Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science
Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science
I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.
When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.
The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.
Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.
Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)
Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.
This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.
Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?
A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.
r
Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice
Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index
Wondering what additional moisture in atmosphere has to do with the measurement of the intensity of and number of tornadoes. Wondering what increased volume of water in the atmosphere would have to do with increased volume of water on the ground as in flooding.Knowing something about accounting and statistics, wondering why insurance companies are still making money when losses should be rising faster than they can adjust their premiums for increased amount of weather disasters if there really are such increases (there aren't). Wondering how "the only plausible explanation" should be viewed as some kind of scientific explanation.
Simply put, higher moisture = higher energy. This is the reason that, generally speaking, there are more thunderstorms in the summer than there are in the winter.
"Wondering what increased volume of water in the atmosphere would have to do with increased volume of water on the ground as in flooding."
Higher atmospheric moisture (PWVs) = more precipitation in the way of rain and snow. Heavy snows melt in the spring. Heavy rains in the spring combine with that snowmelt. Voila.
"Knowing something about accounting and statistics, wondering why insurance companies are still making money when losses should be rising faster than they can adjust their premiums for increased amount of weather disasters if there really are such increases (there aren't)."
1) They are. 2) One would imagine writing billions of dollars in compensation checks would give one of the world's largest reinsurers a great overall perspective on whether extreme weather events were indeed increasing in frequency and severity. And smart insurance companies very seldom lose money; they stay ahead of the wave, so to speak.
"Wondering how 'the only plausible explanation' should be viewed as some kind of scientific explanation."
Since it was spoken by a company, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. Or several grains of salt. But, again, that company's existence depends on very smart people crunching mountains of data, so I wouldn't necessarily ignore their input in such matters.
These are, of course, very crude explanations, but I think they work for purposes of your comment. Simple, wouldn't you agree?
One cannot use data with millions of years resolution to justify a pattern happening within a 100yr time span
in your graph CO2 decreased steadily for 250 million yrs (550 to 300 million yr), while temperature frequency did not change at all.
Simply put, higher moisture = higher energy. This is the reason that, generally speaking, there are more thunderstorms in the summer than there are in the winter.
false
Higher atmospheric moisture (PWVs) = more precipitation in the way of rain and snow
false
There are so many factors that combined overwell the moisture content in the air effec on frequency and amount of rainfall (eg. lapse rate, convective energy potential, static stability, baroclinic instability, etc, etc)
Please read
Trenberth K. E. and Guillemot, C. J.: 1996b, Evaluation of the Atmospheric Moisture and
Hydrological Cycle in the NCEP Reanalyses, NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-430 STR. 300 pp.
Trenberth K. E. and Guillemot, C. J.: 1998, %u2018Evaluation of the Atmospheric Moisture and Hydrological
Cycle in the NCEP/NCAR Reanalyses%u2019, Clim. Dyn. 14, 213%u2013231.
some regions are getting drier other are getting wetter. overall the global trend shows no change in precipitation despite the steady increase in atm moisture in the past 50yrs
You disagree with my statement that "generally speaking, there are more thunderstorms in summer than in winter", and you also disagree with my statement that "Higher atmospheric moisture (PWVs) = more precipitation in the way of rain and snow"? Hmmm. Rather than just a simple declaration of "False", how about showing us some credible data that says there aren't more thuderstorms in the summer than there are in winter, or that the "P" in "PWV" doesn't stand for "precipitable".
I never said there weren't many other factors involved in making it rain; in fact, I went out of my way to state "These are, of course, very crude explanations".
It appears you've cited an article written by Trenberth 15 years ago--back before he was lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC SACC reports--as a way of rebutting something he said just a few years ago. I just wanted to call that to your attention as he himself might even tell you that he learns new things as time passes.
- - - - - - - -
As to your graphic in comment #405: Note the graphs for Central and Eastern North America, Northern Europe, Northern Europe, North Asia, Northern Australia, and Southern South America, and you'll see very clear upward trends in precipitation. And a few other places are drier, of course, which has long been predicted by the theory of AGW: Southern Asia, Western Africa, Southern Africa, and Western North America (especially right at the end of the graph). And note, too, the central world map which shows many more greens (wetter) than browns (drier).
Yes, atmospheric moisture has risen, and precipitation has followed suit in many areas (and fallen sharply in others as drought has set in). So to reiterate my primary point: extreme weather events, by every measure, seem to be increasing in frequency and severity. Perhaps it's just a fluke. Or, then again, perhaps not. ;-)
show me the data
Conclusions
The 23-yr(1979%u20132001) record shows no noticeable increase in global or tropical precipitation during that period
Seasonal variations are documented, including Asian and other monsoon changes along with differences between the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere
some variations in global totals over land and ocean can be related to ENSO events
------------
Kumar, Arun, Fanglin Yang, Lisa Goddard, Siegfried Schubert, 2004: Differing Trends in the Tropical Surface Temperatures and Precipitation over Land and Oceans. J. Climate, 17, 653%u2013664
Using both observed data and data from atmospheric general circulation model simulations, trends in tropical precipitation over the ocean and land are analyzed. The analysis reveals that in the tropical latitudes over land, the precipitation trend differs from the trend in the surface temperature. Oceanic precipitation has an increasing trend that is consistent with increasing SSTs, whereas over the tropical land regions precipitation decreases. In contrast, land temperatures increase in phase with the trend in SSTs. It is suggested that the combination of increasing surface temperature and decreasing precipitation could produce considerably greater societal consequences compared with the traditionally argued scenario in which both temperature and precipitation increase in response to increasing SSTs.
------------
Dai, A. (2011), Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2: 45–65.
No, I trust you completely TomTaylor. You don't seem like the person that would lie.
However, I did look at the ARGO website, and you are making a mistake with an "initial study that showed cooling, but revised to show warming."
Here is the full quote from the ARGO link you provided before. And yes, the ARGO data is not enough time yet to observe Global Trends. But it is interesting, that we have seen no OHC increase since they were deployed...
The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.
Basically, they are saying, that even within the ARGO system, there are discrepencies. They are not saying that one study is right, and the other one is wrong.
This is incorrect, because of a couple of reasons. One, we have yet to observe the Arctic transitioning from warm to cool in the satellite data, so accurate conclusions can not be drawn. Two, the feedback can not occur the same way, the other way, because with the Arctic Albedo Effect during the PDO and AMO involves incoming solar radiation to melt the ice, and effectively the melted ice creates more melted ice, since the ocean absorbs the sunlight better than the ice does. With the -PDO and -AMO, it doesn't have this effect, because the incoming solar radiation is the same, and it is not decreasing (but with the Arctic Albedo, it is like the solar radiation is increasing, since the ice is melting, and can absorb more incoming solar radiation)- effectively, it would halt the rapid Arctic melting, but not reversing it around.
It is like saying that if you are in Paris you are in France, this is true. However, the converse, "if you are in France, then you are in Paris" is not true. It sometimes doesn't work the same way, both ways.
Bump
Because population has increased, you would expect to see an increase in strong tornadoes - but the trend is exactly the opposite, suggesting that the true trend is an even larger decrease than indicated here
explain this logic.
what is the mechanism through which population number controls tornado strength?
so, would you agree that the Argo data does not conclusively show cooling? And that it is not old enough to measure climate trends?
Would you also agree that co2s feedback loops are not understood well enough to conclude that the TOTAL effect of all of them is cooling?
from your posts so far it sounds like you and I do agree
I think he meant that an increase in population would be expected to lead to an increase in observed events. Thus, in his view, the decrease in strong tornados in his graph in № 412 would be understated. I definitely believe there is an observation bias that occurs when looking at severe weather events over the last fifty years or so, but strong tornados would have been less likely to be missed than weaker ones.
The skeptic was probably confused on the seasonal effects of a AO. For example, in the Wintertime, the AO slows the winds that "flush out" the multiyear ice out of Greenland, during the Wintertime. In the Spring, Summer, and Fall times, the +AO is what you want for little Sea Ice melt, due to the fact that it retains the cold air near the Arctic Basin. In the WIntertime however, temperatures could be +20 Degrees C above normal in the Arctic Basin, and the Arctic Basin would still have ice everywhere. The -AO causes Ice to form at lower latitudes during the winter, and it also helps stop the winds that flush out the multiyear sea ice. Therefore, the -AO does help Sea Ice growth in the Winter, but in the Summer, Spring, and Fall, the +AO is what you need to slow seasonal ice melt (and accelerate growth in the fall).
Congrats on your Antarctic Sea Ice prediction.
Overall feedbacks due to clouds being positive is not certain by any means. This paper from Dr.Spencer is an example of a dissenting view.
I believe that the ARGO datasets show no warming within the past 8 years, because we have discrepencies in the OHC in 2003 between two conflicting studies, so I will say that there has been no gain, or loss in OHC. However, according to the AGW theory, we should be gaining OHC, regardless of the number of years ARGO was implemented. Why have we not been gaining OHC over the past 8 years?
I believe that the individual feedbacks' true effects are unknown, however, it is clear as day when one looks at the paleoclimatological data, that when we had an Ice Age 450 million years ago, co2 levels were more than 10X as high. This is an indicator that the negative feedbacks were enough to overthrow co2 warming, and a natural cycle was strong enough to bring us into an Ice Age.
The Net effect of Clouds is cooling, and we have had clouds both in the past, and now. That has not changed.
If the clouds are what didn't cause the negative feedback that negated co2 warming 450 million years ago, then what did?
The clouds are what I believe to be the cause of the negative feedback observed 450 million years ago, but it is still debatable.
Agree
We both agree the Earth has warmed
With NO Climate Feedbacks, we both agree that co2 has a warming impact of some sort.
Disagree
We disagree on the Feedbacks of co2.
We disagree on the current cause of Global Warming.
Any more to add? :)
Co2 levels were 10x higher, but you're falsely assuming its a result of co2s feedback.
Reality is it could be any number of factors, which proves your idea that the total result of all of its feedback loops cause cooling.
Effects of Climate Change in Arctic More Extensive Than Expected, Report Finds
ScienceDaily (May 4, 2011) %u2014 A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra: The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen this week. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.Together with Terry Callaghan, a researcher at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Margareta is the editor of the two chapters on snow and permafrost.
"The changes we see are dramatic. And they are not coincidental. The trends are unequivocal and deviate from the norm when compared with a longer term perspective," she says.
The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years. As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter -- in just a few decades. In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees.
"There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw," says Margareta Johansson.
Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost.
"Our data shows that there is significantly more than previously thought. There is approximately double the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere today," says Margareta Johansson.
The carbon comes from organic material which was "deep frozen" in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.
"But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this. With the knowledge we have today we cannot say for sure whether the thawing tundra will absorb or produce more greenhouse gases in the future," says Margareta Johansson.
Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic's albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.
The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.
New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres, which is approximately twice the increase predicted by the UN's panel on climate change, IPCC, in its 2007 report. This is largely due to the rapid melting of the Arctic icecap. Between 2003 and 2008, the melting of the Arctic icecap accounted for 40 per cent of the global rise in sea level.
"It is clear that great changes are at hand. It is all happening in the Arctic right now. And what is happening there affects us all," says Margareta Johansson.
The report "Impacts of climate change on snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic" has been compiled by close to 200 polar researchers. It is the most comprehensive synthesis of knowledge about the Arctic that has been presented in the last six years. The work was organised by the Arctic Council's working group for environmental monitoring (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and will serve as the basis for the IPCC's fifth report, which is expected to be ready by 2014.
Besides Margareta Johansson, Torben Christensen from Lund University also took part in the work.
Link
this is not an explanation of cause and effect
The hipe of storm chasing shold reduce the number of tornatoes missed. so the reduction in numbers since 1975 is true.
One of my problems with that graph is that it doesn't tell the whole story, as it only shows tornadoes for six months of the year (March through August), so it's missing hundreds of tornadoes, including dozens in the F3-F5 range. In the years covered by that graph--1950 through 2008--there have been numerous September through February storms, with an increase in both outbreaks and number of F3-F5 tornadoes as time has gone by. A quick bit of math--and I'll produce actual counts when I can find them--shows at least 60 qualifying tornadoes between 2000 and 2008; 37 during the 90s; 35 during the 80s; 16 during the 70s; 20 during the 60s; and 16 during the 50s. (And, no, I didn't count those spawned by hurricanes, usually during September and October; those alone would have added hundreds more tornadoes to the total.)
Since 2000, we've seen, I believe, 18 non-hurricane-related outbreaks during the months between September and February, including such outbreaks as this past New Year's Eve's that featured 7 EF3s, the 2008 Super Tuesday outbreak that saw 5 F3s and 5 F4s, and the January 2008 outbreak with 8 F3s. There have been outbreaks in previous decades, of course, but it appears--and again this is not empirical--that such outbreaks are increasing in number.
Too--and this has come up before--there are strong indications that tornado assessments in the past tended to overstate the strength of known storms. That is, winds that would have caused, say, F3 damage in the 1960s or 1970s might only cause F2 or high-end F1 damage nowadays thanks to better contemporary building codes, construction methods, and materials. Those very subjective analyses in the past may be instrumental in showing a somewhat spurious "decrease", and in fact could be enough to counter any perceived contemporary bias due to denser populations and/or better reporting.
(I'm working with a few others at the moment to perform a very accurate numerical analysis of all tornado outbreaks, with an eye toward finding a normalized distribution curve of strength classifications. Preliminary results show that almost all latter-day outbreaks fit nicely into a very small range of curves, while the further back in time one goes the more "abnormal" those curves get.)
(It should also be noted that the Fujita Scale wasn't developed until 1971. NOAA then undertook the task of rating every tornado back to 1950, using only written tornado reports and any photographs that might exist, rather than aerial surveys and on-site inspections. While NOAA's guesses were certainly very educated, the method was obviously open to substantial errors.)
At any rate, I'll conclude again with this: the four largest tornado outbreaks in U.S. history have taken place in the past eight years--and the top two of those have taken place in the last three weeks. It's true that nobody can say with absolute certainty that climate change has caused an increase in tornadoes. But it's just as true that nobody can say with absolute certainty that it hasn't.
Scientific American Article...
Lack of proof that something hasn't caused some noticed trend or change and, thus, should be blamed for it, is fallacy.
If iPhones or Wunderground.com had any effect whatsoever on weather, I'd say your statement made sense. But since they don't, it doesn't. Know what I mean?
Did you not read the abstract or the article? The author wrote, "CO2 also helps rice, soybeans and wheat grow. In fact, the researchers suggest the extra CO2 boosted yields for these crops by roughly 3 percent during the period studied. Unfortunately, in the case of wheat, that wasn't enough to overcome the loss in yields resulting from warming temperatures." IOW, the researchers found that the extra CO2 is beneficial to some crops. However, those gains in growth couldn't compensate for the loss due to heat. Here's a handy formula:
More CO2 = greater plant growth.
More CO2 = greater heat.
More heat = lower crop yields.
Lower crop yields due to heat > CO2-caused growth.
Therefore:
CO2 = lower crop yields.
Simple, no?
Mike, I believe that you are mistaken. First of all, clouds and water vapour are not different feedbacks. This is what happens when there are warmer oceans- they release more water vapour- which is true. However, the AGW theory missed a key piece of the puzzle in basic meteorology.
Evaporation is caused when water is exposed to air and the liquid molecules turn into water vapor, which rises up and forms clouds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation
The water vapour forms clouds. So most of the water vapour is lost in the process of cloud formation. The positive water vapour feedback that CAGW advocates like to throw around a lot, is not there.
h/t to cyclonebuster- this is NOAA data.
Where is the supposed increase in SH if water vapour is supposed to increase due to increased co2? It is lost in cloud formation, which I have gone over, has a net cooling impact.
Well MikeSTL, I was going to ask you that same question with the paleoclimatological ice core data. During a time in climatic history 450 million years ago, CO2 concentrations were 10X as high as they were now, but we were in an Ice Age. If co2 is the primary driver of climate, natural cycles can not overpower co2 warming, and the co2 feedbacks are all positive, how did we get an Ice Age 450 million years ago?
What do you think it could have been, if it is not a product of a negative feedback overwhelming the warming from co2, and then a natural cycle creating cooling?
It could have been an asteroid, super volcano, solar fluctuation, other gases released through any number of processes.
To even consider it was possibly co2 is very foolish because the combination of all of co2s feedbacks is not known. So there is no causal relationship. Additionally there is no correlation either as we see co2 level rising at the moment, and temps are not declining.
With regards to the total effect of co2s feedbacks, there is no causal nor correlation evidence indicating cooling. So, to say the combination of all co2 feedback causes cooling is simply false.
Unless you can prove otherwise, this means that the total effect of all of co2's feedback loops does not cancel out its warming effect created through the ghg effect.
you bonehead!! NO ONE can make comments on ANY of the avatars!!!
And at least he HAS something in his cranium!!!
BLEEAAHHHH!!!!
1. No, he is not my significant other.
2. I'm the smartest gnat of all the gnats I know.
3. I most definitely would say it in person.
Brett Who?
by DR. TIM BALL on MAY 5, 2011
in ATMOSPHERE,DATA,GOVERNMENT,POLITICS
Traditionally, the older scientists held to the prevailing wisdom and were challenged by the new, skeptical graduates looking for wider answers. In climatology, the opposite has happened. The so-called skeptics challenging the prevailing wisdom are the professors who have researched and taught the subject for 30 years or longer. Their knowledge is much wider than that of the new young scientists because climate science has stagnated for thirty years. All the funding was directed to only one side of climate science, and that was the side promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and accepted as the ‘official science’ by governments.
It’s now frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming. I wrote this sentence before I saw a paper from Michigan State University that found,
Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle – an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change.
The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It’s not surprising, and caused by three major factors:
a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;
the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; and
funding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.
The dogmatism of politics and religion combined to suppress openness of ideas and the advance of knowledge critical to science.
We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education. Because of them, the public is ill-informed, doesn’t understand the problem, and doesn’t even know the questions to ask. Correcting the education process will take time, because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise. Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and the lack of qualified replacements. Even if achieved, success is unlikely because there is the massive problem of inadequate data.
Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, and deliberate loss of data were all done to predetermine and justify results. This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data. In his autobiography, Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 1972 because
…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.
The situation is worse now, sadly, due to the people at the CRU and government weather agencies.
The blame begins with the political manipulations of Maurice Strong, but he only succeeded because of the so-called climate scientists. Among them, computer modelers caused the biggest problem. They needed to know the most, but knew the least. If they knew anything, they would know there is inadequate data and understanding of the major components and mechanisms on which to build the models.
A former editor of an enlightened environmental journal said we need a committee of scientists from the many disciplines involved in climate science. Such a committee existed 25 years ago, and produced groundbreaking work. It was a joint project funded by The National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada under the title Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 Years. Each year a specific topic was considered, and scientists presented material that was published in Syllogeus. For example, Syllogeus 55 examined Critical Periods in the Quaternary of Climatic History of Northern North America. All the problems that plague climate science, such as tree rings, ice cores, circulation patterns, and proxy data, among many others, were identified and researched. In the last meeting, I was elected Chair, and in my acceptance speech I said we needed to consider, carefully and scientifically, the claims of global warming. Environment Canada cut the funding, apparently, because it challenged the political position the agency had already taken; the project died. Canada should reconstitute it, because it was producing useful and non-political science.
People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years. They should all read H.H. Lamb’s monumental two-volume set Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now (1972) and Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future (1977).
They’d learn that all issues now put forward as ‘new’ are not new at all. They only appear new because of the black hole that politicians, aided by a few climatically uneducated political scientists, have dragged climate science into over the last 30 years.
Article...
I can only assume you're not aware that even the hard-right Canada Free Press website had to issue a full apology and a complete retraction of this article after it was first published back in January. The CFP's web page with the retraction appears to have been deleted (imagine that), but it's been cached elsewhere.
"I sincerely apologize...and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article." -- Dr. Tim Ball
Bottom line: Ball is another in a long line of denialists and non-practicing scientists whose views appear to have been skewed by the work they do and the money they receive as scientific advisors for and promoters of various oil and gas companies.
I say a discussion on "tunnels" are in order.
Where is NRA, she provided a fantasticinsight. Reading back in March you sure hit the nail on the head
on Gas Prices too. I have a coworker who is converting
his Avalanche to Natural Gas in Salt Lake City. $1.19 a gallon.
Thanks BHO.
Happened before and will happen again despite all
our good intentions.
It could be a good thing as well!
A Brain for All Seasons
Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change
by William H. Calvin
One of the most shocking scientific realizations of all time has slowly been dawning on us: the earth's climate does great flip-flops every few thousand years, and with breathtaking speed. Many times in the lives of our ancestors, the climate abruptly cooled, just within several years. Worse, there was much less rainfall in many places, together with high winds and severe dust storms. Many forests, already doing poorly from the cool summers, dried up in the ensuing decade. Animal populations crashed—and likely early human populations as well. Lightning strikes surely ignited giant forest fires, denuding large areas even in the tropics, on a far greater scale than seen during an El Nio because of the unusual winds. Sometimes this was only the first step of a descent into a madhouse century of flickering climate.
Our ancestors lived through hundreds of such episodes—but each became a population bottleneck, one that eliminated most of their relatives. We are the improbable descendants of those who survived—and later thrived.
Brings up all sorts of issues
Viewing: 401 - 451
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index