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.
“D Böehm says:
October 23, 2012 at 10:03 pm
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?”
Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing the amount of greenhouse gases, such as water, CO2, nitrous oxide, CFCs, ozone and methane?
Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing the albedo?
Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing aerosols?
Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing major ocean currents that redistribute heat?
Can you change the temperature of a planet by changing clouds?
Do changes in solar irradiance change the temperature of a planet?
I fail to see the logic how someone can just pick out CO2 and claim it can’t change the temperature of a planet by everything else can.
I also fail to see the logic how someone can think we can have an ice free arctic and not cause future generations to evacuate the coast, meaning every coastal city on Earth will be lost. Greenland is already changing and the change will go expondential once that arctic sea ice is gone. If you want to predict it, track the snow cover!
GARY LANCE SAYS
Scientists say it’s our emissions and their measurements have ranges of uncertainty, but do prove enough radiative forcing from emissions was produced to counteract the weaker radiative forcing for us cooling.(SIC)
HENRY SAYS
As everybody has told you by now, there is no one who has the right results in the right dimensions giving us a balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming each of the gases cause, when they increase by 100 ppm….only…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
In addition, CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades. So, you have to add that to our balance sheet. (please do the measurements yourself; you have to actually do something to call yourself a scientist….try studying biology to find out … geology won’t work here).
For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that the increase in CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
The above results show that a cooling cycle started around 1995.
The calculations are in the IPCC report or you can get the results from a chart and CO2 doesn’t cause cooling.
Gary Lance says:
“I fail to see the logic how someone can just pick out CO2 and claim it can’t change the temperature of a planet by everything else can.”
As everyone else here can see, you are a friggin’ idiot. A tiny trace gas is not capable of heating up the planet and causing runaway global warming. Only an idiot could believe nonsense like that.
Gary Lance:
Your recent two posts demonstrate that you don’t possess even an elementary knowledge of basic science.
At October 24, 2012 at 3:30 am you write
This shows you not only lack logical ability, you are ignorant of even basic schoolboy physics.
Arcticsea ice is floating. It displaces its own volume of water. Melt the ice and the sea level changes not at all (well, actually it falls by an insignificant amount but I doubt your ability to understand why).
Try this simple experiment. Half fill a drinking glass with water and add an ice cube. Mark the water level on the glass. Let the ice cube melt and observe how that the water level has not changed.
I can foresee you wriggling about melting land ice. But that excuse does not free you from the trap you have created by your ignorance.
Antarctic ice is increasing.
The Greenland ice sheet would require thousands of years to melt. And the ground beneath it is isostaticly depressed. Any melt water from melting Greenland ice would remain entrained in the depression for centuries.
At October 24, 2012 at 3:10 am you say
Clearly, you will accept every opportunity to demonstrate you know less than nothing about the science of climate change. The IPCC uses this definition of radiative forcing
Please note “at the tropopause”.
The effect of altered ocean currents is to change the distribution of the Earth’s surface temperatures. A variation in ocean currents could move more heat from hot regions to cold regions with resulting cooling of the hot regions and warming of the cool regions. This causes a change to global temperature because the Earth has to maintain its radiative balance: i.e.
energy from space (the sun) = energy radiated to space.
All surfaces radiate energy and the energy they radiate is determined by the temperature (T) of the surface. The energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature (i.e. T^4).
If the temperature of a region of the hot tropics falls by a degree Celsius while the temperature of an equal area of e.g. the cold Arctic rises by a degree Celsius then the the global average temperature does not instantaneously change. But the globe loses a lot less energy (because radiated energy is proportional to T^4). The global temperature rises in response to the reduced surface heat loss until radiative balance is restored.
Please note that this is
(a) a surface effect
and
(b) is an effect of radiative balance and NOT radiative forcing.
Having demonstrated
1.
You make silly assertions which you cannot justified when pressed
2.
You are ignorant of physics at schoolboy level
3.
You know nothing and understand less than nothing about climate science
4.
You bluster with unfounded claims of knowledge you don’t have whenever your errors are pointed out
I now intend to ignore anything else from you.
Richard
“D Böehm says:
October 24, 2012 at 4:52 am
Gary Lance says:
“I fail to see the logic how someone can just pick out CO2 and claim it can’t change the temperature of a planet by everything else can.”
As everyone else here can see, you are a friggin’ idiot. A tiny trace gas is not capable of heating up the planet and causing runaway global warming. Only an idiot could believe nonsense like that.”
Did you bother to answer those questions about radiative forcing? No, you didn’t and running your mouth doesn’t prove the amount of radiative forcing calculated by climate scientists is wrong. Posting calculations by climate scientists that are peer reviewed proves other calculations are wrong, so surely those fossil fuel industries can get one of the scientists on their payrolls to do the calculations, can’t they?
You people want to believe that CO2 increases aren’t the primary reason for present warming and some don’t even believe it is warming, with all the evidence it is. Reality isn’t based on what you want.
How many times does Greenland have to melt those 150 year melts before you will figure it out? Are you going to believe it’s warming when the arctic is ice free? I don’t believe you ever will come to the conclusion it was greenhouse emissions that triggered the warming and you will just change your story to the warming is natural without giving a mechanism for the warming.
Gary Lance says
and CO2 doesn’t cause cooling.
Henry says
How did you figure that one out?
For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.
(this still excludes the cooling at 4-5 um where CO2 also has big absorption, because the instrument does not measure in that range)
richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:23 am
I’ve made it clear I’m talking about the ice free arctic melting land ice that does raise sea level.
You don’t have the sense to know you are talking to someone with more knowlege of sea ice and climate than you have. Who doesn’t know the buoyancy point besides people like you?
If you know so much about this subject, why do you allow comparisons of “ice” being ice sheets two miles above sea level and sea ice at an elevation of four inches?
From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 5:51 am:
Then supply the mechanism that explains the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Climate Optimum, and the still-earlier Minoan Warm Period, etc. If global warming needs a triggering mechanism and cannot be natural, then they must have triggering mechanisms as well.
The use of the “The MWP was not global!” cop-out is denied, as BEST reported 1/3 of the stations were cooling, Antarctica is cooling, thus the current “global warming” is likewise not global.
HenryP says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:31 am
Don’t you know the Earth’s energy budget requires the amount of energy leaving the Earth to equal the amount that enters? That doesn’t mean the planet is warming, cooling or staying the same.
We measure the surface of Earth and we get nearly twice the amount of back radiation as we get solar radiation reaching the surface.
From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 7:52 am:
True at equilibrium. If the planet is warming or cooling, then it is gaining or losing energy, energy in does not equal energy out, it is not at equilibrium.
Gary Lance says
Don’t you know the Earth’s energy budget
Henry says
But we were not talking about that. You said that CO2 does not cause (radiative) cooling.
I showed you that it does.
So now you must show me from a scientific study that, by increasing the concentration of CO2 by 100 ppm, the cooling caused by re-radiating sunshine (12 hours per day, 0-5 um ) is smaller than the warming caused by re-radiating earthshine (24 hours/day 14-16 um)
Can I have that, in the right dimensions?
Time is a factor, you know… but you won’t find that in the ipcc reports. I checked. They assumed warming is caused by more CO2 (GHG), and calculated a forcing by measuring the observed warming versus the increase in CO2 (GHG( since 1750. It is the worst mistake scientists can make: assuming you know the cause of a problem and work your way back trying to solve it only to discover you made the wrong diagnosis….
Apart from that, increased vegetation, as noted,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
also causes some cooling by the CO2
seeing that plants and trees consume energy when they grow?
How much was that?
So, you cannot say CO2 does not cause cooling.
I am a bit worried now that perhaps I am waking up a few people now to start arguing that it is the CO2 that it going to cause the cooling that is coming…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
I strongly advise that you don’t bother.
If you check this thread you will see Gary Lance knows almost nothing – and he understands less than nothing – about climate change. He has today learned (from me) about the interaction of radiative balance and temperature when only yesterday he was disputing its existence in this same thread. Now he throws this knew (to him) knowledge at you as though it was a support of his position when it actually supports yours. And he does this because it provides an illogical mire into which he can draw you.
If you engage with him you are very likely to get sucked-in to his untrue assertions that he cannot justify and to which he adds each time you ask for a justification. Everybody – including me – who has made the mistake of engaging with him has suffered being sucked-in to his pattern.
I strongly advise that you ignore him.
Richard
Henry P:
I draw your attention to my very recent advice to kadaka (KD Knoebel), and I say to you, ditto.
Richard
Gary Lance:
At October 24, 2012 at 7:39 am you laughably say to me
Yes, I answered that in my post at October 24, 2012 at 5:23 am which you claim to be answering but your reading ability was inadequate for you to have read it.
And you say to me
I have the sense to to know you are an ignorant prat with less scientific knowledge than a typical 12-year old. You reveal the falseness of your claims to knowledge with almost every post you make.
If you had any sense you would stop posting because it is better for you to be thought a fool than for you to keep proclaiming that you are one.
Richard
“kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:41 am
From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 5:51 am:
I don’t believe you ever will come to the conclusion it was greenhouse emissions that triggered the warming and you will just change your story to the warming is natural without giving a mechanism for the warming.
Then supply the mechanism that explains the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Climate Optimum, and the still-earlier Minoan Warm Period, etc. If global warming needs a triggering mechanism and cannot be natural, then they must have triggering mechanisms as well.
The use of the “The MWP was not global!” cop-out is denied, as BEST reported 1/3 of the stations were cooling, Antarctica is cooling, thus the current “global warming” is likewise not global.”
What you call nature or natural always has a mechanism.
Can you supply scientific data from credible sources to prove your warm periods aren’t a fairy tale and they were global events? No, you can’t because no such massive study has ever been done. Lamb concluded there was a period warmer than the LIA based on his checking mostly church documents in Europe. He focused on wine production. Lamb was saying it was warm before the LIA like it is now and he wasn’t making the claims you make. Lamb pointed out the Vikings went to Greenland and left, because the climate became too cold. That only means it became cold and the LIA happened. Since you like using Lamb as a source, post the dates for the MWP that Lamb used and his reasoning for picking that period!
If you want to discuss any of those periods, you can start by defining when the period was with specific dates. Finding evidence for the LIA and MWP doesn’t mean it’s proven to be global if you select other areas that seem to prove it and ignore the areas that don’t. Being global means it’s an event at basically the same time throughout the world. and lasting for the period. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it, it has to be comprehensive evidence from the world.
Friends:
In the probably forlorn hope of stopping the drivel from the prat, I am starting a series of errata to correct his errors. This is the first in what I anticipate will be a series.
Misleading Statement
“Finding evidence for the LIA and MWP doesn’t mean it’s proven to be global if you select other areas that seem to prove it and ignore the areas that don’t. Being global means it’s an event at basically the same time throughout the world. and lasting for the period. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it, it has to be comprehensive evidence from the world.”
Fact
The existences of the MWP and LIA are demonstrated by hundreds of peer reviewed studies using multiple methods. see
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/subject_l.php
Richard
From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 8:54 am:
And you cannot supply a mechanism for well-known global warming periods that were natural, thus have no basis for claiming the current global warming cannot be natural.
Shame, really, I was hoping you’d at least trot out “Milankovitch Cycles” again.
Oh well, thank you for playing.
richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
The only thing you do here is troll.
Do you live in a fantasy where you think normal people believe what you say?
Do you buy CO2 is cooling/moon nonsense?
The world will melt away around you and you still won’t see it.
Gary Lance says:
“You people want to believe that CO2 increases aren’t the primary reason for present warming…”
Note that no one is in agreement with Gary Lance, who is IMHO a friggin’ idiot. There is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming. It may be the cause of some minuscule warming, but there is no verifiable empirical evidence supporting that conjecture. None.
Gary Lance exhibits all the signs of insanity. His cognitive dissonance will not allow him to see reality:
The best we can do is to debunk his nonsense. But that’s easy, so no problem.
Friends:
This is number 2 in my series of corrections to statements of the Gary Lance which are intended to discourage him from posting nonsense. The following are his statements and questions to me (at October 24, 2012 at 9:55 am) with my corrections and answers.
GL statement:
The only thing you do here is troll.
Correction:
No, I correct falsehoods from trolls
GL question:
Do you live in a fantasy where you think normal people believe what you say?
Answer:
No, I live in a real world where people pay to hear what I say. In addition I give GL what I say gratis.
GL question:
Do you buy CO2 is cooling/moon nonsense?
Answer:
I had not heard of it and although I checked ebay I could not find it so I don’t know what it is or where to buy it.
GL statement:
The world will melt away around you and you still won’t see it.
Answer:
The claim that “The world will melt away” in my lifetime is only possible in the mind of GL. His assertion is yet another demonstration of his lack of scientific knowledge. The surface temperature of the Earth would need to reach 1200 deg.C for the world to melt away and it will not happen until the Sun becomes a Red Giant ~2 billion years in the future.
Richard
D Böehm says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:07 am
Come back to reality and figure out where you are posting! There are plenty of people who agree with me. Take scientists for example!
I haven’t seen calculations by you people being submitted for peer review and published. I’ve pointed out climatology is a branch of geology, so there are plenty of geologists on the payroll of the fossil fuel industries.
Can you come up with the dates for your warm periods and the LIA and compare it to Figure 1 page 3 of this chart?
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
Why does this chart keep getting posted when it’s been proven wrong?
http://www.climategate.com/wp-content/uploads/greenland-ice-core-10000.jpg
or this:
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
Do the dates match? Does the fake chart end in 2000? What are the time periods for your so called warm periods and has recent warming been given a long enough time to reach it’s maximum. Those past periods lasted hundreds of years and there are already trees growing in Greenland.
richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:26 am
So you have proven you can be froward and not understand something very obvious!
Are you going to be on here posting when the arctic is ice free or when we have our next Greenland meltdown?
Gary Lance says:
“There are plenty of people who agree with me.”
Quite a few legitimate scientists and engineers comment here. Produce one who agrees with your nonsense. And just because you don’t like a chart, that does not mean it is wrong, it just means you have trouble dealing with reality. Look at where the charts came from: R.B. Alley and Leif Svalgaard, for example.
Finally, you’re quibbling about a chart ending at year 2000. But there has been no global warming since well before 2000, so it doesn’t matter. It’s just more of your incessant threadbombing. Try getting out once in a while, because your mom’s basement is no place to spend your life.
Friends:
This post is number 3 in my series of posts refuting statements of Gary Lance, and it pertains to everything in his post addressed to me at October 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm.
It is not possible to comment on meaningless noise. All one can do is wait until the toddler’s temper tantrum ends. Fortunately GL’s post was short.
Richard