Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study published by scientists at the University of Buffalo claims that global warming will increase snowfall in the arctic, slowing the rate of sea level rise.
A history of snowfall on Greenland, hidden in ancient leaf waxes
… An early study in this field finds that snowfall at one key location in western Greenland may have intensified from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.
While more research needs to be done to draw conclusions about ancient precipitation patterns across Greenland, the new results are consistent with the hypothesis that global warming could drive increasing Arctic snowfall — a trend that would slow the shrinkage of the Greenland Ice Sheet and, ultimately, affect the pace at which sea levels rise.
“As the Arctic gets warmer, there is a vigorous scientific debate about how stable the Greenland Ice Sheet will be. How quickly will it lose mass?” says lead researcher Elizabeth Thomas, PhD, an assistant professor of geology in the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences who completed much of the study as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
“Climate models and observations suggest that as temperatures rise, snowfall over Greenland could increase as sea ice melts and larger areas of the ocean are exposed for evaporation. This would slow the decline of the ice sheet, because snow would add to its mass,” Thomas says. “Our findings are consistent with this hypothesis. We see evidence that the ratio of snow to rain was unusually high from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, which is what you would expect to see if sea ice loss causes snowfall to increase in the region.” …
Read more: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2016/05/044.html
The abstract of the study;
A major increase in winter snowfall during the middle Holocene on western Greenland caused by reduced sea ice in Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea
Precipitation is predicted to increase in the Arctic as temperature increases and sea ice retreats. Yet the mechanisms controlling precipitation in the Arctic are poorly understood and quantified only by the short, sparse instrumental record. We use hydrogen isotope ratios (δ2H) of lipid biomarkers in lake sediments from western Greenland to reconstruct precipitation seasonality and summer temperature during the past 8 kyr. Aquatic biomarker δ2H was 100‰ more negative from 6 to 4 ka than during the early and late Holocene, which we interpret to reflect increased winter snowfall. The middle Holocene also had high summer air temperature, decreased early winter sea ice in Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea, and a strong, warm West Greenland Current. These results corroborate model predictions of winter snowfall increases caused by sea ice retreat and furthermore suggest that warm currents advecting more heat into the polar seas may enhance Arctic evaporation and snowfall.
Read more: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068513/abstract
WUWT recently reported a study published in Nature, which claimed there would be a 14.7-19.5c rise in Arctic temperatures over the next 200 years. Now we have also learned that global warming will increase snowfall in the Arctic.
Settled science anyone?
More CCoHB (Climatology Constant of Hedging Bets)
Now we have an excuse for a slowdown and or reversal of sea level trends.
If it doesn’t happen, they have a paper for that too.
Only a pseudo scientific theory has a study for every eventuality, we see this all too often when IPCC projections fail, they (alarmists) produce an obscure paper that ironically goes against their “consensus” of IPCC projections.
I refer to CAGW as a pseudo scientific theory, not AGW obviously as CO2 does produce some warming.
and the world getting colder will also be feature of the onset of global warming?
Of course, cold equals global warming just as much as warming equals global warming, but there will come a point when even those who are sure those nice ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’ must be right wonder if they may possibly have got it wrong. Having no job, freezing in the dark while a blizzard blows outside, hungry, they might just about get it that they have been lied to.
The new buzz word for cold is limited heating
Ole
on the other hand
“Current atmospheric models underestimate the dirtiness of Arctic air”
and snow might melt faster than expected /sarc
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-current-atmospheric-underestimate-dirtiness-arctic.html
whatever happens it’s a win-win for the climat-ism .
You need a study to be able to read Wentz et al, SCIENCE July 13 2007 (I think); ” How much more Rain will Global Warming bring ? ”
Well mebbe the study is needed to Giggle and see if I guessed the correct issue.
So My short term memory is shot; sue me.
G
PS Please wake me if global warming does not increase Arctic snow fall !
Also I believe global warming will increase Arctic snow fall, even if the total atmospheric CO2 abundance drops to zero.
G
as CO2 does produce some warming.
===================
In point of fact, even the climate models show that adding CO2 might cause warming globally or it might cause cooling or it might leave the climate largely unchanged, depending on which model run you are talking about.
The mistake the climate models, the IPCC, and many other people make is the wrong headed assumption that the future can be calculated as an average of all possibilities. If that was true, there would be no reason to collect taxes.
The government could simply invest in the Dow Jones Average, and use their winning to run the country. The better job the government did, the more the Dow would increase, the more money the government would make. So why isn’t the government able to do this?
Why do governments need carbon taxes or cap and trade? Surely if the future is an average of all possibilities, then the government could simply invest in the futures market and use their winnings to pay people to use green energy. The US dollar is green. If you burn enough of it, it can heat your house.
ferberple – “Why do governments need carbon taxes or cap and trade?”
Because they want taxpayers money to buy votes with and they can’t increase other taxes without an outcry. They can increase all costs by imposing a Carbon Tax thus increasing their take from the Carbon Tax and all the sales taxes added on top. Then they can give subsidies to their favourite businesses/contributors and other social groups to encourage their support and vote.
Not being cynical but when governments see an easy way to put money in their coffers in a politically astute/acceptable way, it is really hard for them to resist.
As always, follow the money/authority/power.
“I refer to CAGW as a pseudo scientific theory, not AGW obviously as CO2 does produce some warming.” and pray tell me, why? Why not refer to CGW as pseudo instead? You can make a case for carbon dioxide affecting temperature in some manner, true, but AGW is just as imaginary, as the phrase is used, as CAGW. I can’t even see proof of the GW, much less its cause. Temperature fluctuations throughout history says that there is nothing new here, move along and find something useful to study and worry about.
“Settled science anyone? ”
The only thing that is “settled” is a study for every outcome, and all blamed on global warming.
and without a shred of empiricism too
Be fair. In much of climate science models reign supreme and empirical data is indeed ignored, but in this study their “Aquatic biomarker δ2H” data was empirical, and it looks like their approach was genuine. Be nice to know whether it tallies with Wentz et al (2007) (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233), but maybe they weren’t able to quantify accurately enough (I haven’t read the full paper).
The measurement of components and the results were empirical, the interpretation is not empirical. Linking it to “global warming” is not empirical so the final product is far removed from empiricism
for example, every lie or self delusion has an element of “truth” at it’s base
When you get Arctic snowfall in the tropics it is called ” Rain ” .
And yes ; Frank Wentz says it increases if you get global warming. He MEASURED it so it must be true.
Unfortunately his paper does NOT say what would happen to atmospheric CO2 abundance if global warming happened.
G
“We use hydrogen isotope ratios (δ2H) of lipid biomarkers in lake sediments from western Greenland to reconstruct precipitation seasonality and summer temperature during the past 8 kyr. Aquatic biomarker δ2H was 100‰ more negative from 6 to 4 ka than during the early and late Holocene, which we interpret to reflect increased winter snowfall. The middle Holocene also had high summer air temperature, decreased early winter sea ice in Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea, and a strong, warm West Greenland Current. These results corroborate model predictions of winter snowfall increases caused by sea ice retreat and furthermore suggest that warm currents advecting more heat into the polar seas may enhance Arctic evaporation and snowfall.”
so essentially the author has “interpreted” proxy analysis as matching models. That’s called bias in my world
This is news?
Decreased polar ice cover (Arctic & Southern Ocean) increases water surface evaporation, which increases “lake-effect/ocean-effect” snowfall downwind. Some of that snow falls on the ice sheets and glaciers, increasing ice accumulation, and offsetting meltwater losses. Other snow falls on land, increasing albedo and snowpack, decreasing land temperatures, and prolonging winter. Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller explained it a few years ago, in this lecture:
The additional evaporation due to more open water also cools the ocean by evaporative heat loss, and it also apparently causes additional cloud cover, increasing albedo at altitude, and probably thereby cooling the surface.
These are “negative feedback” mechanisms, which attenuate (reduce) the warming effect of climate forcings such as increased CO2:
http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#seaevap
Studies of basins around the world show a decrease in evaporation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927812500432
Well now, ……. SYURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Iffen the near-surface air temperature increases ….. then surface pan evaporation increases …… thus causing an increase in near-surface atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) …….. and that increase in near-surface atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) will retard and/or prevent any further surface pan evaporation increases.
According to the authors, a decrease in average wind speeds in the lower Yellow River Basin in China is primarily responsible for a decrease in evaporation from “the pan,” a reduction totaling about ~20% over 49 years, which has not been accompanied by a significant change in humidity.
(BTW, what is a “pan,” anyhow? How does it differ from a “basin?”)
I don’t know why ground level wind speeds in China would have decreased, but maybe it has something to do with buildings and/or trees in the vicinity?
I don’t think this anything to do with snowfall rates in the Arctic. There aren’t any buildings or trees over the Arctic Ocean. Wind speed in the Arctic presumably affect evaporation there, but it’s not clear that average wind speed in the Arctic has changed significantly.
daveburton asks:
Both “pan” and “basin” are used to describe a “wide-mouth” container.
Thus one can have a pan of water, pan of cornbread or a pie pan.
Likewise, one can have a small wash basin that contains water or a river (channel) or lake basin that contains water.
Thus said, the author’s use of the word “pan” is in reference to, I assume, a graduated “wide-mouth” container which would be necessary for exact record keeping of “evaporation rates”.
I wouldn’t know either, ….. especially given the fact that the author is also claiming that the surface temperature has been increasing.
Increased surface temps = increased winds.
Well since the rate of change of NH sea ice has been slowing down since the OMG summer minimum of 2007 , that certainly points to a negative feedback.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
It clearly rules out the idea of a positive feedback or “tipping point” . Once a vase reaches its tipping point its fall never slows on the way down. So this is either dominated by natural drivers that we do not understand and/or dominated by a negative feedback which is slowing the decline as more open sea is exposed.
See Wentz et al, SCIENCE July 13 2007. “How much more Rain will Global Warming Bring ? ”
So this is old news.
And this paper was OBSERVATIONS, sometimes also known as MEASUREMENTS, so no models involved.
G
So Dr. Elizabeth Thomas should have her PhD revoked for not reading the standard peer reviewed literature on the subject of her alleged expertise. Isn’t that plagiarism to write something that somebody else already wrote ??
The evaporation both cools the water and makes it saltier, both of which would increase the rate that surface waters sink, which would tend to increase the speed of the various currents in the region, which would bring more heat to the arctic while taking heat out of the tropics.
Argh, climate is complicated.
I have thought for awhile that this is actually what drives the AMO. The AMO warms when more ice exists in the Arctic which insulates it. As the water warms it eventually starts melting the ice which allows this evaporation cooling. The cold water then drives down the AMO and the process starts again.
The AMO is both the driver and the result of ice changes in the Arctic.
The DMI has an interesting graph which shows the average temperature in the Arctic across the year.
On average the temperature only goes above average for 30-40 days in mid summer.
This year the Warmists proclaimed the ‘warmest february evah’ and pointed to the fact that in February the average temperature in the Arctic was a searing 10˚C above average…ie it got up to MINUS 20˚C.
Now given that there is practically no sunlight there at that time of year, the only way the ‘heat’ could have got there was via warm moisture laden air….now what happens to warm, moisture laden air when it arrives someplace where the temperature is MINUS 20˚C?
Hmnnnn.
Warmest February evah….yea right.
This is the intentional fiction of anomalies, they are an exercise in misleading the public as far as Climate science is concerned
The anomaly maps get to show -20 in deep red. Uninformed see that and think it is hot there
Then they try to kayak to the pole.
For those that can remember….
More of “Billionaire” Al Gore’s NWO agenda.
http://k7ktr.com/images/snowthingofthepast.jpg
I might also remind those that WARshington’s District of Criminal’s has LEAD in their water also. This would explain the BRAIN DAMAGE in those elected/re-elected through STATISM (New Religion) and the “PARTY VOTE”, whereas those elected to said offices are no where in the US Constitution allowed in any form to lie to Americans.
This would not exclude those in the Media whom are annually paid MILLIONS to daily lie to their viewers/SHEEP.
Baa Baa Baa
and of course, we have the CCoHB again
http://michellemalkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/telegraph.png
Reminds me of the line from the movie “Casino”:
“Nicky’s methods of betting weren’t scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go #%@# themselves. I mean, what were they going to do, muscle Nicky? Nicky was the muscle.”
Nice work if you can get it, betting both sides and never having to pay up when you lose. Sleazy, though. So is gambling…
Keith, I prefer globalist agenda, NWO only brings ire. Just saying, most people switch off when you use that.
My bad! 🙂
You’ll notice in these so-called government backed studies (RICO) Laws should apply also… That there is no mention that Imperial Wars as well as Arms sales along with the unconstitutional wars being waged where those within that COALITION are ever cited as a cause to the blowing up of oil and gas lines as well as but not limited to the cities burning. That none of these causes Climate Change?
This also doesn’t rule out the direct targeting of weddings, funerals, emt/ems workers as well as schools where the decaying burning flesh is not a part of their studies.
I am reminded while watching Netflix a show with Anthony Bourdain where he commented on those rich elite (I believe the place was Panama) buying up all private beaches. He added there was only (1) left for the people and they were trying to get it also.
His comment was was pure truth… “Save the beaches, whales, dolphins, polar-bears etc… for whom? adding that the POOR of the world will never be able to enjoy nor visit those locations anyway, nor will future generations either.”
I should add as a personal note that the breakup of European Union and the resistance being met by the millions protesting that also with the North American Union. That the planned agenda of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT under the failed United Nations like the League of Nations before it is also doomed to fail. Further the “Blending” of all cultures, stripping those of their nationality and religion(s) by destroying all their religious sites. That as mentioned as well as the LGBT movement being forced upon the world and being hailed as the “REAL DEMOCRACY” of the world.
Side note: I don’t care what people do in their homes or bedrooms. But the teaching of this agenda goes along with genderless bathrooms. I am reminded of two things. 1. South Pacific’s song… “You’ve got to be taught.” and from the scriptures 2. “Train up a boy in the way that he should live.”
Any future people will be slaves of those in power today. Locked into massive debts from illegal wars that have killed millions over lies. Those lies from those in power are more of a threat then any climate changes we on earth might face.
Yet not to be outdone… Pick a cause in life. Goo hug a tree, protect polar bears, dolphins or anything else. THEY don’t bite you in your quest. However fight government corruption, big banking, fraud, fascism, tyranny and the Police State (Trained of course by current or former members of the IDF from Israel) Whom I might add with other blog-post’s on immigration, that the Pope and others who condemned Trump for his WALLS while the White house is building a 30 foot one and the Pope’s Vatican protects the pervert Priest’s and of course in that also – Israel’s racist (Security Barrier) or Wall that in length would stretch 2/3rds across the length of Montana’s 630 mile’s is OK to for them too.
Here in Montana they are trying to pass laws to grab our Water. Which includes plans to meter our wells. Yes! If you live off-grid your homes can be seized in some states, collection of rain water is illegal. But as always… Corporate America will gladly SELL it to you for $1.19 a bottle.
There was nothing illegal about the wars, and the only lies are the ones being told by the opponents of the war as they attempt to re-write history.
As to the water, it’s a communal resource. Water you take from your well is not available for your neighbor, and vise-versa.
Rainwater would have either flowed into a stream, where it would be available to those downstream, or it would sink down to the aquifer.
When their isn’t enough water to go around, how do you propose to share it? First come first serve?
Corporate America only sells stuff that people want to buy. Why do you consider it evil to sell people stuff they want?
Sorry, I missed that does of anti-Semitism in the middle there. Sheesh.
Be aware.. Your statement didn’t hold water
Being anti-ZIONIST is like being anti-NAZI. Doesn’t mean you hate the people. Only a fascist regime.
I’m confused ? I thought we were in for catastrophic global warming and a 300 metre sea level increase , here I was thinking I would have sea front property in a few years , thanks for nuthin.
Gotta stay tuned, Robert! New model, new outcomes! Still doesn’t work in reverse but that never mattered before.
…“As the Arctic gets warmer, there is a vigorous scientific debate about how stable the Greenland Ice Sheet will be. How quickly will it lose mass?” says lead researcher Elizabeth Thomas, PhD..
I don’t think that Elizabeth Thomas will get far in her chosen profession,
There should be no question that the Greenland Ice Sheet will completely collapse. And we all know that it will cause a catastrophe in 20-50 years time from whenever the present is – about the length of a career in Climate Science. This is an a priori finding – it is a given. Grants depend on it.
The ‘vigorous scientific debate’ is about WHAT mechanism will cause the disaster. Will it be mankind using cars, aeroplanes, factories or domestic energy? Will it be agriculture, foreign holidays or a lack of recycling? Whatever it is, it will be mankind’s fault, and the cure will be more taxes…
You captured the progressive left’s self delusion nicely.
Climate alarmism relies heavily on primitive responses.
I am reminded about the Antarctic melting story in 2013 of all the Polar Ice melting. If you researched that area you’d get a TADA moment. For below that very area.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/volcano-under-antarctica_n_4295985.html
Or for that matter… If you draw a line (Globally) from the West Coast (El Nino~) There it goes right back to Indonesia where all the massive tsunami’s and underwater volcanoes and quakes are continuing.
This won’t do the crocodiles and palm trees much good!!! 😂
True but CCoHB (Climatology Constant of Hedging Bets) has both eventualities covered.
…. has anyone told them they should turn back?
Polardiles!
As long as we can avoid crocodiles in the palm trees, I’ll just ignore it.
What the Arctic Thermageddonists are really fearing these days, is the build-up of cold surface water in the North Atlantic Ocean between Greenland and Portugal, already bigger than the size of Greenland.
This is exactly the same phenomenon that was observed after WWII, which led to the cold 30 year cycle ending in 1976. Which had replaced the warm cycle in the 1920’s and 30’s.
Some met institutes have already included this in their summer forecast for Europa, while some still try to ignore it…
My best guess is that this cold ocean phenomenon (historically introducing the next 30-year cold natural cycle) will be the first undisputable observation of the CO2-hypothesis as dead meat.
If this happens GISS will have to find a bias to lower temps from 1980 to 2015 to keep the warming trend going
and more smearing, did I mention the smearing :p
Does this mean as the WEST (US) provokes war with Russia over who’s paper fiat money to use, that in the future will be able to watch (If we survive) WWIII documentaries of the North Antlantic shipping and all the icy waves and frozen decks of escort ships?
Hey man keep up, Brazil just had a political coup, one member of Brics down
Who knows what is going on, FYI this is WAY off topic 😉 Not a fruitful line of questioning imo
Not so, remember warming causes cooling.
Where do I go to buy some land that’s 300 metres under water so I can have sea front property in a few years , I want to hedge my bets .
This might be lower… >http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/05/01/26714037/ But if you wait I am sure it will be up to that depth. 🙂
Very interesting that global warming will eventually slow the rate of sea level rise.Thanks for sharing!
http://lswilson.dewlineadventures.com/dye2pics.htm Greenland Say What.
” an early study ” and ” more research is needed “….. an urgent call for more money?
Oops:
“We find that the geological data support the idea that greenhouse warming, which is expected to be most pronounced in the Arctic and in the winter months, coupled with decreasing summer insolation may lead to more snow deposition than melting at high northern latitudes and thus to ice-sheet growth.” https://www.researchgate.net/profile/De_Vernal_Anne/publication/232761510_Will_greenhouse_warming_lead_to_Northern_Hemisphere_ice-sheet_growth/links/02e7e51d418bbe5cd0000000.pdf
That’s another CCoHB from Colorado, there is a lot of hedge betting out there, while it states they think that conditions were similar the conclusion is still “arctic increase in ice does not disprove global warming”.
m conclusion of the abstract, not the paper’s conclusion
When you are properly schooled in the Art of Rationalization, *anything* can be blamed on anything *else*. Only the raw data doesn’t lie.
Rationalization within the confines of a concept explains why so many believe in flat earth theory.
Many confuse Rationalization with logical deconstruction
Which is why there are literally thousands of people who actually believe the ISS is at the bottom of a swimming pool.
over the pastten years Arctic Sea Ice has increased
Archive cryosphere/timeseries
from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.
=============
so for 2000 years the climate was warmer than today and yet polar bears and humans survived.
Noticed that. I’m sure that Mike Mann was not one of the peer reviewers.
Even more specifically, from the abstract of the paper:
“The middle Holocene also had high summer air temperature, decreased early winter sea ice in Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea, and a strong, warm West Greenland Current.”
And yet, the polar bears in those subpopulations (Baffin Bay and Davis Strait) not only survived but by the time whalers switched to killing bears in the late 1800s, there were many thousands of them waiting to be slaughtered: http://polarbearscience.com/2012/09/20/the-slaughter-of-polar-bears-that-rarely-gets-mentioned-ca-1890-1930/
ferberple
May 25, 2016 at 5:05 am
from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.
=============
so for 2000 years the climate was warmer than today and yet polar bears and humans survived.
——————————–
Hi ferdple
When it can be shown that the period from 6 000 to 4 000years ago was warmer than today, actually the main point is that that very period is when the real big global warming known as the interglacial optimum ended.
The climatic trend was already in a cooling one for ~2 000 years prior to that period mentioned..
Is really “perverse” reasoning to claim that global warming increases the precipitations in polar regions when actually the very data that these guys rely at mean that the precipitation increased because the climate was in a cooling trend for a considerable time and at the point of the end of the interglacial optimum…….
Climate does not move backwards….as these guys try to frame it……
It snowed more then in the Arctic because it was cooling actually and not warming,, regardless of what is happening now……..
Our CO2 emissions could not have caused it..:)
What that actually shows is that the precipitations, humidity, aka snow and ice increase in polar regions only during a cooling climatic trend, and little short periods of warming have no much say in all of it…
cheers
But this is how I would expect the cooling to take place, the warm water from tropical oceans have to move poleward and cool for the planet to cool, and the poles cool faster when the oceans are water than when they are ice.
So that sets the stage for an “ocean” effect snowstorm, and it ought to be one big blizzard.
ACTUALLY, the period from 8,300 to 3,700 BP (4,600 years) was warmer than today
To wit:
But the last few years have been “the hottest years ever!” We are burning to a crisp — if you look at the cooked temperature records produced by the record keepers.
I’m amazed that they Alarmists haven’t managed to kill NASA’s satellite collected temperature records.
I forgot that I wanted to HEADLINE the news that a peer reviewed scientific journal article said that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than today.
That is a MAJOR admission!
“from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.”
It’s not just Greenland ice sheet; the entire Arctic ice system is self-oscillating, with snowfall a negative feedback to increased open water.
?w=1000
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/arctic-sea-ice-self-oscillating-system/
Yeh, yeh, yeh. It also catastrophically increases (decreases) the hairs on a gnats ass. We’ve been eating this same meal day in and day out for how many decades now?
Personally, I’d like a NW Passage. The current ice age is safe until Antarctica moves off the S Pole, the Arctic Ocean opens up and Panama sinks.
It was also a lot warmer 1,000 years ago in Greenland – warm enough to grow grain crops of which is now an impossible undertaking today given the polar tundra climate of the coastal areas.
Global Warming: is there anything it cannot do?
In order to describe God’s attributes, or characteristics, theologians use three important terms: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
omnipotence \äm-ˈni-pə-tən(t)s\ noun, the quality of having unlimited or very great power.
omniscience \äm-ˈni-shən(t)s\ noun, all knowing
omnipresence \ˌäm-ni-ˈpre-zən(t)s\ noun, present in all places at all times
CO2. the quality of having unlimited or very great power.
Settled science. all knowing
Warming. present in all places at all times
The Church of CO2
Hallelujah!
Every time I read one of these headlines, I’m reminded of the “elixir” peddlers roaming the plains in their brightly decorated covered wagons in the 1800’s. “There’s NOTHING it can’t do! NOTHING it can’t cure!” Now, instead of covered wagons and jaunty bow ties, it’s lab smocks and computer models. There’s nothing new under the sun.
It’s so cute when Warmists “discover” negative feedbacks.
Like a baby discovering they have toes.
This is a second order effect at best meant only as apology for why sea level is increasing more slowly than expected. This effect is but one of many reasons interglacial sea level response is not linear. It is an S curve with the bulk of the “easy” SLR long since past. Squeezing the last 20 meters out of the system takes a Really Long Time.
Unless the next glacial stage comes early the final 20 m of rise WILL happen.
“This is a second order effect at best meant only as apology for why sea level is increasing more slowly than expected. ”
Is it?
Not slower than IPCC projections.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-25.png
That’s the third assessment report lad, you sneaky snook as my 5 year old likes to say
Using a chart Sks you like, you scammer, Not fond of disingenuous people.
AR5 high estimate is 15cm not 6.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig1-10.jpg
Bogus that is AR3 report projections
Cherry pick fail
gymnosperm May 25, 2016 at 7:20 am
“Unless the next glacial stage comes early the final 20 m of rise WILL happen.”
Yup. If the Earth keeps the warm streak alive and SLR at around 3mm per year, we’ll get that extra 20m in about 6,500 years. That’ll give me a good story for the great-great-great… great… great-great-grand-kids. I can tell them wondrous stories of what Florida was like back in the day.
Well the Laurentian Ice Shield redux #34 is overdue, “paleo-chronologically” speaking.
That ice shield doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. Snow happens. Buy a shovel. Gas powered snow blowers will be banned by the Left to prevent the world from getting too warm. The irony.
They can pry my trac-drive snowblower from my lifeless, frozen hands.
I have 2 of them shovels. I only use them for compost though, not much use on snow in Galveston County.
Lol, anyone who lives leeward of a large body of water where it gets cold enough to snow knows what this is.
Dick Goddard’s retiring?
You talk of “Lake-effect” snowfall.
Not the same mechanism that is the subject of this paper.
LE snowfall is a function of the instability of a cold airmass to heating from below, and the uptake of moisture into Cb cloud.
Much more complicated is the process of a general warming of the Arctic,
Unstable air originates from a cold airmass flowing over warm.
Moist air entering the Arctic is (obviously) warm flowing over cold.
IE: the air becomes MORE stable.
It is warm advection induced with the added complications in the changes to the PJS.
Everything else being equal, of course we know that warmer air can hold more WV. Don’t we?
This is lake effect snow, cold air blows over open water, and then it snow over the colder land. And when the lakes freeze, the faucet turns off. exactly what the quote from the paper says.
Everything else being equal, of course we know that warmer air “can” hold more WV. Don’t we?
It can, but it can also hold very little too.
“This is lake effect snow, cold air blows over open water, and then it snow over the colder land. And when the lakes freeze, the faucet turns off. exactly what the quote from the paper says.”
Nope.
Because, air entering the Arctic must be warmer than that resident.
Yes, it advects over water as opposed to ice.
However it is still NOT unstable to SST’s.
So it is NOT LE snowfall.
It’s much worse than we thought! It now is understood that climate change is causing science itself to become disastrously unsettled! Run for your lives!
This should have been obvious decades ago. at least it was to me. Ice cores are processed in fixed size segments sometimes called ‘bags’ and during warm periods, there are significantly fewer years per bag then during cold periods which clearly indicates more snow falls during warm periods than during cold periods. Furthermore, more evaporation means more precipitation and this means snow at the polls. Again, it should have been obvious that a warmer climate means more snow at the poles which have always remained cold, otherwise, the ice would have melted and we would have no ice cores to analyze.
There you go again with that logic stuff! That has no place in climate science. If it did, the models would work.
Well that can’t be right. It has always been cold at the poles. Never any warm air eva! The ice cores all show cold, never warm. Eva! The only time it has ever snowed or been warm in the Arctic has been cuz humans made it happen. Stick with the talking points!
From the article: “Precipitation is predicted to increase in the Arctic as temperature increases and sea ice retreats.”
IF temperature increases.
That’s a big IF.
This is just the warmists trying to get headlines out ahead of what might be a cold La Nina winter. The actual science of it is irrelevant – that more water in arctic air means more snow should be a no-brainer – it’s more the fact of the study itself. The sheer number of these studies ought to clue in the casual observer to how much money is flowing through the AGW pipeline – personnel, equipment, travel, etc. all requires funding – all to produce what should have been an obvious conclusion, and then justified with a spurious connection to Global Warming, so it can then be released as headline – a headline designed as a pre-emptive defense mechanism to spin against the possibility of both a cold winter and the lack of rising seas.
Tomorrow there will be another one. Rinse repeat.
I’m afraid you are correct, Joel.
The violent swings and commodity catastrophes of stock market indices are more predictable than anthropogenic climate change spreadsheet modeling geographers.
Ha ha 😉
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/25/alberta-carbon-tax_n_10129256.html Alberta Carbon Tax Could Cost Families More Than Estimated:
To summarize –
The earth has numerous climate control mechanisms that self-correct for natural as well as man-made events. So, it doesn’t really matter what man does because Mother Nature will fix it, even if the ultimate solution is to get rid of the source of the problem entirely.
It’s always Global Warming.
http://www.dropbox.com/s/hmqic8tvkh79vk5/GlobalWarming3.jpg
Yep. It happened in the President’s oval office. And they used all the original weapons, with a final twist in the tale.
The gun came from the gunroom used to stockpile all the guns taken from US citizens. The axe was used to chop off the heads of denying infidels, a trick they learned from terrorists. The knife was used to carve out all the individual freedoms from the constitution. They poisoned the minds of the voting public. The syringe was filled with anti-truth serum. The fireplace poker was used to prod the poisoned minds of the voting public to protest against independent thinkers. The shillelagh was taken off the dead body of a short red-headed leprechaun as they pried her guns off her dead body. But the twist of the tale is that in the end they had hung themselves with their own rope.
http://globaltoynews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec87bd6d970b0192acc887c3970d-popup
Well darn. My Clue response had too many weapons in it and ended up in the trash bin.
A paper for everything. No matter what, no matter how, Global Warming dun it, just like the cartoon above shows. Very apt.
Stop Press: Global warming ‘likely to cause new ice age’ say scientists.
Google ‘doublethink’, and ponder…
“..may have intensified from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, a period when the planet’s Northern Hemisphere was warmer than it is today.”
warmer than today! I didn’t think this kind of thinking was legal! I get it though: everyone on the beleaguered thermageddon team is beginning to see that we are, as skeptics have been telling us, heading into cooler times. Grant metabolisms are just trying to get ahead of the curve!! The next 10 years (remember this!!!) will be dominated by papers rationalizing the cooling and holding forth the certitude of future warming.
So, im confused. If we want to slow sea level rise, should we be buring more or less fossil fuels?
Pace of change is important. Relative to warming events in previous eons, our own warming event is probably rushing forward more rapidly. We are in uncharted territory and should do something about it. There are upsides (and downsides) to acting against our part in global warming even if ALL the science is wrong. Maybe the human race could survive if we do nothing and the science is correct, but…
You would be wrong. Using just ice core data without tagging on modern direct temperature records, a clear and unmistakable pattern is demonstrated. When rising out of a stadial glacial ice sheet period, the rise is very fast. When falling back down into another stadial glacial ice sheet period, the fall is a jagged stair step back down.
Now don’t come back and say something about current temperatures. Splicing ice core temperature proxies with direct measurements is statistically unsupportable.