Claim: Melting sea ice increases Arctic precipitation, complicates climate predictions

From DARTMOUTH COLLEGE and the “Reports of the demise of Arctic Sea Ice are greatly exaggerated” department

HANOVER, N.H. – The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.

“The increases of precipitation and changes in the energy balance may create significant uncertainty in climate predictions,” says lead author Ben Kopec, a PhD candidate in Dartmouth’s Department of Earth Sciences.

The findings appear in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A PDF is available on request.

Global climate is influenced by the Arctic water cycle, which is partly regulated by sea ice through its control on evaporation and precipitation. There is a growing consensus among scientists that a decrease in sea ice would increase Arctic precipitation because of increased evaporation. Direct measurement of precipitation is difficult in the Arctic because of its cold, windy environments, so the quantitative link between precipitation and sea ice is poorly understood.

In their study, the Dartmouth-led team quantified that link by measuring the hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions of precipitation from 1990 to 2012 at six sites across the Arctic. They then used these empirically established sensitivities of precipitation isotopes to sea ice change to project future precipitation changes and to evaluate impacts of these changes on the energy balance. Their approach is based on the premise that Arctic precipitation is composed mostly of water from two marine evaporation regions, or “moisture sources” – one subtropical and one local – and that the relative contributions of the two sources to the precipitation can be determined from the stable isotopic ratios of the precipitation.

They found that for a sea ice extent decrease of 100,000 km2 – or 38,610 square miles — the percentage of Arctic sourced moisture increases by 18.2 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively, in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland Sea regions. This corresponds to increases of 10.9 percent and 2.7 percent per degree Celsius of Arctic warming, respectively.

The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. If it falls as snow, it could potentially increase glacial mass and the number of days of high land surface reflectivity, thus having a cooling effect. But if the increased precipitation falls as rain, it would cause earlier spring melt and/or later onset of autumn snow coverage, a longer low reflectivity period and additional warming. In either case, the resulting radiative forcing likely has an order of magnitude similar to that of the forcing from doubling carbon dioxide, thus demonstrating that the sea ice feedback to radiation balance through the Arctic water cycle is potentially a major component of climate change.

“Sea ice is declining at an alarming rate, so it is important to understand the consequences of the climate feedbacks caused by these changes,” Kopec says. “We show that the loss of sea ice will likely increase precipitation, which will impact communities and ecosystems around the Arctic. The change of precipitation, depending on the seasonal distribution, may impact the energy balance on the same order of magnitude as the feedbacks associated with doubling carbon dioxide.”

###

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “Claim: Melting sea ice increases Arctic precipitation, complicates climate predictions

  1. from 1990 to 2012….They found that for a sea ice extent decrease of 100,000 km2
    You mean in the past 25 years, no one went and took a look?…we went way past your measly 100,000 bozos
    …it ain’t happening

      • Not only that, it’s energetically impossible, somehow they think they are going to hydrologically cycle 20% more water, hundreds of gigatonnes, absorbing 2255+334+100 × 4.1 =3000kJ/kg to evaporate ice at 0C. And produce 3W per square metre of WARMING with it, using only 0.6W per square meter GW as the input energy?
        Earth to student, extracting 3 x 10^15 kJ of energy per GT of ice evaporated, from this ice melt is going to COOL the surface.

    • One of the advantages of complicating the hell out of climate predictions is that they get to be more and more like the real world.
      Holding your licked finger up (any one) is not a very good climate predictor, but it sure as hell isn’t that complicated.
      If you use a 4-H club model of climate you will get 4-H club predictions.
      Live with it.
      G

    • Latitude,
      In all fairness to the climate “scientists”, we must recall that predictions are hard — especially those about the future. 🙂
      Note to Pendants: Please don’t tell me that projections are not predictions: they damn sure are used that way in alarmist science.

    • And since 2012, sea ice has been increasing. Just what you would expect as the positive phase of the PDO comes to a close and the negative phase starts up.

      • i think Like does mix “increase” with alarmist data.
        yes on a 25 year base it does still decrease, but from the 2007-2012 arctic dip on there is an increase.
        so indeed the arctic ice had an increase the last 3 years
        that said it is too short to say if this increase will hold on, what i find also very odd is that next to this the greenland ice mass balance is also looking like getting to a turning point. it strikes me there that though there is still a loss, it’s getting less and less dramatic and it does show a similar slowdown.
        so yea the last two years the data isn’t corresponding with the idea.
        I agree that 2-3 years are still too short to go into conclusions but i do find it an intresting turn in the saga….

    • A fascinating presentation about the 4th phase of water, that explains among other things, cloud formation (10:43). It shows that IR energy does not simply heat water, it also structures water in ways not previously understood. Melting sea ice and Arctic precipitation may be much more complex than assumed by Climate Science.

  2. The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide“.
    How on Earth can you derive that from:
    The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. If it falls as snow, it could potentially increase glacial mass and the number of days of high land surface reflectivity, thus having a cooling effect. But if the increased precipitation falls as rain, it would cause earlier spring melt and/or later onset of autumn snow coverage, a longer low reflectivity period and additional warming.“.

    • … and the response from the “expert” witness on the stand was:
      *
      *
      *
      AGWers defense attorney: …. (ahem)……. nothing further, Your Honor.
      Slam-dunk! Verdict in Jonas v. AGW, Inc.: for JONAS.

    • “The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. If it falls as snow, it could potentially increase glacial mass and the number of days of high land surface reflectivity, thus having a cooling effect.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/123/3207/1061.citation
      It’s just.. the carbon dioxide comment doesn’t work with it at all. Is it what they’re trying to get at, but don’t want to be taboo?

    • You called BS before I could. The assertion “the melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide,” is pure speculation, and in my opinion, wrong in sign. The feedback will be more snow, whiter and larger glaciers and snow fields (on land and on top of sea ice), higher albedo, more UV reflected back into space, relative regional cooling, leading to more sea ice. In my opinion.

      • But the snow cover will cause warming because…. because… it will melt faster than normal ice. and then it will cover the water preventing more cooling from evaporation. Thus raising arctic water temperatures and causing more melting underneath the sea ice…. /sarc. But I have read something to that effect on some blogs.

      • Are they trying to express Ewing and Donn’s Theory of Ice Ages, but throwing in a bunch of bs about CO2 and how it might fall as rain (lol) and positive feedback spiraling out of control will kill us all, as some lame attempt to stick to the status quo?

    • The global “warminists” have more excuses for their failed predictions than Bayer has aspirin tablets.

    • Exactly my take. It’s not only more extreme, but we can’t even tell which extreme it will be, to paraphrase. What crap.

    • I got hung up on the “…create significant uncertainty in climate predictions…” phrase, as if there was little uncertainty before in the predictions. The uncertainty across all of the variables used in is compounded as more of the variables with additional uncertainty are uncovered, leading to our current observations concerning the “settled science” and the models that have been developed.

      • Scott I almost really laughed out load when I read that line about creating more uncertainty in predictions (which aren’t supposed to be predictions). If I hadn’t been in a foul mood already I’d have been rolling on the floor. How can you have more uncertainty than “we don’t have a clue?” We’re all going to either freeze or bake, can’t really make up our minds and none of us can read a thermometer. Send money.
        It would be laughable if they didn’t have guns.

  3. … comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide…

    Translation:
    Comparable to the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

    … quantified that link by measuring the hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions of precipitation … then used these empirically established sensitivities of precipitation isotopes to sea ice change to project future precipitation changes and to evaluate impacts of these changes on the energy balance.

    Translation: We have no idea what we are talking about so! Let’s just use a bunch of essentially meaningless “sciency sounding” terms so no one will notice.

    The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. …

    Translation: You won’t pin us down, this time!

    “… or rain.

    (head shake) Now, just what is the average temperature in the Arctic again?
    LOL.
    Watch out, Santa!!! There are desperate, mentally unbalanced, characters on the loose in your neighborhood!
    (sniff,… sniff…… oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, DEAR! — I’m really worried about Santa, now!!!)
    #(:))

    • …at an alarming rate,…”

      Why is it alarming?
      Why cannot a paper say that sea ice is declining. That is or is not a fact depending upon the evidence.
      The claim that the change is alarming is supposition. An ice free Arctic, and a warmer NH where most of live, could have many advantages, and melting Arctic sea ice, does not contribute towards sea level rise.

      • So is it or isn’t it worserer than we or they thought while using those mind …………… substances so common in some educational establishments.
        James Bull

      • James
        They are no longer called educational establishments… They are now called ’emotional’ establishments. Where older children go to be emoticated and get degrees in studies such as “Creating safe spaces”, “hypocritical thinking”, “how to scam the most from your fellow taxpayer because you are a victim”, etc.

    • Steve clearly mis-understands the text. He says “is the best sea ice extent source for doing comparisons – because it uses more meaningful 30% concentration ice rather than the 15% ice used in other commonly cited graphs. DMI specifically recommends that you use this graph for comparisons with other years.”
      They actually say the total estimated ice area in the figure is underestimated due to unclassified land/sea areas with unclassified pixels. They reccommend that the values are used qualitatively in relation to other years shown in the figure.
      That is, the data is not good enough for quantitative comparison, and should ONLY be used to compare with other years shown in the same figure. What Steve has interpreted as an endorsement of the data is actually a warning that it is not the best data to use. This is why they are phasing it out. How anyone could think this meant the 30% figure was in any way more meaningful than the 15% figure is difficult to understand.
      This is clearly NOT a recommendation that this data is used instead of the 15% figure. If you go to their 15% graph, the text says: “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot [the 30% plot Steve prefers], that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”
      Steve says “Alarmists constantly attack this graph, because they aren’t intelligent enough to read and comprehend the simple explanation DMI provides.”
      It is clear that the shoe is on the other foot, and Steve has failed to understand what DMI meant.
      If you go to the DMI’s preferred 15% figure, 2015 sea ice is not doing so well.

      • seaice…
        …and yet, …and yet… you have been 100.0% WRONG about global warming like every other climate alarmist who still believes that the natural ebb and flow of polar ice is caused by humans.
        That is so preposterous that even writing it I had to LOL. Natural changes in Arctic ice. Caused by humans.
        Ri-i-i-i-i-ght. As if.

  4. “Sea ice is declining at an alarming rate”: Failed.
    The poor Ph.D. student ‘Genus’ author being at Dartmouth will get his coveted Ph.D. but end up a Manager at a Wall-Mart and with very heavy loan payments continuing into his 50s.

    Ha ha

    • “GENUS”? That could explain a lot. I know that warmists are different but are you possibly theorising they are evolving into a separate branch? Or maybe devolving from Homo Sapiens to Homo Deficiensous? CO2 can cause this.

  5. “The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide“. And to be clear, a doubling of CO2 causes the following feedback….oh wait!

    • Um ! please Sir. More precipitation means more clouds, which means less solar energy reaches the surface. Doesn’t that cool things ?? er … Sir

      • There isn’t much solar in Arctic. I think evaporation itself means heat loss from sea surface, but at the same time resulting clouds and snowstorms keep temperatures mild. Summer is a different bird.
        So open sea at winter is a negative feedback with regards to sea ‘surface’ temperature, and a positive feedback wrt air temperature, but during summer cloud formation is a strong negative feedback, but rainwater may melt some sea ice. I have a model which solves this given point-like ideal water and homogenous, infinitely deep Euclidean sea…

  6. Page last updated at 23:08 GMT, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 00:08 UK
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm
    A few years ago, scientists were predicting that Arctic waters would be ice-free in summers by about 2080.
    Then computer models started projecting earlier dates, around 2030 to 2050.
    Then came the 2007 summer that saw Arctic sea ice shrink to the smallest extent ever recorded, down to 4.2 million sq km from 7.8 million sq km in 1980.
    By the end of last year, one research group was forecasting ice-free summers by 2013.
    "I think we're going to beat last year's record melt, though I'd love to be wrong," said Dr Stroeve.
    "If we do, then I don't think 2013 is far off any more. If what we think is going to happen does happen, then it'll be within a decade anyway.

      • Why is he taking this issue so personally? It’s either I am right (The science is settled)! Or I wish/love to be wrong (The science is still settled)! Let the real data, real experiments and REAL EVIDENCE talk, not projection, hypothesis, computer simulation and human emotion. This is the biggest issue in the whole debate.

  7. This article full of mere science puffery, coming on the heels of yesterday’s post about G. Schmidt, huffing and puffing his all-noise-and-no-measurable-effect sturm und drang about his “experiments” with aerosols (i.e., his ridiculous assertion that human emissions cause both global cooling and warming at the same time and yet it is STILL a “planetary emergency” (algore)), brought this to mind…..
    (for, what is it, now, the 64th time, lol — oldie but a goodie)
    The great Oz has spoken!

    (youtube — Wizard of Oz)
    “I’m a very good man, I’m just a bad {scientist}.”
    Well? WELL, Mister Kopec? Which IS it? A. Incompetent or B. Bad ??

  8. Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007
    Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
    Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
    Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years

    • Their latest modelling

      lololololo
      Note: Back in 2007, they were only “studies”… NOW! The AGWers do “experiments” with their computer simulations!

      • The jokes keep writing themselves.
        Julie Trustram Eve, from English Wine Producers, said: "There are as far as we know no vines yet in Scotland, although there have been rumours. It's gradually creeping up. It depends how accurate the predictions are for the long term, but some say by 2080 it will be too hot to grow grapes in southern England."
        However, Roxanne Canvan Schayk, who runs a traditional fruit and flower wine shop at Lambholm in the Orkney islands, said [in a broad Scottish accent?] the French had nothing to fear from where she was standing. "It's far too windy for a start," she said.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/6040419/Best-wines-will-come-from-Scotland-if-climate-change-is-not-stopped-French-chefs-say.html?FORM=ZZNR

      • Ms. Schayk’s husband at home that evening: I dinna say ye’re wrong, luv, but did ye have to be so hard on ’em? Could be bad fer business!
        Ms. Schayk: Would ye have me lie, then, Robert? Look in’t, man! The Allies dinna run in’t any vines when they landed at Normandy, noo, did they?
        H: Nay.
        M: (still grave, but, softened face — flicks him with the dish towel — that means she loves him 🙂 ) Them English — they’d build a windmill of summan told ’em it’d help ’em ta win at snooker. (head shake — tsk, tsk, tsk).
        H: (guffaw)
        M: (guffaw)

      • Well yes, they do, Its an experiment to see if what the model does conforms with …er… what the model does.
        And the results confirm the model is right, every time.
        That’s Science!
        😉

  9. The Climate SOBs, (Sorry, but they are), desperately need to perpetually dream up conceptual scenarios which may, could or should increase precipitation and/or atmospheric water vapor because they know water is king. It reigns supreme and they need the king to produce their warming.
    They cannot topple the king, make the king go missing, bribe the king or convince the king to cooperate.
    All they got is dwindling hope and a weak lifeline of conceptualization.
    By extension their secondary intent it to also invent the phony corresponding need to endlessly wait and see how their new theories pan out.
    After all, what if they’re right. We have to wait and see before abandoning all concern. Do we not?
    And every time the SOBs produce a report with may, should or could all of the David Appell and other climate minions add it to their heap of empirical scientific proof of AGW.

      • min·ion
        synonyms: underling, henchman, flunky, lackey, hanger-on, follower, servant, hireling, vassal, stooge, toady, sycophant;
        Those work too.

  10. Seems to me that such a strong positive feedback would accelerate ice loss once it got started. Instead, we’ve seen the ice loss flat for nearly a decade. Simple observational evidence refutes the hypothesis.
    Makes one wonder if any of these pseudo-scientists will ever learn how to spell AMO.

  11. Hypothetical:
    CAGW theory wasn’t profitable, as wind energy was already cheap and universal thanks to some break through. There is no incentive to commit scientific fraud, as Democrat donors can’t embiggen their wealth from Big Wind.
    The first polar orbit camera is launched 2011, and observes the level of ice extent increase seen from 2012 to 2015.
    In this parallel world, how alarmed would scientists be? How far would they extrapolate ice cap growth of they had never observed a brief period of shrinkage?

  12. The “this complicates things” seems to be the new modus operandi of the I’mtoostupidtoknowhowdumbIamcrowd …

    • This graphs show sea ice. The one with shoreline ice masked out.
      The one with shorline-ice included shows where the growth is limited-along the land.
      Perciptation on land might have increased runoff and melting?

    • Arctic ice will recover when the AMO switches to a persistent cooler phase. The AMOC significantly correlates with Arctic ice extent and the next cool phase will see a turnaround in Arctic ice fortunes. The AMOC controls how much energy from the tropics is moved into Arctic ocean. It is not surprising that global temperatures are highly related to the AMOC and AMO. Removing the AMO from recent global temperatures shows a flat trend indicating that the AMOC has greatly influenced global temperatures and Arctic temperatures over recent decades.
      http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/RSS%20Global_v_RemovedAMO2_zpsssrgab0r.png
      The ENSO is also a ocean circulation linked with the AMOC and Tropical ocean water flows eventually into the southern Atlantic ocean and links with the Gulf Stream that in turns later becomes part of the AMOC. The changes in ENSO have a direct influence on the AMO months later. The recovery will occur due to AGW not having any remote influence on these ocean cycles.

    • According to the open water equals greater precipitation equals global warming theory/model/proven fact- a little extra sea ice should cause the opposite effect and result in runaway global cooling. Make your peace with your make,r cause there will be no open water anywhere on earth by…….2050! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    • By “trend” I assume you mean “range”. The graph ypu show has 2015 in roughly the middle of the range, but you cannot see the trend clearly in this sort of graph. From a quick eyball, there looks to be more years above than below the 2015 minimum.

  13. my2p
    a lot of posters ridicule greens as idiotic, obsessed, etc.
    The feeling of belonging to the rivers and the trees and all that is to be seen is intuitive feeling.
    I understand some arithmetic and some consequences of actions and I generally support things that are seen to work.
    I would love to see technology deliver the Santa Claus machine but I would still call myself a Green because I am just astounded at life and don’t think we should kill any of it until we figure out how to make it.

    • well, meaning “kill off” rather than “kill” as you have to kill something to consume it and steal its energy to survive.

    • Your emotional attachment to all living things is shared by many people, myself included. I think that the contempt you see displayed is deserved by those who seek to brand their emotional response, their political agenda as science and then demand that everyone else feel the same emotion, act on it and worship it. The ease with which a tyranny can don the cloak of emotion as it rises to power has no greater demonstration than the 20th Century.

    • We ridicule greens because they say and do stupid things.
      So we should kill nothing? Than how would we eat, even vegetarians kill plants.
      See what I mean about saying stupid things?

    • don’t think we should kill any of it
      ===============
      every day you kill billions of creatures that are trying to eat you; billons more that are simply along for the ride, making a living eating the things that you eat. Since 90% of the cells in your body are “foreign”, with different DNA that you, it could actually be they are the real organism, and you are the one that is simply along for the ride.

      • “Since 90% of the cells in your body are “foreign” with different DNA that you, ”

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown@hotmail.com December 23, 2015 at 7:46 am:
        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~
        mod.)
        In fairness he didn’t say that.
        It’s a true statement:
        http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body
        Only a few percent by mass but 10X as many by number.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • BusterBrown@hotmail.com December 24, 2015 at 8:09 am
        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~
        mod.)
        About 100 trillion (10^14), mostly in the colon. I’d count them using FACS, there are about 10^12 cells/gm in the colon

  14. “The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain.”
    I will give them a hint:
    Southern Greenland has large areas of open water nearby all year and high precipitation.
    Northern Greenland has year-round sea ice and very low precipitation.
    Question: Which part is more heavily glaciated?

    • AMOC can vary in intensity. When it’s strong, more warm water is carried farther toward the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, accelerating sea ice loss. When weak, the warm water largely stays farther south, and its effects on sea ice are reversed. The variations in AMOC’s vigor—from weak to strong or vice versa—occur over multiple years to decades, giving scientists some ability to predict in advance how it will affect winter sea ice, in particular.

      They of course con the public into thinking this is something new and the strong/warm phase had no influence on the global warming that caused the AGW scare in the first place. Yet the weak/cool phase can only influence it because CO2 is magic you know. This is of course wrong and why the ignorant alarmists have been useless promoting their science based part of the agenda. I admit they have done a good job in conning so many politicians/greens and some of the public over the years. If anybody had billions of dollars a year to spend on this propaganda, this wouldn’t be too difficult to do.

  15. Here’s another adjustment needed to the lying UK Met Office chapter on ‘climate change’ on their website. See also “accelerating sea level rise”. My taxes.

  16. Don’t they realize that COP21 is over. They can bin all their junk science now until Morocco, 7th Nov 2016 and get back to playing super mario.

  17. HANOVER, N.H. – The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.

    Bingo, I’ve been making that case in other posts, especially related to his video regarding the ending of the last ice age. You simply don’t need CO2 to explain the warming. Warming increased H2O, and that impact dwarfs CO2. Just use Modtran to look at the numnbers. This is what I wrote:

    The warming oceans are the smoking gun against the AGW theory. There simply isn’t enough energy in the atmosphere, let alone the 13µ to 18µ band. The numbers simply aren’t there. Visible light is what warms the oceans. The warming oceans are due to more visible light reaching them. Warmer oceans release CO2. That is why the CO2 level doesn’t change due to man’s production, its slope is constant no matter what man does.
    Watch the below video and you have everything you need to debunk the AGW theory.
    1) It states that tilting of the earth slightly warmed the oceans
    2) That warming of the earth released CO2
    3) That CO2 then trapped heat and continued the warming.
    The argument is that the tilting primed the CO2 pump, and the slight warming from the tilting resulted in the CO2 increasing, and then further warming. That is the theory, but it is pure nonsense if you think logically.
    1) When all this happened the N Hemi was in an ice age, the albedo was high, and the air was very very very dry.
    2) The tilting of the earth warmed the ocean and released CO2, but it also released H2O. The increase in CO2 from 180 to 220 trapped 1.2W/M^2, which is nothing. The warming however turned a very very dry air into a climate that is conducive for life. Using the default H2O, that traps 70W/M^2, or over 50X the heat trapped by CO2. Clearly the tilting resulted in the increase in H2O that warmed the globe, not CO2. Also, as the ice receded more ocean was exposed to more sunlight, resulting in more warming. lastly, the warming of the oceans was slowed because of the melting glaciers, but one the glaciers all had melted, the oceans were free to warm more rapidly, and release more CO2.
    Bottom line, if you watch this video and consider the albedo, area of ocean exposed to sunlight as the ice melted and the impact of increasing H2O from an ice age to a normal N Hemi climate and you simply don’t need CO2 in the mix at all. You should see the email I got for pointing this out 🙂 I would encourage everyone to start promoting this alternative CO2 free theory. Trust me, the warmists don’t like you looking behind the curtain.

  18. So the dastardly weather is complicating the scientists’ predictions.
    Couldn’t happen to nicer people.

  19. “The increases of precipitation and changes in the energy balance may create significant uncertainty in climate predictions,”
    And we were sooooo certain before.

  20. More rains means more clouds. More clouds means less sunlight reaching the surface, so it’s a negative feedback not a positive one.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Dude, did you take classes in how to embarrass yourself?
        When the heat is released, it is miles up in the atmosphere, above the vast majority of green house gases and escapes easily into space.
        Why don’t you just give up, find a nice hole to crawl into, and let your mommy tell you over and over again how smart you are.

      • “and escapes easily into space”

        (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Everything that is above absolute zero radiates.
        Even you should know that. Sheesh, quite making yourself look dumb.

      • Whatever, the statement “all the heat removed when all the water evaporates” is wrong. Even if it is removed, it is not when it evaporates. It is also true that the majority of the heat absorbed when the water evaporates is not removed by radiation.

      • ‘The only way the energy escapes into space is via EM radiation. Why don’t you tell us all at what EM frequency H2O condensation produces?’
        Do you mean when the vapor condenses and releases heat which is absorbed by the air which was carrying it raising the air temperature?
        The heat then gets radiated by the atmosphere to space the same way it did before the added heat, only faster because it is now warmer.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics

    • Also, open dark water at the poles releases heat much faster than when ice- covered and is one of the planets well- known cooling mechanisms.

  21. PNAS has discovered a new branch of science, called “Sustainability Science”. In an article titled “What kind of a science is sustainability science”? they attempt to explain what it is:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19449.full
    A lot of hooey describing pseudoscience. Note the pretense at being concerned about reducing poverty.

    • being concerned about reducing poverty
      ===========================
      in general poverty is greatest where corruption is greatest. there is little incentive to produce if the powerful can simply take whatever they want, aided by corrupt officials, willing to turn a blind eye in return for fame and fortune.
      Corruption, not climate change, remains the greatest threat facing the world. In the developed world, the marriage of Science and State is driving this corruption. Science has become the new religion, and corruption has taken hold as surely as the marriage of Church and State did in the past.

      • As a corollary, increasing govt control ALWAYS results in greater corruption. Hence greater poverty, except for those that run the govt.

  22. The models are based on our best understanding of what drives climate. And the models are not predicting future climate with any reasonable accuracy. Therefore, we obviously don’t know as much about what drives climate as some of us think we do.
    Does anybody disagree with my logic?

    • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • “Models are models no matter what you are.”
        Wrong. Climate models are based on pseudoscience and therefore are GIGO, and have proven to be total failures which is why they have to keep making up “the science” as they go.

      • Models are models, but that does nothing to prove that the models reflect reality.
        Sheesh, the is grade school stuff.

    • I agree with this proviso:
      Because of problems with modeling chaotic non-linear problems, not to mention the accumulated errors that are inherent in any recursive calculations; Even if we had a perfect understanding of the climate, we still couldn’t model it.

    • Although it should be no shorter than the smallest sine-wave observed in climate over around ~60 years. Global temperatures have generally always warmed around 30 years and then cooled around 35 years confirming it’s validity. The current thirty years is like claiming the 12.00 pm – 12.00 am (afternoon) average temperature represents the averaged 12.00 am – 12.00 pm (morning) temperature. The AGW scare has all been about ignoring the morning temperature and running straight lines off the afternoon temperature for bogus predictions.

  23. Two observations:
    First, per the paper, the authors estimate that the observed losses of sea ice of 150,000km^2 in the Greenland Sea and 300,000km^2 in Baffin Bay should lead, per their model, to 30% – 60% increases in precipitation. Surely these are such large increases that they could hardly be missed in weather records. In fact, the various weather records from the area exhibit an increasing trend only in one case. Not a very auspicious launch, is it?
    Second, I noted in the dialog between MarkW and BusterBrown an assertion by BB that the increased energy transported through evaporation would end up in the atmosphere once the vapor condensed as rain, and an implication that this will act to warm the region. It seems to me, however, that despite this increased energy transport, one cannot evaporate a larger fraction of water from the colder of two competing sources, and simultaneously increase the temperature of the place where the resulting precipitation ends up. To do so would be transporting heat spontaneously against the temperature gradient. My gut feeling is that increasing the proportion of arctic sources of precipitation must lead to a cooler arctic all other factors remaining the same. I think this is why the authors used the rather weak conclusion that the changes to energy balance leads to impacts as large as CO2 doubling–They are not readily able to figure out what the changes will be. In fact, entropy balance is every bit as important as energy balance, but is nearly always left out of the argument.
    (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

    • so we change the polarity of the flux capcitor. go back into time, drop barry obama on his head. he dies or at least brain damaged. Hilary Poopie Pant-Suit is a one term president. She and her husband Bill leave the country. their plan crashes into the ocean and sinks into an underwater volcano. they assume lava temperature. Chelsey will search for the next 45 years and spend $57 million from the Clinton “Payoff” Foundation looking for her mother and non-biological father. Wes Hubble, Chelsey’s biological father, will be all tightly tucked in bed for Christmas

  24. If declining Arctic Sea Ice will amplify warming, what would they predict for rising Antarctic Sea Ice? And for overall stable Global Sea Ice over the last 4 decades, if such trend continues?
    Is there a kind of climate narcissism in claiming that sea ice changes at the north pole are important and those at the south pole safely ignored?

  25. More water, less ice – the continental glaciers form
    Anyone here remember a theory from the 60’s or 70’s or maybe before that which hypothesized that with a relatively ice-free Arctic, more snow would fall on Canada and then the upper U.S.? Tink I read it in un-Scientific American.
    So the snow would reflect more sun, the Earth would cool very slightly and the snow would soon stay on the ground longer. Then glaciers would form. Big suckers. And then the positive feedback kicked in and more snow fell further south, but the Arctic was relatively ice free. How could you get all that snow if the Arctic was completely frozen over, huh?
    Eventually, the Arctic would accumulate ice and less moisture would be available for the huge amount of snow to build those continental galciers. After all, those things dwarfed almost all we see today outside of the South Pole and maybe Greenland.
    The theory actually made sense.
    Anyone else remember that?
    Gums inquires…

  26. Give the author a break – he’s trying to get his doctorate in the religious department of earth sciences. How is he going to get a passing grade if he doesn’t conform to the beliefs of his assessors?

Comments are closed.