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.
Gary Lance:
Concerning the AGW scare, at October 19, 2012 at 9:25 pm you write to D Böehm saying
It is pleasing to see you are at last starting to get a clue.
Governments abandoned the AGW-scare at the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009.
I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
Richard
Joe says:
October 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm
—- —-
The following description may be helpful when thinking about polar regions and albedo (surface reflectance) / insolation (sunlight)
The Arctic / Antarctic circle is that region that is entirely cast in darkness at the point in time of the winter solstice. The 24 hr/day shadow then grows smaller for the next 3 months as the leading edge slowly moves its way toward the pole. The pole itself sees 6 months of continuous darkness, and as you move away from the pole the amount of complete darkness reduces in length till you have reached the arctic circle where it will have only had a moment of darkness, if you will. (Did I just say the same thing twice?).
I can describe the summer condition as well, but I think it becomes obvious what happens in the polar regions when you think enough about it.
An helpful program that I used to use, and have just downloaded it and installed it once again is a program called HomePlanet that shows the current shadow on a map of the earth:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/homeplanet/
For Windows. Source code is even provided for your use as you please if you like.
Phil. says:
October 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm
>>
P. Solar says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm
That is about as clear an admission of being in [snip] as I can imagine.
You are a self confessed [snip].
>>
There is no policy forbidding use of the words deny , denial or other derivatives thereof. The ban is on using denier as an offensive slur with implicit connotations of holocaust denier.
My whole point , that I state clearly in such terms is that Gary Lance is displaying clear evidence of being “in denial” in the true psychological sense. ie refusing to confront the evidence that may challenge what he believes.
In his reply he does it yet again:
Gary Lance says:
October 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm
>>
P. Solar
What you presented as links wasn’t data or science.
I believe when I see pictures …
>>
http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/29ni90i.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/dzj70k.png
http://i45.tinypic.com/j60q36.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/r7uets.png
Well, sure looks like data. All from official sources.
Sorry, I don’t do “pictures”.
Joe says: Albedo means nothing when it’s dark.
No. Albedo (reflectivity) is the complement of absorptivity (a=1-r) and at a specific wavelength, absorptivity is equal to emissivity. So what reflects less absorbs and emits more. That does matter during the 6 months of the polar night.
What is also important is that open water evaporates. Both those effects will act as negative feedbacks to a reduction in ice cover caused by warming of the Arctic environment.
One of the graphs I’ve linked is interesting in this respect:
http://i46.tinypic.com/r7uets.png
It shows the increase in North Altantic SST (inverted in this graph) was accompanied by an accelerating change in ice cover. Now that the AMO has levelled out the big slide has stopped an returned to it’s previous oscillatory mode.
Thus rate of change is again oscillating around zero change but with a much reduced ice coverage.
This is not formal proof but is evidence of a net negative feedback, not the positive feedback a lot of people are suggesting will happen. There is NO evidence of tipping points etc in this data, what we see here is an adjustment of sea ice cover to he warmer sea temps.
That does not preclude Siberian permafrost melting , belching massive methane reserves etc. in the future but the evidence of current climate change in the Arctic is one of a stable system controlled by negative feedback.
Now if the media continue to focus on one day per year and ignore the data of the other 364.25 days we should not be surprised if a lot of people flip out and believe irrecoverable runaway processes are already happening.
That is the aim of such propaganda.
Anthony’s one day per year presented here is no more or less valid than the minimum. I think that is his point in posting this.
The graphs I have produced here use ALL the available data. The result, not surprisingly, is much more informative
Gary Lane: “The latest data I’ve seen has Antarctica losing mass. ”
Hence proving you are completely out-of-touch with the current data. It appears you don’t even understand that the IPCC predicts the Antarctic will initially gain ice volume so you are completely out-of-touch with your own sides claims.
However, don’t get all excited now as the reason there has been ice gain is not in line with the IPCC’s claims.
Mpemba effect ?
The increased ice melt which is largely driven by warmer Arctic currents, then re-freezes at a faster rate. Are we seeing the Mpemba effect in action here ?
Whilst we have figures for Arctic air temperature and graphs for sea ice extent and area, we seem to lack data for Arctic water temperatures to allow a fuller discussion of future Arctic behaviour.
With warmer Arctic currents set against a background of solar cooling we may see wider oscillation between record low ice extent in summer and increasing (perhaps record) ice extent in winter.
The Mpemba effect is where warmer water will freeze before the same amount of cooler water. An experiment easily carried out at home, and one for which it is claimed that no scientist has yet satisfactorily explained.
From Wikipedia;
The effect is named after Tanzanian Erasto Mpemba. He first encountered the phenomenon in 1963 in Form 3 of Magamba Secondary School, Tanganyika when freezing ice cream mix that was hot in cookery classes and noticing that they froze before cold mixes. After passing his O-level examinations, he became a student at Mkwawa Secondary (formerly High) School, Iringa, Tanzania. The headmaster invited Dr. Denis G. Osborne from the University College in Dar Es Salaam to give a lecture on physics. After the lecture, Erasto Mpemba asked him the question “If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?” only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Dr. Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba’s finding. They published the results together in 1969.[4]
From Gary Lance on October 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm:
Which is a good thing, as the Earth is not heated by back radiation. The source of the heat is overwhelmingly the Sun, with the contributions from human energy generation and that released from the Earth itself negligible. Our planet is heated by the Sun, period. The back radiation from the greenhouse effect comes from a slowing of the loss of energy to space, it does not heat the planet.
From Gary Lance on October 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm:
Better still, how can you explain it? The solar radiation delivered is primarily visible light and short-wave infrared. Back radiation is long-wave infrared, with said LWIR generated from the absorption of visible light and SWIR.
So how can back radiation possibly be twice the amount of energy absorbed from the Sun? Let us say the Sun delivers 10 Joules which is absorbed. From this, 10 Joules are released as LWIR. That is 10 Joules that can be returned to the surface by an impossibly-perfect greenhouse effect as back radiation. You are telling me that 20 Joules are returned instead. Where did the extra 10 Joules come from?
At 10:33 pm again:
Yes, it was quite amazing. Their imaginations ran out of possible reasons, they programmed computer models to show warming from GHG’s, primarily CO₂, and voila, the models showed there was warming from GHG’s, primarily CO₂.
It seems you need a firmer grounding in GHE theory. Ira Glickstein PhD wrote a nice accessible series for WUWT, Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” that explains it very well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
The effect is real, and frequently misunderstood.
That said, CO₂’s future contribution is highly overstated by such as you. Its GHE response is logarithmic, and evidence is mounting CO₂’s effect is saturated. Any further increases from current atmospheric concentrations, in any range or rate of increase possible by mere mankind, would yield a negligible temperature increase at best, easily overwhelmed by natural forces.
Moreover, the very first 20ppm accounts for over half of the GHE resulting at pre-industrial CO₂ levels. Anything beyond the “absolute minimum” ~180ppm levels of the recent glaciation episodes to current amounts is practically negligible.
So when someone on this site says ‘CO2 doesn’t cause warming’, it’s likely they are not denying that CO₂ is a GHG, they are saying increases will not cause significant warming at the expected levels.
Now back to the imagination-deprived scientists.
Do you agree that the Sun is the ultimate source of warming? What possible reason could account for modern warming other than GHG’s? Less solar radiation being rejected thus more being absorbed, of course. D’oh!
Start here, where it is noted:
With constant incoming energy, whether there is cooling or warming is changed by how much of the energy is allowed in, which is controlled by cloud cover. Spencer posited a mere 1-2% variation accounts for most to all of the warming blamed on “anthropogenic” causes, namely increased CO₂. At the linked piece, a peer-reviewed paper examining China reported “Significant decline in cloud cover with trend of −1.6%per decade during 1954–2005 was derived.” The authors also found the decrease wasn’t related to man-made aerosols thus likely a natural phenomenon.
Which leads to this piece: Some confirmation of Spencer’s cloud hypothesis – it is getting less cloudy and warmer at the same time:
Reduce the cloud cover, more solar energy is absorbed, global warming happens.
You might want to read this short piece by Dr. Spencer, A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change. Very informative.
Even w/all the embarrassing hand-wringing on this thread by a few ice-alarmists, there still isn’t a single reasonable explanation of why less ice is harmful. Remarkable. It’s like stepping back into the Dark Ages. Ghosts & goblins.
richardscourtney
You just don’t get it do you? Governments aren’t going to be giving the AGW-scare, they’re going to be getting it along with everyone else. The days of living in a world with weather as usual are over and a few years of it will convince governments it isn’t going to get better.
P. Solar
If you want to discuss data, post original charts with sources and not more of those tampered charts with cherry picked data!
Try to keep in mind the physics of warming a planet involves more than surface temperature! Think of it like a well insulated house filled with hugh blocks of ice! Are you trying to say a warming event in that house has to immediately show up always as a yearly temperature increase and melting those hugh blocks of ice isn’t showing warming? Why isn’t melting an average of 800 cubic kilometers of arctic sea ice away during the sea ice minimum a sign of warming? Why isn’t having all those arctic temperature anomalies as predicted a sign of warming? How much warming can be hidden in our oceans that could never be detected within the accuracy of global temperature measurements?
Try this litmus test! When ice throughout the whole world stops melting and starts increasing in volume, let us know about it. Don’t try cherry picking data for a super cold desert and claim added precipitation is inconsistent with warming! When a space craft can measure water underground in an aquifer, don’t dismiss it can measure ice sheets above ground. There is plenty of data including pictures of losing ice shelves in WAIS and glaciers speeding up, to suggest mass loss is presently happening in Antarctica, but the fact is Antarcitica is so cold that warming it enough should increase the chance of precipitation and add mass. Ice sheets don’t usually melt from the top, they melt from the sides. They are so large, they influence their own climate. Ice definitely has fluid properties and I’ve seen glaciers move quickly enough to keep people busy staying ahead of them.
Sooo, if there is extra heat energy in the Arctic, why is the ice recovering? If that extra energy has escaped to the atmosphere why is it not showing up on the AMSU charts or DMI? If it has flowed into the oceans, either Pacific or North Atlantic why is it not showin up as both are cooling. So where’s the heat?
P. Solar
The albedo effect is a large scale effect of changing the reflectivity of the surface and how that surface handles solar radiation. It isn’t about cosmic rays in the dark or a neutrino happening to strike it.
Richard M
Why should I ignore satellite data the IPCC didn’t have and take the observations of scientists projecting the arctic sea ice would melt in 2100 seriously? Grace is the best system we have to measure ice sheets and the most recent data has WAIS losing mass, EAIS gaining mass and the net Antarctica losing mass. You don’t want to accept the data, because you want to cherry pick what you think suits your position. The fact is and you have been told, increased antarctic mass isn’t inconsistent with global warming. You’ll see the signs of Antarctica losing mass, because the ice shelves buttressing glaciers will break away first. You would think losing Larsen B that has been there at least 10,000 years would tell you something. The glaciers that fed Larsen B are behaving like all glaciers do when the lose what is blocking them. They always speed up.
You have to be desperate to try to use Antarctica to refute AGW. Look at all the recent changes in the Antarctic Pennisula! Look at the changes in it’s nearest continental neighbor! Patagonia, the third largest ice sheet on Earth is quickly melting away and so are those Andes glaciers. The Southern Hemisphere just has much more water to buffer global warming, but it still shows signs.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
It very simple how back radiation can be nearly twice as much as incoming solar energy absorbed by the surface of the Earth, because it’s been measured.
If you can’t accept that as science and that the total amount of energy has nothing to do with it’s wavelength, then you don’t know anything about the science of electromagnetic waves.
Without back radiation from greenhouse gases, this Earth would be frozen solid.
Gary Lance:
I copy your post to me at October 20, 2012 at 5:50 am so everybody can get the laugh again. It says to me
If the AGW-hypothesis were a scientific issue then it would have been long-forgotten by now. $billions have been spent each year for decades in attempts to find some – any – evidence of AGW. But no evidence of AGW has been found and much evidence which refutes the AGW-hypothesis has been discovered.
From its very beginning the AGW-scare was always political. And governments abandoned the scare at Copenhagen in 2009. The AGW-scare is an “ex-parrot”.
The Earth has been refusing to warm for 16 years and no unprecedented weather has happened. But you claim of AGW that we are all “going to be getting it”. No, we are not “going to be getting it” unless the the Earth stops refusing to obey your imaginings, and there is no reason to think the Earth will change in response to your imaginings.
You and the others who tried to spread the AGW-scare have lost. The scare is fading away and it cannot be recovered. But some minions of the major scaremongers have yet to recognise how they have been misled and misused so they continue to rant while the Earth refuses to warm.
It seems you are one such minion. I feel sorry for you.
Richard
If the Arctic is entering a period of oscillation from record low extent in summer to (record) high extent in winter, could this presage a phase change, perhaps to a glaciation ?
The Gary Lance’s of this World are wrong. Too many people want to oversimplify the World they live in. The chance that one single factor, co2 in this case, can dominate a system as complex and long lived as climate is simply not credible.
Oceans and Ice Caps have considerable inertia and can show warming / melting for a time even though the background situation has shifted to a colder regime.
co2 does not generate heat, we survive on this planet courtesy of the sun, and the sun has shifted to a colder phase, temperatures are currently buffered by inertia in the system from the previous high solar cycles which remains with us, we are also at a solar peak, though a low one, the outlook is increasing cold.
Which means that the Gary Lance’s of this World will still be able to happily worry about temperatures, just the opposite of the one they currently expect.
Gary Lance says:
October 20, 2012 at 7:09 am
Why should I ignore satellite data the IPCC didn’t have and take the observations of scientists projecting the arctic sea ice would melt in 2100 seriously? Grace is the best system we have to measure ice sheets and the most recent data has WAIS losing mass, EAIS gaining mass and the net Antarctica losing mass.
Sorry, repeating incorrect information does not make it true. Grace has been shown to be wrong. The latest paper released in July 2012 analyzes ICESat data and computes an increase in overall ice mass. This paper is from NASA and was covered on WUWT last month IIRC.
So, given that you won’t accept the most recent data why should anyone believe anything you say? It appears you are the one that loves to pick and choose the data that fits their belief system and ignore everything else.
In addition, the southern ocean has been cooling as has the Antarctic for many years. I see you also ignore these facts in your desperation. This is the real reason for increased sea ice. Once again it appears the facts do not support your belief system.
beng
It’s been spelled out to you many times on this thread. Life as we know it in the Northern Hemisphere is dependent on have that sea ice in the arctic. The temperature difference between the arctic and the tropics determines the jet stream.
The first point is that arctic sea ice is toast without geoengineering to keep it around. Toast means it’s gone in the summer, but even before it’s gone, the climate of the Northern Hemisphere has changed. If you think it hasn’t been that bad, you haven’t seen anything yet. Extreme weather has become the new norm.
The timeline is something like this. In 2015, the arctic is ice free in the summer and each year that period of being ice free gets longer. If we are lucky and weather helps us out, it’s in 2020, but that five years isn’t going to help. Long before then, including past years, the jet stream begins to meander further south and north, often freezing itself over an area causing repeated weather. The results are droughts, floods, heat waves and when cold waves get fixed during a winter, you can claim there isn’t global warming, by ignoring the simple fact that an equal amount of warm has penetrated the higher latitudes. Those 150 year Greenland melts become yearly events.
Winter in the Northern Hemisphere has snow cover that covers most of China, Siberia, Europe and the US, but that snow cover starts going away sooner each year. Warm air masses are roaming the Northern Hemisphere earlier each year and are willing to spend that warmth on any ice they find. All the glaciers are in massive retreat. As growth spreads to the northern latitudes, the more southern latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere become arid. Eventually Illinois has the climate of Louisiana.
It’s possible that warming permafrost can cause massive methane releases, but we don’t know how much methane is there and how fast it can be released. We do know there is a major chance of losing a bread basket, it could be us, Russia, China or Europe. The relationship between large scale climate change and desert formation is well established. People will be starving before their major coastal cities are drowned, but the UK and the US will need a new capital.
That is the warning of someone who studies science and doesn’t ignore it. The data to prove this is happening now is available for people wanting to see what is truly happening in their present world.
“beesaman says:
October 20, 2012 at 6:33 am
Sooo, if there is extra heat energy in the Arctic, why is the ice recovering? If that extra energy has escaped to the atmosphere why is it not showing up on the AMSU charts or DMI? If it has flowed into the oceans, either Pacific or North Atlantic why is it not showin up as both are cooling. So where’s the heat?”
The heat is in the ocean where it likes to be and quickly forming extent sea ice is just sea ice rapidly forming to trap that heat. It takes -1.8 degrees C to form sea ice and that isn’t very cold for an arctic winter.
What part of volume gets so confusing to people on this site and what part of having sea ice with nearly no sunlight is confusing? People who study the arctic sea ice used to pay little attention as it refreezed, but many are watching it now. People who study arctic sea ice know a quick refreeze with large drift will make that sea ice more vulnerable next melt. If the sea ice traps heat, that heat can melt away sea ice that has survived to become thicker, so sea ice lucky enough to survive the summer melt is mixed in with some of that new sea ice that doesn’t have a chance of surviving next year’s melt.
Sea ice extent is not going to preserve the volume of arctic sea ice. There is no good news in this years refreeze, be it extent, drift or salinity.
gary lance posted this “Without back radiation from greenhouse gases, this Earth would be frozen solid.”
think about that please, you are saying the direct sunlight does NOT warm the earth at all it is “back radiation” that does the warming……..CLUE = without the earth warming first from the sun there would be NO radiation to be reflected back, which doesnt happen anyway.
there is NOTHING in co2 that would make it reverse the flow of IR from the surface towards space.
richardscourtney
I’ve said all along I don’t care what you people think, because what you think isn’t going to prevent what will happen. The days of thinking climate change are something you can avoid in the distant future are over and we all are going to have to live with it now.
Scientists have done the people a favor by warning them and what favor have you done the people by pretending science isn’t science? You tried to save yourself a nickel by sabotaging policies to prevent climate change and costed yourself a dollar or more to do it. You made the choice to spend years being on the wrong side of an issue, so live with the consequences!
The governments will wake up when they realize the new world’s game is making them spin the wheel of misfortune. If you think 2012 was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Gary Lance:
For the first time in this thread at October 20, 2012 at 8:41 am you write something that is true; i.e.
Indeed, so. The refreeze suggests we will NOT be getting the ice-free Arctic ocean which would have been such a blessing.
As you say, not getting an ice-free Arctic ocean is not good news. It is very bad news.
Richard
Gary Lance:
In your ludicrous rant addressed to me at October 20, 2012 at 9:02 am you say to me
I don’t “think 2012 was bad” (although it would have been better without the financial crisis).
2012 has been good so far. More people and less starvation than ever before. The usual minor wars around the world, but no global conflict. The usual minor natural disasters, but no major ones such as a Hurricane Katrina, a ‘Boxing Day’ Tsunami, or a Pompeii-type volcanic eruption. No pandemics. etc.
Why do you “think 2012 was bad”? If you can answer that then perhaps your answer will explain the cause of your delusions about AGW.
Richard
Gary Lance. What is your point ?
Are you saying that we should stop being such naughty people putting co2 into the atmosphere ?
The fact is that nothing you or anyone else says is going to stop that, so I suggest you take whatever measures you think you need to take to adapt to the future you think is going to happen and move nearer the North pole.
Myself, I think that temperatures are going to go down relentlessly and I will be moving nearer the equator.
Kadaka KD Knoebel says
Reduce the cloud cover, more solar energy is absorbed, global warming happens.
henry says
It is here where I think a few of may have got it the wrong way around. I am not saying that you are not right about needing some kind of cosmic particles to start a cloud. But first, to start a cloud you also need cooling.
My analysis of the results on maxima coming from 47 weather stations shows that maximum temps have been dropping. In fact the best fit that I can make for it is a sine wave, wavelength 88 years.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
(this is not a model, but a logical conclusion from 47x365x38=651890 measurements; i.e. where else must the blue curve go, but to drop further down? Also note that the average change in energy-in over 88 years is simply 0.0 degrees K per annum, does everybody get that?)
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). At the same you would also have more clouds, naturally, so to speak.
Now put my sine wave next to those dates?
1995 end of warming – minimum
1950 end of cooling – maximum
1900 end of warming – minimum
Not too bad, heh?
Why all climate scientists keep looking at the average global mean temps. also puzzles me.
Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetation, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc.
On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, depending on whatever. Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor.
So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing.
Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in. There must be some lag between energy out and energy in, so I am more inclined to believe in a 100 year cycle consisting of 2 x 50 year cycle (44 + ca.5 ; remember 7 x 7 + 1 jubilee year?)
So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.
Hope this helps a few people.