handle the facts, Lamb came to the conclusion that the LIA and MWP existed using written historical evidence and not scientific data. Once he came to that conclusion, Lamb supported his theory with scientific data from central England. You people are interested in Lamb because the “Ice Man” was claiming we were going into another Ice Age, he started CRU, which you refute the data from, he mentioned a warm period on the otherside of a cold period and he was reluctant to accept global warming, but changed his mind.”
Wow! So you are a conspiracy theorist and a hockey stick man. Have you ever read a book on historical climatology? I guess your comments above demonstrate you haven’t.
tonyb”
Do you people have any idea how stupid this is? I remember the year Lamb started CRU, in fact I was taking courses in Physical Anthropology and Cultural Archaeology during that year. These were the first two courses I took that dealt with the subjects of dating in detail. There was no data base even in the southwest to use tree rings to date something, let alone a method to analyze oxygen isotope ratios to determine a temperature proxy. The instrumentation in 1973 required large samples for all types of analysis and it wasn’t very accurate for dating. My Cultural Archaeology professor had his doubts that tree ring analysis would ever be useful, because a local data base needs to be established and that means you have to find wood from that period to analyze. His view was understandable because he specialized in Native American people of the southeast and termites don’t leave much old wood around.
These are just facts and Lamb didn’t have the tools to use scientific data to advance his theories on LIA and MWP. Lamb used the investigative tools he had and that was written record and even Viking legends. It’s nonsense to think Lamb had instrumental measurements in the LIA and MWP, like some have said. The Fahrenheit scale was produced in 1724 and later adjusted. The Celsius scale was proposed in 1742. You can’t collect instrumental data from a time before the instruments existed.
I don’t have a problem with what Lamb did or the positions he took. I understand why he thought we were heading for another Ice Age and he was right in his view that the radiative forcing of Milankovitch Cycles was taking us there, but that was the generally accepted view. Scientists generally didn’t change their point of view when temperatures started to increase, because it was logical to think it could be an aberration. Lamb was quick to pick up on global warming, but he wasn’t first. Long before he retired in 1978, he was warning of the consequences.

Gary Lance says:
“Aren’t you on record of saying greenhouse gases don’t exist?”
No. I never said that.
You can’t get anything right, can you?

“richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 1:49 am
Gary Lance:
I wrote
“The temperature change is due to radiative balance and not radiative forcing
(and I don’t think you know enough to understand any of this).”
You replied
“That’s how the climate scientists now define radiative forcing”
WRONG!
Tropopause vs surface (i.e. chalk and cheese)
Tested hypothesis:
Gary Lance does not know enough to understand any of this
Result:
Quaf Erat Demonstrandum
Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
Richard”
“Tropopause vs surface (i.e. chalk and cheese)”
You have to be joking to think that’s what radiative forcing means. You have to be someone who wants to play games to claim changes in temperature aren’t equated with changes in radiative forcing. It’s a simple equation that involves sentitivity.
All someone has to do is look this up in an encyclopedia and they’ll see you don’t even have the sense to do that and acquire basic knowledge of this subject.