Sea Ice South (2): Another Brick in the Wall

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:26 AM GMT on May 19, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

Sea Ice South (2): Another Brick in the Wall

My previous entry was setting the foundation for understanding the differences between sea ice in the northern and southern hemispheres. It focused on the physical geography of the Earth. Specifically, the distribution of land and ocean are different at the two poles; hence, there is no reason to expect one pole to behave like the other pole - beyond perhaps, they both get very cold in the winter.

This entry will focus on the basics of the physical climate needed to understand sea ice. As summarized in Spencer Weart’s excellent history, we have known for a long time that water vapor and carbon dioxide are ingredients of the atmosphere that are important to our ability to live on the planet. Specifically, based only on the amount of energy coming from the Sun, the temperature of the surface of the Earth should be about zero degrees Fahrenheit. It is the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that holds heat close to the surface for a while, leading to an average temperature closer to, say 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

When thinking about the climate, it is important to remember that the Earth is always cooling to get rid of the energy that comes from the Sun. A good way to experience this cooling and the effects of greenhouse gases is to spend a summer night in Death Valley, CA, and another summer night in the Everglades, FL. Because of the lack of water after sunset it cools down much faster in Death Valley. I like to think of this tendency to cool as a thermal spring always pulling the Earth towards zero degrees.

We have to remember another fact of the Earth, which is the tilt of the axis of rotation that is responsible for the seasons. As a result of this tilt, the solar energy that is directly received at the poles goes through huge cycles every year. In winter it is dark, and there is no direct solar heating of the pole. In the summer there is continuous light, but the heating is weak because the Sun is low in the sky. As a result of this tilt, far more energy comes into the Earth in the tropics than at the poles.

Interestingly, when we look at the energy leaving the Earth, on an annual average basis, there is not a huge difference between the poles and the tropics. What that means is that the “excess” of energy entering the Earth in the tropics is moved towards the poles, where there is a net loss of energy to space. This energy is carried from the tropics to the poles by the oceans and the atmosphere. Without transport of energy to the poles, in winter, when the Sun is not present at the poles, the temperature would drop to 100s of degrees below zero. That does not happen, but it still gets cold – cold enough to make ice.

That’s what the oceans and the atmosphere do. They are fluids that move to even out the distribution of energy – or effectively, heat. Therefore, the role of the atmosphere and ocean is pretty straightforward; they are not random and chaotic and unconstrained. They respond to heating and cooling through well understood physical mechanisms – like gravity and pressure. Another important force is due to the rotation of the Earth (see link at bottom).

One of the interesting things about transport is that it occurs in, let’s say, events or features. A useful metaphor on people’s minds this week is the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin. The Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers carry a LOT of water in a channel to the Gulf of Mexico, where it immediately spreads out of the channel. You might say that it fans out, but it really doesn’t just diffuse into the Gulf. It moves as distinct features, as seen in this 2001 figure of sediment from NASA’s Earth Observatory.



Figure 1: Sediments in the Gulf of Mexico from Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.


The water is channeled by the river basins; it is not like a shallow film of water spread out between Brownsville, TX and Homestead, FL. The water is channeled, and big events, like the spring runoff are responsible for a large portion of the transport. The atmosphere and oceans behave in the same way - heat is transported, preferentially, in certain places, for example in ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream and atmospheric storm tracks.

Let’s focus on the ocean. If a current like the Gulf Stream brings a lot of warm water to Greenland, then what keeps all of that water from piling up in the Arctic? There has to be a return flow, and that return flow takes cold water back towards the tropics. The Earth’s weather is just part of mixing warm and cold.

Okay, it’s time to pull together this information. The temperature at the poles, especially in the winter, is largely determined by oceanic and atmospheric transport of heat. Alternatively, the heating and cooling at the winter pole is not day-to-day determined by the radiative energy from the Sun and greenhouse gas concentrations. The heat transport occurs in preferential locations, and return flow takes cold air and water back towards the tropics in preferential locations. Fluctuations in the preferential locations mean that warm and cold regions move around. Given the information from the previous blog, the North and South Poles are different. Hence sea ice behavior is different.

Sea ice – I am setting the foundation for sea ice. From two blogs ago, one on the Northern Hemisphere, there was a number associated with the melting of the Arctic sea ice. That number is 1 watt per square meter. The melting of the Arctic sea ice that has been observed over a certain amount of time, say a decade or two, is consistent with a sustained, change in the energy balance of 1 watt for every square meter – that’s about a square yard – 3 feet by 3 feet. How much energy does this represent? Let’s go to an iconic figure of the radiative balance the Earth updated by Trenberth et al. in 2009.



Figure 2: The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for the Mar 2000 to May 2004 period (W m–2). The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance. (from Trenberth et al. , 2009)

I am mainly interested in sizes. The amount of energy at the top of the atmosphere from the Sun is about 341 watts per square meter. Ultimately, that is also just about the amount of energy that goes back to space. In the various ways that energy is absorbed and reflected and transported there are numbers in the figures that are 10s watts per square meter. Down at the very bottom of the figure is the amount absorbed by the Earth – in this figure 0.9 watt per square meter. (Very close to 1, I note.)

If we look at the energy that is transported to and away from the poles as well as that associated with energy from the Sun and emitted back to space, then there are several paths that deliver or take away 10s of watts per square meter. A change of 1 watt per square meter can be realized in several ways. And if we get right down to sea ice it gets more complicated. What happens if there is more fresh water in the ocean because of more rain, more snow, more melting of ice sheets? Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. So could it in fact get warmer and freeze more ice in the ocean because the water is less salty? Plausible, I assert – it would become a matter of measurements, and numbers, and untangling the many different paths that energy is provided to and taken away from the surface of the sea.

Next time I will get a little more specific about the southern ocean and its sea ice.

r


(If you want to see cool movies that show how rotation organizes flow go to MIT and look at these movies.)


Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 83 - 33

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

neo you quoted what I said so I thought you would give a response if your not going to respond why quote
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting RustyShackleford:
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Yeah, we talked about this one last week. It turns out that nearly 20% of those papers were authored by just ten people--and 9 of those 10 have been linked to ExxonMobil. Sherwood, P.J. Michaels, Kimball, and so on--each and every one of them lining their pockets with pro-pollution dollars.

Expected, of course; it's difficult to find any credible scientist who doesn't support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Neo the tower is outside the bwca are we to the point where a flashing light should be grounds to stop this, give the people of this area the same safety and convenience enjoyed by the people of the twin cities, I think that goes a little far and when emergency personal say it would also help them
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting eddy12:
atmo I do not disagree about ozone hole being mans fault the article said more ice being formed at the south pole because of it but the hole has been repairing itself so this should decrease ice formation yet more ice keeps forming was my point
Ah. I see I missed some posts...need to read back more thoroughly.
Sorry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
atmo I do not disagree about ozone hole being mans fault the article said more ice being formed at the south pole because of it but the hole has been repairing itself so this should decrease ice formation yet more ice keeps forming was my point
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting Snowlover123:
Welcome to the debate, Eddy. Climate Change Skepticism is gaining more and more support from climate scientists, because as you have discovered, the basic facts of AGW do not add up.

LOL! Thanks for the nice hearty laugh! That well-worn piece--dragged around by denialists across the net--has been debunked so many times by so many people I'm surprised it hasn't run and hid itself in a deep, dark cave somehere. Laughable, it is. Laughable in the extreme. ;-)

(And, no, I'm not going to debunk it again. If you'd like, though, I'll be happy to point you to any of the many previously-published deconstructions.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting eddy12:
Rusty a good example of what I am talking about is a cell phone tower near ely mn the tower is to be put up 1.5 miles from the boundary of the bwca its lights will be able to be seen from a small portion of the wildlife area so enviromentalists from minneapolis-st.paul a city of over 3 million people are suing to have it stopped even though the vast majority of people who live there want it for cell coverage which is sparse at best keep in mind the wilderness area is over 1 million acres in size because they say it will spoil their view and cause bird migrations to change the birds don't care and far as the view go a little further in or here is an idea turn your chair.

The thing is, the BWCA doesn't belong to just people in and around Ely; it belongs to everyone in the state. The people in Minneapolis have a right to speak up, and the people of Ely have to accept that input.

As much as some may claim otherwise, we're all on this earth together, and a handful of moneyed interests have no right to despoil it for everyone.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting eddy12:
Iceage you mean like when I questioned the ozone hole theory for the south pole and neopolitans reply was some article about the usa and climate choices never once did he give a response to my question but through a straw man argument out there have nothing to do with my question or patrap who said I do not deserve an answer because I could google the answer because he had no idea how to answer.
Umm, what is there to question about the ozone hole theory?
Chlorine embedded in a stable gas, gets transported, eventually, to the stratosphere above the poles where winter stratospheric clouds offer the required non-gaseous surfaces for chemical breakdown, newly-free chlorine interrupts the O3 UV=O2 O O2 O=O3 process until PSCs dissipate and available free chlorine bonds with something besides O or O2.
The chemistry involved is exceedingly simple. The effect has been well-measured. The whole process has been somewhat measured well, though not continuously.

I don't see where any point of contention exists.

In my previous job (yes, I have formal education in and have worked in atmospheric chem), I was directly involved in satellite measurement of the gases that remove free chlorine from the equation. We were measuring concentrations resulting from the processes by which chlorine bonds with other gases to make compounds that are attracted to water molecules and end up raining out. But before you accuse of any bias on the subject, I have no dog in that hunt any longer. In fact, there is very, very little in the way of funding on the subject matter, at all, and for good reason. That dead horse has been well-beaten, one could say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting eddy12:
Iceage you mean like when I questioned the ozone hole theory for the south pole and neopolitans reply was some article about the usa and climate choices never once did he give a response to my question but through a straw man argument out there have nothing to do with my question or patrap who said I do not deserve an answer because I could google the answer because he had no idea how to answer.

Pssst... I never answered nor addressed your question about the ozone hole. Perhaps that explains your confusion?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Keep up the good work, Rusty.

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Same old story, same old song and dance

Sing it!!!

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Welcome to the debate, Eddy. Climate Change Skepticism is gaining more and more support from climate scientists, because as you have discovered, the basic facts of AGW do not add up.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory states that the Long Wave Radiation (LW) will be trapped by GHGs like CO2, and thus the Earth should gain energy overall, since co2 is trapping LW radiation, and OLR would decrease. Only one problem. co2 and LW Radiation have absolutely no correlation.


From Climate4you.com...

Scatter plot showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974, as function of atmospheric CO2. OLR data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CO2 data measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air (water vapour removed), multiplied by one million (ppm). The red line represent a two-degree polynomial fit, specified in the lower left corner of the diagram. As the amount of atmospheric CO2 has been increasing over the entire period (ignoring annual variations), the x-axis can be seen as as rough timeline from 1974 (left) to 2010 (right). The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 m (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

As you can see OLR has been quite variable, and has not been decreasing at all.



Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 m (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

Climate4you.com

The Greenhouse theory would also state that OLR would decrease, so the Earth would be gaining energy overall, but as you can clearly see, this is not the case.

The Climate Models predicted that the Tropical Trophosphere should warm the fastest, due to trapped LW Radiation. However, this is not even close to what has been observed. There is no correlation to LW Radiation and Tropical Temperatures.

There is even less of a correlation between co2 and LW Radiation at the Tropics.



This is due to the fact, that there are Climate Feedbacks in the co2 system, which have overthrown any co2 warming.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Iceage you mean like when I questioned the ozone hole theory for the south pole and neopolitans reply was some article about the usa and climate choices never once did he give a response to my question but through a straw man argument out there have nothing to do with my question or patrap who said I do not deserve an answer because I could google the answer because he had no idea how to answer.
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting eddy12:
I am still waiting for responses to the questioned I posed, if we do not understand how these questions work than how can we say climate change is mostly or totally man made. look forward to hearing responses and if In hear something like haggling over detail that is where the devil lies in the details

You sir are a skeptic and therefore do not deserve an
answer, simple empirical evidence gets in the way of
AGW guilt. Same old story, same old song and dance.


Original Sin
the condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience.
And anything else that can be blamed on us.
Or Perpetual Guilt

some religions teach perpetual guilt/shame as a corrective device, and some people accept those teach- ings as their soul's guide.

ECOguilt as a religion. seems fitting.

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Rusty a good example of what I am talking about is a cell phone tower near ely mn the tower is to be put up 1.5 miles from the boundary of the bwca its lights will be able to be seen from a small portion of the wildlife area so enviromentalists from minneapolis-st.paul a city of over 3 million people are suing to have it stopped even though the vast majority of people who live there want it for cell coverage which is sparse at best keep in mind the wilderness area is over 1 million acres in size because they say it will spoil their view and cause bird migrations to change the birds don't care and far as the view go a little further in or here is an idea turn your chair.
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting eddy12:
don't think for one minute you know better than me how to use it and what I should be allowed to do with it


I hope taking this one sentence isn't taken out of proportion.

But really you don't want them to tell you what you can and cannot do well that isn't the American way. Oh wait huh? Oh it is or was hmmmmmmmmm.
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
The thing I love about enviromentalists is most are from large cities and want to go out in the rural areas and tell the people how to live, no cell tower here or no shooting timber wolves there. These same people want all the luxuries of modern life for them but not for you. The people like me who live in a very rural area have a much different life than those in big cities. To people like me seeing a bear or moose or timber wolf or whatever is no big deal. They want lumber for their house, toilet paper to wipe their butts, food in the store, copper, iron ore and other metals, portland cement to make concrete, oil to make asphalt, and numerous other products, but don,t understand what it takes to bring these products to market cheaply enough so they can afford them. Don't get me wrong I think it should be done as cleanly as possible, but none of these are clean processes. Remember people in your big cities you log nothing, you grow nothing, you mine nothing, you rely on us and our land don't think for one minute you know better than me how to use it and what I should be allowed to do with it
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You trust your government to protect you?


NOOOO not even 1% of me trusts them!
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Neo they log national forests I think you meant to say national parks and I believe they even log some national parks
Member Since: February 15, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 223
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Actually, no. That has yet to be proven, as anthropogenic causes (as they relate to fossil fuels) are just part of the theory. To say with absolute affirmation that "We are causing it. Period"., means absolutely nothing. Nothing. That is more or less yet another way to look at what is more than likely numerous reasons our climate acts the way it does. We do not know yet. But I guess we can pretend we know everything, right?

And excuse me, but no, I am not stuck in choosing to utilize one particular source of energy. You and others may be, but I am not. I choose to make my own decision about how I want to live my life and utilize our resources on this planet, Pal.

Oh, but see, that's where you're mistaken. You do have the right to make your own life decisions, but nobody has the right to infringe on the rights of others.

See, I have a right to clean air. I have a right to clean water. I have a right to live my life without the countless negative impacts of climate change. So do my kids, and my grandkids, and so on. And that means you don't get to choose how you "utilize our resources". You can't buy a car that gets 2 mpg and has no emission control equipment; you can't clear-cut the national forests for charcoal and to make room for a giant Wal-Mart; you can't dynamite the Grand Tetons to get at the coal underneath. And you can't do those things because doing so would hurt everyone.

Contrary to what the denial industry has persuaded many to believe, scientists do know what CC/GW is, and they know what's causing it. They know many of its effects, and they have a pretty good idea of that which it's capable.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Hard to put a cast on a R Shoulder rebuild,the block and sling is to prevent me lifting the arm up any. They took a 1.5" piece of the collarbone over it,,repaired the 88% biceps tendon tear which was frayed at the upper Humeral attachment point and well,the rotator cuff was torn completely,and numerous spurs and other calcifications ,or a debridement of the humeral head.

The color images of the procedure were well,awful interesting to say the least.

So,,thats how dat went 2 weeks ago.


6 mth rehab,,so the cane postings will be limited seems
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Patrap, did you get a blue cast like this little guy?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I think I do a fair job for now with a sling and block on my right arm/shoulder if I may say so.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Cat5


LoL


U havent a clue what u do.

When you can post something relevant,well..we will be here to discuss it.

You have never,,and your fear of NOAA is so phunny,,u should be a Intern for Sen. Inhofe. R Oklahoma.

Wrong. More like when you decide to bring relevant talk to the discussion besides the same old boring links we've seen a billion times, we'll discuss it.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Cat5


LoL


U havent a clue what u do.

When you can post something relevant,well..we will be here to discuss it.

You have never,,and your fear of NOAA is so phunny,,u should be a Intern for Sen. Inhofe. R Oklahoma.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

It seems you've not fully read nor comprehended the paragraph, so here it is yet again, only this time with the salient sentence in boldface:

From that NRC report: "The fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation."

Did you catch it that time? The causes of climate change have been established: it's anthropogenic. Period. We're causing it. And the sooner the everyone absorbs and realizes that, the sooner we can all start working toward a better future. Until then, I'm afraid, we'll be stuck in this fossil fuel hell of our own making.

Actually, no. That has yet to be proven, as anthropogenic causes (as they relate to fossil fuels) are just part of the theory. To say with absolute affirmation that "We are causing it. Period"., means absolutely nothing. Nothing. That is more or less yet another way to look at what is more than likely numerous reasons our climate acts the way it does. We do not know yet. But I guess we can pretend we know everything, right?

And excuse me, but no, I am not stuck in choosing to utilize one particular source of energy. You and others may be, but I am not. I choose to make my own decision about how I want to live my life and utilize our resources on this planet, Pal.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939


Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate




Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
Member Since: May 14, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 78
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Once again, the CC/GW position is not the question. It's the anthropogenic affects (deforestation, urbanization, fossil fuel usage, etc.) of these observations, the actual amount of these affects, and the geographical extent of these contributions (local, regional, or global wide) that are in question.

You're not fooling anyone, anymore. But don't worry, I check in from time to time to see fit that you understand the difference amongst the two. :-)

It seems you've not fully read nor comprehended the paragraph, so here it is yet again, only this time with the salient sentence in boldface:

From that NRC report: "The fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation."

Did you catch it that time? The causes of climate change have been established: it's anthropogenic. Period. We're causing it. And the sooner the everyone absorbs and realizes that, the sooner we can all start working toward a better future. Until then, I'm afraid, we'll be stuck in this fossil fuel hell of our own making.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting Neapolitan:

Sigh...

One final time from that NRC report: "The fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation."

Like it or not, that is the consensus scientific position on CC/GW. Anything else is willful ignorance, magical thinking, cynicism, or some sad combination of the three.

Once again, the CC/GW position is not the question. It's the anthropogenic affects (deforestation, urbanization, fossil fuel usage, etc.) of these observations, the actual amount of these affects, and the geographical extent of these contributions (local, regional, or global wide) that are in question.

You're not fooling anyone, anymore. I'll check in from time to time to see fit that you understand the difference between the two.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I think you know exactly what I am referring to.

And thousands of peer review based evidence that are showing a positive sign between the globe's recent warming trend and anthropogenic factors such as the burning of fossil fuels? Really?

How about the thousands of peer review based evidence that are showing the complete opposite. This of course not using data that is falsified, altered, or rigged. How about those? When you would like to get off the carousel, let me know and I'll be happy to push to stop button for you.

Sigh...

One final time from that NRC report: "The fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation."

Like it or not, that is the consensus scientific position on CC/GW. Anything else is willful ignorance, magical thinking, cynicism, or some sad combination of the three.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting Neapolitan:

"Garbage links and evidence"? Rather than just another drive-by ad hominem attack, how about specifying exactly which "garbage" you feel I've brought? And how about also backing up some of your coolist statements with actual science? Because, you know, we on the side of the facts can quote any of the thousands of peer-reviewed documents that contradict what you're saying.

Again, from that NRC report: "Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation."

I think you know exactly what I am referring to.

And thousands of peer review based evidence that are showing a positive sign between the globe's recent warming trend and anthropogenic factors such as the burning of fossil fuels? Really?

How about the thousands of peer review based evidence that are showing the complete opposite. This of course not using data that is falsified, altered, or rigged. How about those? When you would like to get off the carousel, let me know and I'll be happy to push to stop button for you.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Quoting cat5hurricane:
You guys are really beginning to crack me up. You Patrap continue to post the same damn links over and over again, indicating nothing else than your limited knowledge on the topic. Nothing else.

You Neapolitan, bringing garbage links and evidence onto the blog such as this. A new low for you. First it was the endless belching of your personal beliefs and politics, but now that everyone has seen your true colors, I guess we'll try a different approach.

One can only wonder if the well is beginning to run dry for you folks with your agenda. At the same time, the globe is continuing to show reverse signs of the recent warming trend we have experienced for a while now. Not only is the warming less convincing and slower overall, but the anthropogenic factors that are believed to be behind the apparent change of the climate are losing validity and momentum.

But continue to plug away, as I'll be checking in from time to time.

"Garbage links and evidence"? Rather than just another drive-by ad hominem attack, how about specifying exactly which "garbage" you feel I've brought? And how about also backing up some of your coolist statements with actual science? Because, you know, we on the side of the facts can quote any of the thousands of peer-reviewed documents that contradict what you're saying.

Again, from that NRC report: "Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting Patrap:



A post with relevance is always welcomed.

Thanx for telling it like it is.

Only because he agrees with you, right Pat? :-)
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
You guys are really beginning to crack me up. You Patrap continue to post the same damn links over and over again, indicating nothing else than your limited knowledge on the topic. Nothing else.

You Neapolitan, bringing garbage links and evidence onto the blog such as this. A new low for you. First it was the endless belching of your personal beliefs and politics, but now that everyone has seen your true colors, I guess we'll try a different approach.

One can only wonder if the well is beginning to run dry for you folks with your agenda. At the same time, the globe is continuing to show reverse signs of the recent warming trend we have experienced for a while now. Not only is the warming less convincing and slower overall, but the anthropogenic factors that are believed to be behind the apparent change of the climate are losing validity and momentum.

But continue to plug away, as I'll be checking in from time to time.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 6939
Here is a great example the type of institutionalized anti-science garbage that man has faced for centuries. Science always triumphs over ignorance--people eventually gave up claiming that the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that certain races are inferior to others, just as they'll eventually give up their silly beliefs in Creationism, or their just as silly belief that the world isn't warming--but how much time is wasted dealing with and overcoming superstitious nonsense like this kindergarten-level treatise from the Cornwall Alliance?

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

WHAT WE BELIEVE
  1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
  2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
  3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
  4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
WHAT WE DENY
  1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
  2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
  3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
  4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting RMuller:


I've seen that chart innumerable times.


What have you learned from it?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Patrap:

Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate




Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.


I've seen that chart innumerable times.
Member Since: April 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 309

Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate




Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


It isn't healthy to talk to yourself, you know.

203. Patrap 11:32 PM GMT on April 30, 2011

For 1

491. Patrap 6:20 PM GMT on May 07, 2011

For 2

105. Patrap 9:33 PM GMT on May 11, 2011

For 3.

Three exact idential posts is considered spam in my book.


You trust your government to protect you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Fascinating.


Glad you found the NOAA indicators and some real data for a change too.

Latest from WUWT






Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ya'll get it yet?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
In order to regulate this:






You must Regulate this:










Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
It is obvious we are below 2007 now but what about the 2006 level now? Are we below 2006 now?


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Patrap:
Get a new game.


Your boring us to death,literally friend.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators


Maybe do a personal entry on your ridiculous claims sport.


It isn't healthy to talk to yourself, you know.

203. Patrap 11:32 PM GMT on April 30, 2011

For 1

491. Patrap 6:20 PM GMT on May 07, 2011

For 2

105. Patrap 9:33 PM GMT on May 11, 2011

For 3.

Three exact idential posts is considered spam in my book.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting RMuller:
Remember this IPCC prediction

Keep trotting out that hockey schtick baloney.


You trust your government to protect you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
U.S. weather extremes 'new normal'

Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a "new normal" of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change, scientists and government planners said Wednesday.

"It's a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we're seeing," climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.

"We are used to certain conditions and there's a lot going on these days that is not what we're used to, that is outside our current frame of reference," Hayhoe said on a conference call with other experts, organized by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists.

An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.

Hayhoe, other scientists, civic planners and a manager at the giant Swiss Re reinsurance firm all cited human-caused climate change as a factor pushing this shift toward more extreme weather.

While none would blame climate change for any specific weather event, Hayhoe said a background of climate change had an impact on every rainstorm, heat wave or cold snap.

"What we're seeing is the new normal is constantly evolving," said Nikhil da Victoria Lobo of Swiss Re's Global Partnerships team. "Globally what we're seeing is more volatility ... there's certainly a lot more integrated risk exposure.

Toronto Sun Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
Quoting RMuller:

Keep trotting out that hockey schtick baloney.

Umm, that's not the famous "hockey stick" graph. Not really up to speed on the whole climate change thing, are you?

Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 422
Remember this IPCC prediction? And they wonder why no one has any faith in their "science" these days:

Link
Member Since: April 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 309
Remember this IPCC prediction
Quoting McBill:

Actually, the warming has been going on for quite some time now. You do know the difference between weather and climate, don't you?

Photobucket



Keep trotting out that hockey schtick baloney.
Member Since: April 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 309

Viewing: 83 - 33

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.