Craig Idso and Pat Michaels point us at the global anachronism that is the Antarctic.
It’s not just that models are wrong about the amount of Antarctic Sea Ice, it’s much worse than that. Only one in seven models even get the sign of the trend right.
It’s just simple physics, right?
CO2 is trapping all that heat over Antarctica but for some reason, the sea-ice is expanding.
…
Their graph ends in 2005, but Idso and Michaels graph the last ten years as well which doesn’t look that different.
The paper itself:
Forty-nine models, almost all of the CMIP5 climate models and earth system models with historical simulation, are used.
The linear trend of satellite-observed Antarctic SIE is 1.29 (±0.57) × 105 km2 decade−1 ; only about 1/7 CMIP5 models show increasing trends, and the linear trend of CMIP5 MME is negative with the value of −3.36 (±0.15) × 105 km2 decade−1
Idso and Michaels:
According to the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2-induced global warming will result in a considerable reduction in sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere. Specifically, the report predicts a multi-model average decrease of between 16 and 67 percent in the summer and 8 to 30 percent in the winter by the end of the century (IPCC, 2013).
Idso and Michaels: Antarctic ice expansion shows climate models unreliable.
Kenneth Richards went through the Antarctic Sea Ice debacle on Notrickszone late last year. There were all kinds of excuses for the failure of the models:
Global warming expands Antarctic sea ice: In a polar paradox, melting land ice helps sea ice to grow.
2005: Sea Ice May Be On Increase In The Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due To A Lot Of ‘Hot Air’?
Arctic sea ice shrinking is a sign of global warming, but antarctic sea ice doing the opposite, is not?
REFERENCE
Q. Shu et al.: Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models, Cryosphere, 9, 399–409, 2015 [PDF]
I am expecting all the regular suspects to point out that the Antarctic sea ice doesn’t count, because there are far more commercial air flights over the Arctic circle, and that is yet further “proof” that climate change is man-made.
212
I thought Antarctic sea ice was increasing because the Antarctic is actually at the top of the planet, so the ice is just floating upwards from the bottom.
Also, looking at a map of the world, it is obvious that the top and bottom are both ice, so must be connected via the other side of the flat earth.
Now, someone please give me a grant so I can model it.
241
James,
The poles are indeed thermally connected to each other through the deep ocean, whose temperature is close to 0C even at the equator.
160
Deep ocean currents have become a talking point.
‘MIT scientists found that Southern Ocean and North Atlantic Ocean absorbs excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions. But the heat doesn’t stay there; instead, oceanic circulation redistributes the heat around the equator.
‘In the Southern Ocean, strong, northward-flowing currents send the heat to the equator, while northward-flowing current system in the Northern Atlantic takes the heat towards the Arctic. The study shows that oceanic currents redistribute the heat in such a way that Arctic experiences accelerated warming, while Antarctica warms up mildly.’
Nature World News
61
‘MIT scientists found that Southern Ocean and North Atlantic Ocean absorbs excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions.’
Should we be encouraged to believe other oceans behave differently?
100
Just how do “scientific” publications get away with publishing such patent claptrap?
Perhaps it’s a lack of personal experience with fire amongst the readership. e.g. those who think that starting a fire in the fireplace will make the room colder; apparently because “heat works like mass and gravity” (i.e. Juncker’s interpretation of phlogiston).
90
‘…while Antarctica warms up mildly.’
Its the big lie.
50
….Hot air rises which is why the Arctic will always be warmer than the Antarctic.
20
James said:
Could be. But there is one thing which nay-says it. According to
De Freitas, C. R., Dedekind, M. O., & Brill, B. E. (2015), NZ’s average temperature has remained constant at c. 12.5 degrees C for 150 years. This implies:
1. The Southern Hemisphere has not participated in the so-called “Global Warming.”
2. The so-called “Global Warming” is Northern Hemispheric Warming.
not global at all.
Oops, now that’s careless of those 97% Klimate Sky-intists. They didn’t notice that the planet has two hemispheres.
20
Seriously?
FLights are melting the ice?
No consideration of air currents dissipating jet exhaust?
No consideration that air never stands still?
They call them selves scientists?
50
No, I was not being serious at all.
I was poking non-serious fun at the climate worriers who will look for any excuse, however implausible, to argue away anything contrary to their brainwashing.
50
Speaking of worrying……we must be making inroads, this is a full on panic piece….bring your shovel, there is a rich vein of hysteria to mine….
Oh, and I didnt know weather and local variablity had emotions, but apprently thats what summer can experience…anger…unless thats “Gaia”, in which case she must be in a right strop….
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/alarming-keeping-warming-to-15-degrees-to-shield-australia-from-big-extremes-20170514-gw4so1.html
“Australia will endure more heatwaves, droughts and coral bleaching at 1.5 degrees of warming but the extremes will be considerably less than if global temperatures increase by 2 degrees, new research shows.
In some of the first research on the impacts for Australia of the 1.5 degree to 2 degree range agreed at the Paris climate summit in 2015, Melbourne University scientists have found the chances of a repeat of events such as the “angry summer” of 2012-13 are significantly reduced at the lower end of the warming scale.”
Kind of reminds me of this ( 1 Kings 18 ) – are we seeing a resurgence of a modern version of Baal?
I’m not saying sceptics are biblical prophets or anything of the like, what we appear to be seeing now is an almost religious-like persecution of sceptics, and belief system surfacing amongst alarmists….
Soemthing to muse over perhaps?
“16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals.
19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”
71
Now if that had happened at Oklo in Ghana 2 billion years ago it would be much more credible. :-).
Maybe another one should be looked for in Palestine.
10
Please do not forget the 97% consensus!
97% of all climate scientists agree that when Pres. Trump cuts off their funding that they will have to get real jobs!
230
But most would have forgotten what real jobs are by now.
80
If they ever knew.
30
SO that’s what all the fuss is about! I should have known …
40
“I am expecting all the regular suspects to point out that the Antarctic sea ice doesn’t count”
But RW . it does count this year.. because it had a very low year.
One year in an otherwise increasing trend..
But boy, have some AGW clueless been yapping about it !!
33
Am I the only person surprised that 1 out of 7 models is verging on being slightly close to almost being very near to generalising the concept of having a trend which more-or-less points roughly in the broad direction of measured data?
380
You are probably the only person who could put it so succinctly 🙂
250
Give Murphy a grant !
70
I was surprised too, but then I realised that with a minor adjustment I could unsurprise myself. It became obvious that there had been a bit of a mix up when it came to the colors on the graph and by simply changing the blue to red, and the red to blue, I had a more accurate reflection of the models.
80
James, please stop plagiarizing the IPCC.
160
James that’s right only 1 in 7 models match the observed trend in the sign of the direction it is trending.
Put another way. All models with negative trend should be discarded as useless. Thus, only 1 in 7 or 14% of the models even indicate the direction (up or down)of the trend.
If you were in a shooting contest and only hit the target 14% of the time, you would not win the turkey, you would be the turkey!
70
James, yes, my headline is misleading. To say 1 in 7 models is “not wrong” is a spin far too positive. Essentially 1 in 7 models predicted a positive trend (any number above zero).
That is as good as it gets.
111
.
. 🙂 1 in 7 models … is not wrong …
.
.
. 🙂 is just a little misleading
.
.
. … OK, Sure 🙂
10
Sir Humphrey Appleby couldn’t have said it better.
20
As Jo observes above “CO2 is trapping all that heat over Antarctica but for some reason, the sea-ice is expanding.” close, but physics says the CO2 will sublimate at -78.5°C during the Antarctic winter falling to the surface as dry ice, thus explaining the sea ice growth.
The unnatural rise in CO2 emissions will trigger this phenomenon slowly leading earth into another glacial period as before due to the underestimated effects of CO2.
123
Yonniestone:
Unreliable statistics ‘prove’ that over 97% of Climatologists DON’T underestimate the effects of CO2.
110
Most scientists are well aware that its only a matter of time before CO2 eventually kicks in, this damn natural variability only muddies the water.
‘The warming seas around its edges are nibbling away at ice shelves and glaciers, but have not – yet – penetrated its vast interior.
‘What’s more, the winds that circle the South Pole act as a shield, keeping out warmer air from higher latitudes. These winds have grown stronger, partly because of the hole in the ozone layer.’
New Scientist
———
The question I pose to myself, when did the winds become stronger?
40
Dr Nerilie Abram studied studied the proxy data since the year AD1000, and found that Southern Ocean winds are now stronger than at any time in the past 1000 years, and likely to increase. Her paper was co-authored by Matthew England (say no more) and WUWT has already run a story on it.
If we accept on face value that winds have increased at this particular moment in time, then it stands to reason that a mini ice age is just around the corner.
40
‘than at any time in the past 1000 years’
This is what is known as a ‘Gergisism’. (Pass the salt!)
40
The southern hemisphere hockey stick was unfortunate, but you need to appreciate that she was being bullied by the local Klimatariat and …..
I like her work on early colonial climate history.
21
el gordo alleged:
Was that the scientist/observer who was the first to actually anchor an anemometer to the ice long enough to take a reading before it blew away?
20
Sophocles the system is not speeding up that much, as you probably already know the circumpolar current is driven by the wind which is usually gale force.
Of particular interest is the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) which is in positive mode, meaning less pressure over Antarctica and increasing pressure in mid latitudes. The Klimatariat say this recent bizarre behaviour is due to greenhouse gases and the ozone hole, but I strongly disagree and point to natural variables as the primary cause.
10
Here you go, give me some feedback on whether a positive SAM ts natural or human induced.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/Marshall-SAM-F2.png?itok=SfM6AroV
10
Graeme No3 said
… that’s right. They have absolutely no idea of its real properties ( such as turning the planet green) at all. They just think they have.
So they can’t possibly underestimate anything they know nothing about.
10
Upon posting my comment I noticed forgetting the /sarc. tag on the end, in the spirit of climate modelling I decided to omit the tag and watch the green/rethumb count which initially attracted more red than green with a possible serious response below, like GCM’s statements declaring hypotheses will attract responses from qualified sources based upon knowledge of known scientific facts, the claim above that only 1 in 7 GCM’s is roughly accurate against observed data is still bad enough to deduce the data entered into them was only to fit a desired result.
20
Unnatural..as in human created..ok.
Not “unnatural” since we have had higher Co2 levels previously..anyway..
So all the gang got it wrong..after trillions wasted fighting Co2..telling us it would lead to overall warming..?
All those papers..?
So Co2 now is going to lead to cooling..
And they are going to try and switch the narrative..without admitting they were wrong..?
71
Climate scientists say the cooling of Antarctica by 0.5 C per decade since the 1990s should be treated with caution.
“That a very small part of the planet shows a short-term cooling is not in any way a surprise,” said Ed Hawkins of the National Center for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading in England. “It’s what we expect from natural variation in the atmospheric circulation interacting with a long-term warming trend.”
Bloomberg
41
“It’s what we expect from natural variation in the atmospheric circulation interacting with a long-term warming trend.” (Ed Hawkins)
Retrospective expectation? An historic prediction of recent increased SIE in the Antarctic would be useful.
30
I had not realized that a continent is “a very small part of the planet.”
I love climate science, I learn something new everyday.
90
Oh yes, according to Climate Science, the bigger the continent, the less impact it has, apparently.
Or to put it another way, somewhere there is a very small continent that is solely responsible for all of the climate change (apart from those bits of climate change that are anthropogenic, of course).
30
The Isle of Man(n) maybe?
60
John I agree ; the surface area of the Antartic continent is about 1/50 of the planet. Not an insignificant amount.
GeoffW
10
Antarctic!
10
Watch closely over the next fifty years. They’re going to be “chilly” to quote Dr. Willie Dansgaard (from a forecast he made c. 1970 after analysing the Camp Century icecore from Greenland).
Of course once the trend is spotted, all the 1970s claims, statements and told you so‘s will be trotted out.
30
The science is full of holes.
Science still has no complete, cohesive, and verified model of how water works, without this basic knowledge how can anyone believe that climate can be understood?
See http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_unexpected.html
also
http://phys.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/en/lab-group/a-04.html and http://phys.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/en/lab-group/a-05.html
Yes, water and all it’s attributes are not well understood especially during the transition of vapor to liquid to solid and the reverse. And what exactly happens when ice dissociates to vapor without the usual intervening liquid state.
So how do they model clouds in the polar regions when H2O goes through all these transition states. They use ‘estimates’, or for the non-scientist, they guess.
What are the energy states operating in and around clouds? Now add the variable atmospheric chemistry of real localities.
40
Also see http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html for a list and explanation of water’s known anomalies.
20
And the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 1998. After all their warming BS ( for decades) the British Antarctic survey and other studies have now found strong cooling. Here’s Jo’s post from last year.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/backflip-antarctic-peninsula-posterchild-of-polar-disaster-has-been-cooling-not-warming/
50
And here is Graham Lloyd in the Oz and I say John Turner is a liar, the pause in world temperatures is directly related to Antarctic cooling.
‘The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected.
‘Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long-term warming because of man-made climate change.’
\
50
Never forget the outrageous taxes we pay on airconditioning gas, taxes due entirely to the creation of the Ozone hole above Antarctica , not the Arctic. All the same myth that the hemispheres are identical because they are in the computer models. They are in fact vastly different.
2% of the world’s population lives south of the Tropic of Capricorn. 60% live north of the Tropic of Cancer but according to man made Ozone destruction, the Ozone hole is entirely in the wrong place.
Once again ‘the science’ is plainly wrong but the taxes are stupendous. In fact so high it was cheaper for me to buy entirely new refrigerated Chinese made airconditioners than to simply regas the old ones, simply because the Chinese do not charge this absurd tax where refrigerant is $800 per kg.
So is not only our electricity which is ridiculously expensive thanks to the UN war on Carbon, we need even more refrigerant and electricity and bigger units as the newer refrigerant gases are dramatically less efficient.
This is IPCC science, Government committee science. A bit like parking meter science where to create space, massive taxation regimes are put in place which kill Street shopping and restaurants to the point where greedy councils and governments are budgeting for higher and higher fines simply to finance their socialist agendas. Green agendas mean the destruction of suburbs by urban landscaping which is simply anti car, anti commuter and anti shopper.
I suppose it is like a world where Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday simply because the Roman port of Ostia was struggling (and is now 40km inland.) Taxes and restrictions to suit private agendas.
Antarctica is growing rapidly, as reported years ago, reducing the rise in sea levels. Sea ice varies wildly in the Arctic simply because the average temperature is 0C, 25C warmer than Antarctica and as Professor Turkey and his Ship of Fools noted, stuffed with sea ice.
The UN does everything to justify more taxes on Western democracies as a river of money passes to endless military dictatorships through the global party known as the United Nations. Hardly a democracy to be seen. Meanwhile the socialist and communist South American paradises of Cuba and Venezuala go backwards until they can get no poorer while countries like Nigeria and Uganda suffer massively.
The International Panel for Punishing Carbon is at the forefront of pushing the destruction of Western democracies. It is not about the ice or the climate.
153
You make very valid points.
One critical point you didnt mention is this – the UN is directly funded VOLUNTARILY by many govts, inlcuding ours. If govts stopped it, the occult, earth ( Gaia ) worshipping, anti-Christian anti-Israel Communist global dictatorship-in-waiting would wither and die over night, and yet….
What does that tell you?
100
That without our government paying the UN our future could be in jeopardy?
No wonder many refer to the High Church of Climate Change.
10
If the science is settled, why are there still multiple models that give different answers? Are some modelers in denial? Where is the 97% consensus?
71
If the science is settled, why are they always wrong?
120
You might like Dilberts latest comic on climate change. Lefties heads are exploding everywhere.
120
Absolute Gold!
I’m circulating it to everyone….
40
Shock horror, the 2017 Stein et al study has now found that ARCTIC sea ice is at the second highest level for the last 10,000 years. Only higher period was during the LIA. Where is all this melted ice coming from?
We are probably witnessing the greatest CON and fra-d in history.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/new-paper-indicates-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-last-10000-years/
71
Now that’s quite surprising. I wonder how they obtained the ice extent data so far back?
40
I can see how they would get East Greenland for the last 1,000 years as it has been inhabited but the report goes back 10,000 years. What proxy did they use?
50
TDEF see the Stein et al abstract here. Here’s the link.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/abstract
Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)
ABSTRACT
In this study, we present new detailed biomarker-based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface-water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation. The short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.
30
Thanks. I can conclude that they are using evidence of ancient plant populations instead of human ones. Still amazing data which shows that the sea ice was much less in the last few thousand years. So shrinking arctic ice is fake news given long term data.
As I noted, with an average of 0C the North Pole is quite a warm place (no joke) and you can expect ice extent to be very erratic. It can reach 25C in mid summer.
Consider St. Petersburg, Russia is at 60 degrees with 4.5million people and has long balmy nights in summer. Moscow too at 56 degrees can have terrible winters but very hot and stifling summers. Winter in Moscow and Stalingrad and Sebastopol were a big surprise to armies which arrived in the summer. Murmansk is at 69 North and has 307,000 people.
My point being that there are no cities in Antarctica where the top of the Antarctic peninsula is at 63 South. McMurdo Station at 78 degrees, the biggest and once nuclear powered town in Antarctica has a tiny 1,200 people. It is not a survivable climate. The Northern and Southern hemispheres are very different, but not in the Climate models.
60
In a nutshell.
‘The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.’
20
Well, if the models are wrong they simply need to alter the raw data until the models are right.
121
Homogenize. Transitive verb. To adjust data until it matches the predictions.
90
I don’t think Antarctica is much of an anachronism. Perhaps “enigma” is the word you were after?
50
I’d call Antarctica a “misfit” to go with “enigma”.
I’ve often thought that the so-called “science” of climate change is an anachronism though, where historical measurements are altered to fit today’s “requirements”. It’s given the fancy name “homogenised” which I thought was something only done to milk!
20
Ian Hill;
“a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.?
10
Uh uh. The models and their modellers never make predictions, only projections.
(What the difference between the two is escapes me. You may have better luck.)
20
Expletive deleted. This is a response to TdeF at #11.1. Darned keyboard got me again. 🙁
10
I used to work with population projections. These start with the current population and apply assumptions about fertility, mortality and migration formed from past data and project what happens to the population for many years into the future. An assumption may include a change: for example the migration rate at some point in the future may drop when dwelling growth can no longer be sustained.
These are NOT forecasts or predictions. They only show what will happen when a given set of assumptions are made. Often demographers will make several sets of projections by varying the assumptions slightly and users can select which set best suits their needs.
Forecasts have some degree of expectation based on other factors not built into the assumptions. It’s why weather and climate need to be differentiated all the time. With population projections demographers or other users would add a political aspect to make an actual forecast.
10
I can see that no one takes this problem seriously. Does no one understand that Antarctic ice is increasing and if it goes too far the bottom of the world gets too heavy and the whole planet will probably sink right out of its orbit. What will happen then?
Surely we must take drastic steps to prevent this catastrophe from happening. If we send big ships with giant blowtorches to surround the Antarctic land mass and its floating ice and run them pointed south for a few years, wouldn’t that melt the ice like it’s supposed to be melting?
Or we could just give up modeling how things behave as a way of proving we have a problem we don’t have. Reading tea leaves might do as well and be cheaper.
I like the first option better because it
puts to good usewastes a lot more money than the second. And isn’t that the objective of all this worrying about the weather in the first place, to waste our money?60
Oh! By the way, 😉
30
Roy, it’s probably because there is so much ice in Antarctica that nobody does take it seriously. There’s so much of it that it acts as a compensatory flywheel, a big balance weight, and is responsible for keeping the North Pole’s wobble down.
If it wasn’t there, the Northern Hemisphere may spontaneously reverse its seasons.
Sinking right out of it’s orbit is unlikely through conservation of orbital momentum. We can also be sure, with all that weight where it is, the Earth won’t do a Uranus by falling on its side and rolling around its orbit. That would be quite a surprise tipping point.
So Antarctica is doing a useful job, keeping the planet upright, so North stays North and South remains South. That keeps all the migratory birds happy.
😉
30
I bow to your superior knowledge. I never considered all the migratory birds. So sorry. 😉
Green thumb by the way.
20
Did anyone here attend the recent science conference at the Vatican Observatory?
http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en.html
I personally knew the new Director of the Vatican Observatory several years ago, when he did postdoctoral research at Harvard for A.G.W. Cameron, the astrophysicist inserted into the published list of speakers for the 1976 AGU Meeting at the last minute, to speak (without abstract) at the time scheduled for Dr. D. D. Sabu and I to defend our 1975 report that the Sun made our chemical elements and birthed the solar system in a supernova explosion [“Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements,” Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9, 104-122 (1975)]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supernova_Birth_World.pd
30
Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ does some interesting work. However the Big Bang is contrary to what the Bible teaches. Either one believes in the atheistic Big Bang and subsequent evolution of the Universe and all that it contains, or that God created it all. He can’t have it both ways. Providential evolution is really an oxymoron.
10
I thought I would revisit the Bible teaching; Genesis 1;1-30. “In the beginning”
It seems that the Big Bang Theory and the Genesis version of creation are in broad agreement about the order of things. If one allows that a “day” might mean several billion years then things line up nicely.
Initially “the earth” was without form or void and there was darkness. Sequentially God creates light (sun) and separates light from darkness, then water and dry land, then plants grow on the earth, followed by fish in the sea and then animals on land.
40
I like to go into the detail to explain how the Big Bang theory is in no way in agreement with the creation as highlighted in the scriptures but I won’t as this is not the proper forum. There are many articles that can be searched to explain the differences. Suffice to give just a couple of examples. According to the Bible the birds were created before the land animals. According to Darwinian evolution birds evolved from land animals. There are several such contradictions. Also, which came first the chicken or the egg? According to scripture the chicken did as it was created along with the birds. According to Darwinian evolution the egg came before the chicken, both of which having evolved from something else.
As for God creating light (sun) right at the start to separates light from darkness that is not what scripture ways. The Sun was created on day four along with the stars, moon, etc. but after the earth was created. The first light according to most theologians was something else to provide a temporary source of light. On the other hand the Big Bang theory explains how our Sun was formed first before our planets were formed. Yet another contradiction. Which ones are correct? Well that’s up to each individual to decide.
20
“On the other hand the Big Bang theory explains how our Sun was formed first before our planets were formed. Yet another contradiction. Which ones are correct? Well that’s up to each individual to decide.”
An individual can only conclude “I do not know!!” Seems this is what GOD planned all along. It takes many Climate Clowns plus computer to get marks way way below “I do not know”. 🙂
44
Knowing and believing are two different things. Since none of us were there to see how the Universe was started we don’t know. However, each one of us can believe whichever one thinks is the correct version, or not believe in anything.
30
PeterS May 16, 2017 at 9:11 pm
“Knowing and believing are two different things. Since none of us were there to see how the Universe was started we don’t know. However, each one of us can believe whichever one thinks is the correct version, or not believe in anything.”
Very true! in philosophy they considered conjugates Knowledge ∝ 1/Blief. 🙂
14
For more proper time mathematics the complex conjugate :
Knowledge ∝ 1/Belief
Knowledge/t = -t/Belief
Knowledge/t + t/Belief = -1
Knowledge/t² + (t/Blief)/t³ = -1
Knowledge + 1/Belief = √(-t²)
Time is therefor orthogonal to both Knowledge and Belief!
Very similar to how thermal EMR actually works\is measurable.
∙ √ ∛ ∜ ∝ ∞ 🙂
14
To continue:
For more proper time mathematics the complex conjugate :
Most Philosophy considers Belief and fantasy to be identical therefore:
Knowledge ∝ 1/fantasy (Knowledge ∝ 1/ignorance (reciprocal)
Knowledge/t + t/fantasy = -1 (learning)\unlearning)
Knowledge/t² + (t/fantasy/t³ = -1 (normalization)
Rate of learning\unlearning)
Knowledge + 1/fantasy = √(-t²)
Time is therefor orthogonal to both Knowledge and fantasy!
Very similar to how thermal EMR actually works\is measurable.
The complexity is immense, even for the correct S-B equation, not law, pertaining ‘only’ to two fantasy surfaces, (blackbodies), Flux = σ(Ta^4 -Tb^4).
Flux ∝ Δradiance, with direction from evaluation of the enclosing parentheses! Please note that BB radiance ∝ T^4, Actual specular flux is only ∝ the differential of radiance at each frequency, direction and polarity.
For your imaginary blackbodies that Flux ∝ to the summation of specular flux at each and every frequency! Please notice the vast difference in Δradiance, thermal EMR as discovered by Max Planck, and Δtemperature that is used by all thermodynamics. The discovery of ‘absolute’ temperature, by Lord Kelvin, completely destroyed all, classical thermodynamics! Can you try to get a concept of ‘science’ versus Climate Clown spouting? Science is but discovery and measurement, ‘never Climate Clown fantasy’! Δradiance 🙂
∙ √ ∛ ∜ ∝ ∞ All the best!-will-
24
” Which ones are correct? Well that’s up to each individual to decide. ”
Say what ? No experts with computer models to tell us ?
12
I would go along with that PeterC. If God really is Almighty then He can use any means of creation or a mixture of them all; why not? Let us enjoy the Creation and puzzle our dear little human minds over it all…we’ve been given the gift of reason for a purpose although too many appear not to want to use it!
61
Try again
Annie May 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm
“I would go along with that PeterC. If God really is Almighty then He can use any means of creation or a mixture of them all; why not? Let us enjoy the Creation and puzzle our dear little human minds over it all…we’ve been given the gift of reason for a purpose although too many appear not to want to use it!”
The gift of reason ha!! GOD even uses Earthlings like T.A. Edison! He invented the “dark sucker”! Flip the switch and all the dark gets sucked from the surround. When the thing craps out; you can tell it is full of dark by that spot on one side! 🙂
25
Hi Peter C,
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (NIV)
“One of the main scientific justifications for building Hubble was to measure the size and age of the Universe and test theories about its origin. … Subsequent deep imagery from Hubble, including the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, has revealed the most distant galaxies ever observed. Because of the time it has taken their light to reach us, we see some of these galaxies as they were just half a billion years after the Big Bang. … Astronomical objects can either look faint because their natural brightness is low, or because of their distance. In the case of the Hubble Deep and Ultra Deep Fields, it is the extreme distances involved which make them faint, and hence make observations challenging. … The results were astonishing! Almost 3000 galaxies were seen in the image. Scientists analysed the image statistically and found that the HDF had seen back to the very young Universe where the bulk of the galaxies had not, as yet, had time to form stars. … For very distant objects, their light is shifted so far that they drop out of the visible spectrum altogether, and can only be seen in infrared light. This means that the Hubble Ultra Deep Field cannot be improved on by building a more sensitive optical telescope — Hubble has reached the limit of what is possible in visible light.”
(http://www.spacetelescope.org/science/deep_fields/)
Again I ask a question and again I would be very interested in your, or that of others, answers. If the bulk of the galaxies had not, as yet, had time to form stars, what was the source of the visible light by which the Hubble telescope ‘sees’ the very distant objects?
Have a good day, Jerry
10
Jerry L Krause May 17, 2017 at 7:26 am
“One of the main scientific justifications for building Hubble was to measure the size and age of the Universe and test theories about its origin. … Subsequent deep imagery from Hubble, including the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, has revealed the most distant galaxies ever observed. Because of the time it has taken their light to reach us, we see some of these galaxies as they were just half a billion years after the Big Bang. … Astronomical objects can either look faint because their natural brightness is low, or because of their distance. In the case of the Hubble Deep and Ultra Deep Fields, it is the extreme distances involved which make them faint, and hence make observations challenging. … The results were astonishing! Almost 3000 galaxies were seen in the image. Scientists analysed the image statistically and found that the HDF had seen back to the very young Universe where the bulk of the galaxies had not, as yet, had time to form stars. … For very distant objects, their light is shifted so far that they drop out of the visible spectrum altogether, and can only be seen in infrared light. This means that the Hubble Ultra Deep Field cannot be improved on by building a more sensitive optical telescope — Hubble has reached the limit of what is possible in visible light.”
Good GOD Jerry Krause spouting more incoherent BS, of fantasy Doppler! EMR remains in proper time, always.
Please go back to blog practia dementus Principia Scientific International, then decease; please!
14
Hi Will,
Sometimes one needs to admit that one is not the only intelligent life on this planet. I quoted and I accept your questioning of the red shift. However, you have avoided answering the question asked. Surely, you must know the correct answer and I certainly would like to be informed of the truth.
Have a good day, Jerry
50
Jerry L Krause May 18, 2017 at 12:01 am
“Hi Will, However, you have avoided answering the question asked. Surely, you must know the correct answer and I certainly would like to be informed of the truth.”
I also would like to be informed of the truth. Unfortunately Way too many are like you and have no truth! I have no truth, only opinion, my-own, which to me is much more likely than yours! For your Hubble telescope, Perhaps the hubble is like I explained to Anne’s puzzle May 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm on May 16, 2017 at 6:23 pm currently #52.
Perhaps the Hubble is a ‘dark sucker’! Certainly as good as any ‘truth’ that astronomers have spouted!
12
I am not personally a follower of any religion, but I consider local element synthesis in the solar explosion that birthed the solar system, . . .
as more consistent than the “Big Bang” with the Genesis story of creation.
20
why do the grphs begin in different spots
10
To get he right fit.
Temperature graphs can be manipulated and adjusted to give the wrong impression on purpose, better to look at cycles to know what is going on.
“Snow was registered at Blindern in May only once before. It happened in 1967,” meteorologist Terje Alsvik Walloe told Aftenposten. On Wednesday, the thermometer did not go above 3.1 degrees in Blindern, marking the lowest temperature ever measured on the same date in Oslo. “It is exceptional that it is so cold and there is so much snow now in May. This is the combination of cold air and precipitation all the time, which has kept the temperature down,” explained Alsvik Walloe.
http://eng.belta.by/society/view/rare-may-snow-in-oslo-beats-record-for-1st-time-in-50-years-101196-2017/
11
Hubert Lamb found a 50 year periodicity in Europe and I think this is a sign of it.
10
read all:
16 May: Hobart Mercury: Peter Boyer: Talking Point: A two-speed response to climate change
WHEN you think about it, it’s breathtaking. The 2017 Federal Budget is seeking to close the books on Australia’s biggest economic, social and environmental issue of this or any century. Buried deep in the Budget papers is the revelation that two national climate agencies — the Climate Change Authority and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility — are to be defunded and wound up…
This, just as business is realising the challenge presented by our Paris policy commitments and the rising cost of a changing climate is driving insurers and local authorities to despair…
Last week, the Local Government Association of Tasmania got together with Climate Tasmania, a non-government advisory group (of which I am a member), to bring local, state and national expertise together to discuss climate change risks and responses.
Some snippets of information from the day…READ ON
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-a-twospeed-response-to-climate-change/news-story/2170ba61f190a2aef052cf4567d04cb5
40
Yet more recent Arctic studies show that most warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century. Here is the link and a summary of a number of recent studies. Most of the SLR from Greenland occurred before 1950 and that attribution is estimated to be just 0.6 inches ( global SLR) over the period 1900 to 2010.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/01/new-paper-greenland-gained-ice-betw een-1940s-2000s-added-just-1-5-cm-to-sea-levels-since-1900/#comments
“Conclusion: Abrupt Arctic Warming, Cooling, Ice Melt Uncorrelated With CO2 Emissions
“Implicit in the alarmist projection that rapid Arctic warming and ice melt will raise sea levels by 19 to 25 centimeters during the next 8 decades is the assumption that the Arctic’s post-1990s warming trend and ice melt has been driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions — which are expected to continue to rise without dramatic energy policy changes. However, this assumption ignores the nearly 100 years (1900 to mid-1990s) of non-correlation between CO2 emissions and the Arctic climate.
Succinctly, during the 1920s to 1940s period the (a) Arctic warmed rapidly (~3°C per decade), the (b) Greenland ice sheet melted rapidly, and the (c) glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was explosive. This occurred while anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both flat and negligible (10 times smaller than today’s emissions).
Then, just as CO2 emissions began to rise at an accelerated pace after 1940, the (a) Arctic cooled (for nearly 60 years), the (b) Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance was positive with a “null” contribution to sea level rise (1940-2000), and (c) the Arctic-wide ice melt contribution to sea level rise abruptly decelerated.
For the 110 years between 1900 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet contributed just 0.6 of an inch (1.5 cm) to sea levels despite a 10-fold increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during that period. Therefore, the very mechanism (human CO2 emissions) assumed to be driving a projected 19 to 25 centimeters of Arctic ice melt contribution has not been observed to be a driving mechanism previously.
The observational evidence indicates that variations in anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive Arctic warming (or cooling), ice sheet surface mass balance, or sea level rise from retreating glaciers”.
32
The simple physics of the Greenhouse Effect get built into the Climate Models which then seem to fail badly at prediction!
Chris the Climate Penguin describes the Simple Physics in a comment (comment 9) on the Dilbert website;
“It’s undeniable that CO2 increases temperatures, the dispute is about whether it matters.
Yes, it is very easy to demonstrate and prove. No scientist denies that CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum. No scientist can deny that CO2 will increase temperatures, due to being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but absorbing infrared light emitted by the Earth.
All this is obvious and no one but a few of the dumbest people would dispute them.”
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14#comments
Being one of the dumbest people myself, I think that Chris conflates several thoughts here:
1. Its undeniable that CO2 increases temperatures. Well it is at least debatable
2. It is easy to demonstrate and prove. No one has demonstrated nor proved that CO2 increases temperatures
3. No scientist denies that CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum. This is the one true and demonstrable observation that Chris gets right.
4. No scientist can deny that CO2 will increase temperatures, due to being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but absorbing infrared light emitted by the Earth. Well some scientists do deny that. There are a lot of assumptions and logical steps required to make that argument. Any error demolishes the whole argument
All bolding is mine.
68
The claim that
“3. No scientist denies that CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum. This is the one true and demonstrable observation that Chris gets right.”
is based on IR spectrum absorption graphing.
Most people don’t realise (because they have never done UV/Vis/IR spectrometry) that those IR absorption spectrums are actually IR TRANSMISSION spectrums. That’s the way spectrometers work. It is assumed (or for spectral analysis, it doesn’t matter) that if the light-radiation at a particular wavelength is refracted, even very slightly, the light will “miss” the analyser and be measured as “absorbed”.
If that is happening with the CO2-IR absorption spectrum then the whole world could be wrong about CO2 even being an IR absorber. A research experiment could be set up to test this. Anyone interested?
50
Peter, in response to “Chris” who posted much of what you referenced, I tried to post the following comment on Scott Adams’ blog; but for some reason the blog didn’t take my comment (at least I don’t think it did).
Chris wrote (*Chris* Knower • 13 hours ago)
“TL;DR It’s undeniable that CO2 increases temperatures, the dispute is about whether it matters.
Yes, it is very easy to demonstrate and prove. No scientist denies that CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum. No scientist can deny that CO2 will increase temperatures, due to being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but absorbing infrared light emitted by the Earth.
All this is obvious and no one but a few of the dumbest people would dispute them.”
Chris, First, I don’t dispute that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum. However, not only does CO2 absorb IR energy, CO2 also radiates in the infrared spectrum. It’s not obvious (at least not obvious to me) that the rate atmospheric CO2 absorbs Earth-Surface-outgoing-radiation is greater than the rate atmospheric CO2 radiates energy to space. To discuss CO2 IR absorption while completely ignoring CO2 IR radiation seems to me to be a little short-sighted.
Second, I must be one of the “few dumbest people” because I dispute the statement that CO2 “will” increase temperature. I’m not saying that atmospheric CO2 won’t increase Earth’s surface temperature—it might. I am saying, however, that it cannot be concluded that because (a) CO2 passes inbound solar radiation without significant attenuation and (b) absorbs outgoing Earth radiation in sub-bands of the IR band, adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere “will” (as in must) increase the Earth surface temperature.
An everyday example exists where everything else being equal, surrounding an object with CO2 gas lowers, not increases, the temperature of the object. Consider a vacuum thermos bottle. In its simplest form, a thermos bottle consists of a chamber in which matter is placed with the goal of maintaining the temperature of that matter above or below the ambient background temperature for as long a time as possible. In a vacuum thermos bottle this chamber is surrounded by a “shell” where a vacuum exists between the outer surface of the chamber and the inner surface of the shell. To keep the chamber from coming into contact with the shell, the chamber and the shell must be kept apart by one or more rigid connecting “rods”, where the material of the connecting rods is chosen to have low thermal conductivity. Vacuum thermos bottles of this construction can be found at retail stores throughout the country.
Now place hot coffee in the vacuum thermos bottle’s chamber. To keep the coffee hot, also place in the thermos bottle’s chamber a “heater” consisting of a battery/resistor circuit. The electric current that flows through the resistor causes the resistor to “heat up;” thereby providing the thermos bottle’s chamber (and hence the coffee) with a constant source of thermal energy–much like the Earth’s constant rate of solar energy absorption independent of the presence/absence of atmospheric CO2. Assuming the battery life is much longer than the time required for the temperature of the thermos bottle and its contents to stabilize (that is, to cease changing with time), the temperature of the chamber (coffee) will eventually reach a state where the rate energy enters the chamber is equal to the rate energy leaves the chamber. Assume that stabilized temperature is such that the spectral peak emission frequency is in the infrared band.
At the point the chamber temperature has stabilized, inject CO2 gas into the vacuum space between the chamber and the shell. Just as in your example where the presence of CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere has no effect on the rate the Earth absorbs solar energy, the presence of the injected CO2 gas into the space between the chamber and the shell has no effect on the rate at which energy is dissipated through the resistor and enters the chamber. With the exception of the connecting rods, the chamber is now, however, surrounded by CO2 gas. Thus, if what you say is true—i.e., surrounding an object with a constant source of thermal energy whose temperature corresponds to a peak emission frequency in the infrared band with an infrared absorbing gas “will” (as in must) increase the temperature of the object—then the injection of the CO2 (an infrared absorbing gas) should cause the temperature of the chamber to increase.
Common sense and the real-world experience say this is not the case. The presence of the CO2 gas provides an additional source of conductive heat loss from the chamber (the other conductive source of heat loss being the connecting rods). For moderate amounts of CO2 gas, the increased loss of heat by conduction easily more than compensates for the heat being absorbed by the CO2. If this were not so, in addition to stocking vacuum thermos bottles, stores that sell thermos bottles would stock thermos bottles where the “vacuum” space was filled with CO2 gas. Good luck, finding such a thermos bottle; and even better luck finding one that outperforms its vacuum equivalent.
An acquaintance, Peter C, in Australia performed a series of rudimentary experiments with vacuum versus CO2 thermos bottles. His findings were that CO2 thermos bottles lose heat at a much faster rate than vacuum thermos bottles—see Comment #1 at http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/weekend-unloaded/#comments.
100
Not only that Reed. We also showed that there was no difference in heat loss when CO2 was placed in the vacuum space compared with Air (with in the limits of the experimental error),
30
No scientist denies that CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum.
Yes, Tyndall demonstrated this via empirical experiment in 1859. Then in 1860, he again used empirical experiment to demonstrate that CO2 could cool by emitting infrared radiation. This tells us nothing about the net effect of such gases in our atmosphere.
No scientist can deny that CO2 will increase temperatures, due to being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but absorbing infrared light emitted by the Earth.
This does not hold true. After all, the majority of energy that CO2 molecules are emitting as LWIR was not acquired by intercepting surface radiation but by surface conduction and the release of latent heat of evaporation.
Here’s a simple table showing why the net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling:
Energy heating the atmosphere The same energy leaving the atmosphere
Surface conduction to atmospheric gases LWIR emission to space from radiative gases
Release of latent heat of evaporation LWIR emission to space from radiative gases
Interception of surface IR by atmospheric gases LWIR emission to space from radiative gases
Because LWIR emission to space is the atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism, the cooling power of radiative gases must be greater than the power of said gases to warm the atmosphere by just interception of surface IR. CO2 is therefore not a “heat trapping gas”.
29
This statement is correct but it does not follow that the surface is cooled by radiative gasses. It simply means the atmosphere is able to cool itself because it can radiate to space. If these gasses allowed unhindered transmission of surface radiation to space then the overall heat loss would be higher and surface temperature would be lower.
61
Rick Will May 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm
“This statement is correct but it does not follow that the surface is cooled by radiative gasses. It simply means the atmosphere is able to cool itself because it can radiate to space. If these gasses allowed unhindered transmission of surface radiation to space then the overall heat loss would be higher and surface temperature would be lower.”
If you measure the radiance of the Earth’s surface at all IR frequencies and in all directions from that surface, you would conclude that the composite emissivity of that IR surface is less than 60%. Plug that into your fantasy T^4 equation and see what temperature results!! The reflectivity of fresh snow in the IR is very close to 95%!! That is why snow footprints of any critter (water) are so easy to detect in the IR!
All the best!-will-
27
268K hence much cooler than exists with an IR absorbing atmosphere.
30
Rick Will May 16, 2017 at 6:52 pm ·
“268K hence much cooler than exists with an IR absorbing atmosphere.”
Guess again! 298 Kelvin by calculation.
288 Kelvin by sloppy measurement, and incoherent statistics. Can you please show your numbers? 🙂
26
Sure – uses your emissivity value and the actual average SWR reaching the surface. Averages 347W at TOA and 51% makes it to the surface. Other 49% of SWR is reflected from clouds, reflected from the surface or absorbed by the atmosphere. Numbers are therefore.
{(176/0.6/5.67)^0.25}E2 = 268K
Actually meaningless average for the globe but you wanted the numbers.
10
Simple empirical experiment shows that the sun alone would drive average surface temperature to 312K were it not for atmospheric cooling. (Our current average is only 288K).
Having cooled the surface, how does the atmosphere cool itself in turn?
That would be radiative gases*, primarily H2O, radiating LWIR to space.
*H2O actually does most of its atmospheric cooling in the liquid state. Buy an infrared detector, they cost less than $200. Scan the sky on dry, humid and cloudy days. The majority oif IR emitted from the atmosphere is from clouds during their formation.
17
Please describe your simple empirical experiment so I can shred it.
90
A picture says a thousand words.
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
71% of the surface of this planet is liquid water. Climastologists claim that the sun alone could only heat the oceans to an average surface temperature of -18C if they cooled by direct radiation space, with no conductive cooling, no evaporative cooling and no radiative gases above them.
This simple experiment creates those conditions and shows that for a diurnal cycle of SW radiation input, a water sample rises toward a surface average of 335K the deeper you build the experiment. The whole of climastrology has 255K for “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” as its very foundation. That conjecture dates from the 1820’s and it is completely and utterly wrong.
Now all you have to do to “shred” my claims is provide an empirical experiment showing that the surface materials of this planet could only be heated to -18C by the sun alone in absence of a radiative atmosphere. No, not blackboard scribbling with the S-B equation, which provably doesnt work for SW illumination of SW translucent IR opaque materials. You need to provide an actual empirical experiment. Shred away…
27
So you are claiming a 1000W/sq.m SW source operating at 50% duty cycle is somehow representative of the average 176W/sq.m of SW solar radiation that makes it to the surface of the earth.
Try your experiment with 350W/sq.m at 50% duty cycle and tell me the result. The temperature will be less than 335K. The result will be closer to what actually occurs on this Earth.
My claims with regard to radiative atmosphere are unrelated to any contrived 255K average black body temperature. If the atmosphere was not radiative the majority of water on the earth would be ice at latitudes higher than 37 degrees. The tropics would be dry land and have much wider temperature range than exists now; Sahara like throughout. Water would exist in lakes at the base of large ice mountains in the region of 37 degree latitude.
70
Konrad May 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm
“That would be radiative gases*, primarily H2O, radiating LWIR to space.”
More importantly atmospheric H2O colloids changing phase between Sun-side and Night-side, with no change in temperature or ‘radiance’!
“*H2O actually does most of its atmospheric cooling in the liquid state. Buy an infrared detector, they cost less than $200. Scan the sky on dry, humid and cloudy days. The majority of IR emitted from the atmosphere is from clouds during their formation.”
Pretty damn close! Calculate the latent heat of vaporization for 3gm/cm². Part of (atmospheric columnar water) colloid to gas. All to be dispatched to space when insolation decreases, with no temperature change. All of this is continuous 24\7 with minor variation in 365.25 days per cycle! Temperature is no measure at all of what is going on with this wonderful planet! Body temperature increases when you are sick! Earth is not sick! Many folk are indeed woefully sick!!
All the best!-will-
25
That is just a restatement of the Greenhouse Theory as described above at #17.. If you know of any empirical evidence that Greenhouse gases help to reduce heat loss from the atmosphere, please tell us here now.
20
I prefer the term radiative gasses. There is no doubt that the presence of water in the atmosphere reduces the transmission of OLR to space. These two images provide compelling empirical evidence.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AIRS_OLR.png
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth111/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth111/files/Module2/Module2Figure5b.png
Note that the tropical oceans lose less heat than the temperate ocean. Note how the lowerTPW in the eastern portion of both the southern Pacific and southern Atlantic oceans results in more heat loss than on the western side at the same latitude.
The land masses show the same result of higher OLR where TPW is lower but then the properties of the different surfaces need to be considered to make a case. The properties of the ocean surface is unchanged so the change in OLR for given latitude can only be a factor of what is above the oceans.
60
Thanks Rick,
Those two diagrams are interesting. What is their source?
10
The www. You would need to check the links and track back to find the respective data sources. I just looked for two images that show what I know occurs.
MODTRAN gives clear skies OLR reasonably close to what is measured (inferred) by satellites:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Be aware that you can choose to use RH or TPW constant. Also the a water scale factor of 1 corresponds with 50% humidity. The factor above tropical oceans is say 1.6 corresponding with 80% humidity.
Water in the atmosphere limits heat loss and water distributed over the surface transfers heat from the tropics to the higher latitudes. There is net heat IN at the tropics and net heat OUT at latitude greater than 37 degrees, on yearly average. Changes in sea ice extent regulates the amount of heat lost from the oceans. Exposing more water increase the heat loss. Covering more water with ice reduces the heat loss. It is a self-regulating systems that controls the global temperature. The last big change to the distribution of heat across the globe was the opening of Drake’s passage that enabled the southern ocean circulation. I suspect that when that passage bridges with ice Europe and North America ice up. The Pacific has higher net relative heat flux than the Atlantic so if they are not well connected the Pacific heats and the Atlantic cools (there is a higher proportion of the Pacific in the tropics than the Atlantic). It does not take a lot of global cooling for Antarctic sea ice to reach South America.
40
Rick Will May 17, 2017 at 10:47 am
(“Those two diagrams are interesting. What is their source?”)
“The www. You would need to check the links and track back to find the respective data sources. I just looked for two images that show what I know occurs.”
Good God you claim to know, based on sources from WWW?
“MODTRAN gives clear skies OLR reasonably close to what is measured (inferred) by satellites:”
ModTran, LowTran, and Hitran give absolutely no indication of “flux” absorption by any atmospheric molecule. The 1966-1977 data are accumulation of ‘only’ attenuation of radiant emission ‘modulation’; both temporal and spatial, because of both atmospheric ‘low pass filtering’ and atmospheric ‘scattering’ at every wavelength. The cost to measure this was truly ‘obscene’, but atmospheric seeing (or not) at every wavelength is key to winning or loosing the WAR!
There were absolutely no funds available to even try to measure, the unmeasurable flux attenuation, that your Climate Clowns insist; Must exist; rather than may or may not ever exist physically.
—” http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ ”
So much for Models, rather than painfully learning by skillful measurement! Every attempt => Aw shit! -will-
23
But there is satellite data of measured OLR over the tropics. Here is a sample for December 1997:
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~mag/NASA_OLR/data/o9712__e.dat
You will observe the highest value is 299W over the Caribbean Sea. MODTRAN gives 300W clear skies for 28C and 55% humidity.
40
Peter C May 16, 2017 at 11:21 am
“Being one of the dumbest people myself, I think that Chris conflates several thoughts here:”
Chris obviously has not a clue as to any science!
1. Its undeniable that CO2 increases temperatures.
“Well it is at least debatable”
2. It is easy to demonstrate and prove.
“No one has demonstrated nor proved that CO2 increases temperatures”
3. No scientist denies that CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum.
“This is the one true and demonstrable observation that Chris gets right.”
Sorry NO! The spontaneous thermal emission and absorption at any frequency is only generated in a direction of lower radiance (temperature) at that frequency. At about 45° latitude the ‘westerlies’ originate from 30° latitude and atmospheric CO2 has higher radiance. Here the atmosphere transfers power to the ocean surface at the rate of less that 0.2 W/m².
4. No scientist can deny that CO2 will increase temperatures, due to being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but absorbing infrared light emitted by the Earth.
“Well some scientists do deny that. There are a lot of assumptions and logical steps required to make that argument. Any error demolishes the whole argument.”
There are hundreds of logical\undemonstrative errors, (stupid assumptions), made everyday by arrogant academic Climate Clowns!!
All the best!-will-
26
Actually, there was a recent paper that showed that increased CO2 over Antarctica actually cause a faster heat loss to space.
I’ll have to see if I can find it.
10
Hi Peter C,
May 16, 2017 at 11:21 am #17 You wrote: “4. No scientist can deny that CO2 will increase temperatures, due to being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but absorbing infrared light emitted by the Earth. Well some scientists do deny that. There are a lot of assumptions and logical steps required to make that argument. Any error demolishes the whole argument”
I have read all the comments of #17 which you began. I agree in general with your comments; however, I have one question: How is it that you and nearly everyone who writes about the GHE consistently ignores the physics (Quantum Mechanics) forced upon the physicists near the beginning of the 20th Century?
Richard Feynman taught his students (The Feynman Lectures on Physics): “Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.”
Lasers are the result of induced-stimulated emission where the absorbed the radiation (light) is immediately emitted before it is transformed into sensible heat as Einstein correctly assumed.
I am very interested in what your answer to my question might be.
Have a good day, Jerry
10
Here is the Royal Society graph showing all the models for rate of SLR until 2300. These are the models used by the IPCC and you’ll note that Antarctica ( 89% of global ice} is negative for SLR over the next 300 years and Greenland ( 10% of global ice) is positive.
So where is their dangerous SLR to come from I wonder? Just asking.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
30
4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/4-graphs-that-demonstrate-why-the-ipcc-climate-models-will-never-be-accurate/
36
Very good.
25
What?… Only six out of seven wrong?
30
What talking about Climate Disruption the term WRONG never applies to the climate models. They are always right because climate scientists say they are.
If you compare the model output to measured data none of the models closely matched the data. One out of 7 jagged the correct sign of the measured trend.
51
A problem with climate science is that it is NOT science.
It is the modern form of “Dear Dorothy Dix”.
23
If you make enough models over a wide enough range, maybe one of them might get close.
That is the AGW modeller way !!!
27
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supernova_Birth_World.pdf
30
I have a serious question. I would be interested in what readers think.
The antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing over at least a decade. This has not been explained by the models and of course is rarely mentioned by the climate alarmists. However, in the last year antarctic sea-ice extent according to the reported measurements has plummeted. Is there anyone out there who has an explanation or theory about this?
10
The Coral Sea off north east Australia was particularly hot at the end of last southern summer. That drove the El Nino. That warm water makes its way south down the east coast of Australia and eventually mixes in the southern ocean. The air above moves faster and transports a similar level of heat south over a wider front.
https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/116577/width754/image-20160329-13683-1r3b0g7.png
The presence of a cyclone off New Zealand in April is reasonably rare. That also indicates warmer water further south than usual.
The increased heat transfer into the southern ocean accelerates the sea ice melt. That in turn exposes more seawater to latent/radiant heat loss out of earth’s system. It is all wonderfully self-regulating thanks to the presence of vast quantities of water, in its various forms, distributed over and above the surface of the earth.
62
The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy
10
Another PR 2017 study has found AGAIN that glacier retreat was much greater in the earlier 20th century ( 1925 to 1950) . And after 1960 some glaciers actually advanced until the 1980s. This supports the Le clercq world glacier study that found a slowing of retreat after 1950. Of course no impact shown from higher co2 emissions.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/09/new-paper-glacier-melt-rates-were-u p-to-3-times-greater-faster-during-early-20th-century/#sthash.8YtEuni8 .dp
And this reports proves that the Swiss Alps were much warmer only 4,000 years ago. Here’s the link.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/
“Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.
This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”
60
The Calvo et al study also showed cooling SST over southern OZ over the last 6,500 years. This matches Antarctic cooling over that period. Here’s the abstract and link.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL029937/full
Abstract
[1] “Comparison of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica shows an asynchronous two-step warming at these high latitudes during the Last Termination. However, the question whether this asynchrony extends to lower latitudes is unclear mainly due to the scarcity of paleorecords from the Southern Hemisphere. New data from a marine core collected off South Australia (∼36°S) allows a detailed reconstruction of sea-surface temperatures over the Last Termination. This confirms the existence of an Antarctic-type deglacial pattern and shows no indication of cooling associated with the Northern Hemisphere YD event. The SST record also provides a new comparison with the more extensive paleoclimatic data available from continental Australia. This shows a strong climatic link between onshore and offshore records for Australia and to Southern Hemisphere paleorecords. We also show a progressive SST drop over the last ∼6.5 kyr not seen before for the Australian region”.
20
The Steig et al 2013 study of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) over the last 2,000 years showed a decline in temp but more recent precipitation over the last 50 years and deceleration of SLR. Certainly the first 1,000 yrs of the graph are warmer than the last 1,000 yrs up to the yr 2,000. So the overall trend is cooling over the past 2,000 years.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1778.html
30
It seems like the parasites and fanatics want an extra 300 billion $ a year to hand over to Green groups to in turn hand over to any layabouts who think they deserve it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/15/un-bonn-climate-conference-demand-300-billion/
20
Can someone please clarify the following:
When I look at the NASA website dated March 22nd 2017
There it clearly says the opposite (see quote below) . . .
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
ie “Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles”
Am I doing something Wrong? Appreciate any comments.
GeoffW
10
You are looking at data as anomaly. That is the alarmist way of presenting data to exaggerate whatever point they are trying to make. Sea ice varies quite a lot in any one year. They jagged one month that fits the warming theme. I used the NSIDC data to get a true perspective of sea ice:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgVQxxALD4EXWLeWB
Arctic melt rate has reduced relative to previous years in the last few weeks:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_5years_en.png
Greenland ice accumulation is the highest on modern record:
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
And Arctic temperature is now colder than average:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Antarctic is now copping the affects of the 2016 El Nino and record temperature in the Coral Sea contributing to faster than usual melt.
The globe has warmed for about 4 decades. That coincided with very high solar activity. Solar activity is now much lower so expect cloud levels to continue to increase causing the globe to cool down. Loss of sea ice also accelerates cooling as there is more water surface exposed at high latitudes where the ocean surface has a net loss of heat.
60
Thanks Rick appreciate your comment.
I do need time to look at the links you have provided.
I want to be able to understand the issue of “data anomaly”
Regards GeoffW
10
The climate alarmist created the art of anomalous trends. That is where they average the date then trend the data relative to the average. It dramatically highlights variance such that minute changes have apparent significance.
When you look at data relative to a zero baseline you get a much better appreciation of significance. For example this chart shows monthly temperature in Kelvin where zero temperature corresponds to zero thermal energy:
https://s27.postimg.org/68cs7z8wj/Hadcrut4_Kelvin_-_1850_to_2013.png
Is there any cause for concern with the trend shown there? Inhabited places on Earth range in temperature from about 250K to 320K. So a scale from 250K to 320K could be argued would be more appropriate for human experience. Even then the temperature trend is imperceptible.
40
Yes, GeoffW, you are looking up things for yourself and contradicting the study of Michaels and Idso!
However the study graph covers the period 1980-2005. There may have been more recent changes observed by NASA since then.
30
Thanks Peter C . . .
I did note that there were (2 graphs) showing long term trends in Antartic ice coverage,the second graph went to 2015. Trends on both graphs were both positive though slightly different.
I am still conerned that the study we are referring to here is not compatible with the NASA site.
Regards GeoffW
30
The study was compatible with the NASA site until just this year 2017!
The problem is; can we believe NASA anymore?
50
Thanks I need to do some more homework! . . .
Regards GeoffW
10
Gotcha #977 (any figure will do). Levitz chooses his words badly, given virtually all MSM is FakeNews:
15 May: New York Mag: Trump Consults Fake-News Memes When Contemplating Climate-Change Policy
By Eric Levitz
On Monday, Politico offered another testament to the hazards of Trump’s impressionability:
“White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Trump.
“Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter. Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an Internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it.”…
For the record, there was some chatter in the mainstream press about global cooling in the 1970s. But as Time’s Bryan Walsh explains, within the scientific community of that era, there was already a broad consensus in support of the warming hypothesis:
***”[G]lobal cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern.”…
***Like a small child, the president’s day-to-day behavior is ***deeply influenced by the media he’s exposed to…
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-consults-fake-news-memes-while-mulling-climate-policy.html
was this for “small children” Levitz?
1974: Time Mag: Another Ice Age?
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age…
Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data…
Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round…
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa’s drought…
Sunspot Cycle.
The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth’s surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth’s tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth’s climate…
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth…
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic…
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
20
more children’s stories, Levitz?
Apr 1975: Newsweek: The cooling world
by Peter Gwynne with bureau reports
http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
the “childish” Bump, who never misses a trick when it comes to Trump. in case you are “curious”, Bump will admit to a “trickling”:
15 May: WaPo: Philip Bump: ‘Fake but accurate’: Another reason to worry about decision-making at the White
Politico’s Shane Goldmacher has outlined a remarkable scenario that unfolded recently in the West Wing. Deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland apparently provided President Trump with copies of two Time magazine covers depicting scientific concerns about a changing climate…
A White House official defended McFarland’s raising the issue to Goldmacher: Although the cover was not real, “it is true there was a period in the ’70s when people were predicting an ice age.”…
***If you’re curious, the original “an ice age is coming” trend ***trickled through the popular media at the time in the way a story about a wacky mug shot might today. It was ***not a consensus view in the scientific community, nor was there sustained reporting or research supporting the idea.
“The broader point I think was accurate,” the official told Politico, calling the cover “fake but accurate.” It isn’t. There was no casual flip-flop on the nature of the shifting climate, although those looking to undercut the ***current consensus clearly have sought to uncover one…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/15/fake-but-accurate-a-whole-new-reason-to-worry-about-decision-making-at-the-white-house/?utm_term=.c10a673517be
10
like the “ice cream scoops” story, MSM is all over this nonsense, INADVERTENTLY drawing attention to the “global cooling” science of the 70s!
however, the FakeNews hypocrites at Newsweek don’t even mention their own, much less anyone else’s, “cooling world”/global cooling stories of that decade:
15 May: Newsweek: White House Staff Have Been Printing Out ‘Fake News’ and Giving It to Trump
By Graham Lanktree
According to Politico, when Trump became upset about the fake cover and the media hypocrisy it seemed to show, his staff had to look into it and get him the truth before he said anything publicly.
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-staff-have-been-slipping-him-fake-news-609424
time for a laugh:
15 May: FastCompany: JOHN COOK: A Little Bit Of Fake News Could Be Good For You
It turns out that throwing more facts at people isn’t the full answer to alternative facts.
(John Cook is research assistant professor, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University. This story originally appeared at The Conversation)
As a psychologist researching misinformation, I focus on reducing its influence. Essentially, my goal is to put myself out of a job.
Recent developments indicate that I haven’t been doing a very good job of it. Misinformation, fake news, and “alternative facts” are more prominent than ever…
Fortunately, science does have a means to protect itself, and it comes from a branch of psychological research known as inoculation theory…
https://www.fastcompany.com/40421020/innoculating-against-fake-news-and-alternative-facts
10
Which Time magazine covers are the Fake ones and which are the originals.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Times+Cover+global+cooling&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAipDN-PPTAhULOrwKHe75AesQ_AUICigB&biw=1247&bih=725#imgrc=61iHV8ZyPZqW5M:
10
“Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth… “
Man’s release of dust and particles is nothing compared to what nature will do
https://watchers.news/2017/05/13/huge-plume-of-saharan-dust-over-the-atlantic-ocean/
and
https://watchers.news/2017/05/13/huge-plume-of-saharan-dust-over-the-atlantic-ocean/
Plus the dozen or so currently erupting volcanoes worldwide.
20
If you want to look at the complete satellite data for the South Polar region you can find slight cooling since DEC 1978 using UAH V 6. There is no warming for UAH V6 for TLT and minus -0.02 c cooling for UAH V 6 TMT. This is the same cooling trend as RSS V 4 TMT. Here’s the UAH V 6 link.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Using the RSS tool you can find very slight warming of SP region since DEC 1978 for TLT V 3 of 0.002 c and TTT V 4 of 0.006 c. But for TMT V 4 there is stronger cooling of -0.02 c. Here’s the RSS link.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
10
15 May: Yahoo: AFP: Nina Larson: New scrutiny of polar regions as world braces for climate shifts: UN
Geneva – Scientists will intensify scrutiny of the polar regions as part of an international campaign to improve global weather predictions and minimise risks linked to rapid climate change, the UN said Monday.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said a full year would be dedicated to improving polar forecasting capacities in the Arctic and another year would be spent doing the same in Antarctica…
The polar regions are by far the most impacted by climate change, warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world in some areas and facing rapidly retreating glaciers and sea ice.
But because of their harsh climates, these regions are also the most poorly observed by scientists and meteorologists, impacting the quality of weather forecasts not only for the polar areas but also elsewhere.
WMO chief Petteri Taalas said that “because of teleconnections, the poles influence weather and climate conditions in lower latitudes where hundreds of millions of people live.”
“Warming Arctic air masses and declining sea ice are believed to affect ocean circulation and the jet stream, and are potentially linked to extreme phenomena such as cold spells, heat waves and droughts in the northern hemisphere,” he said in a statement…
“The rate and implications of polar environmental change is pushing our scientific knowledge to the limits,” Thomas Jung, head of the Polar Prediction Project steering committee, said in the statement.
He pointed out that “Arctic sea-ice maximum extent after the winter re-freezing period in March was the lowest on record because of a series of ‘heat waves’.”
At the same time, the minimum level of sea ice in the Antarctic after the Southern Hemisphere summer melt was also the lowest on record, he said…
In fact, the anticipated opening of the sea in the Arctic is expected to lead to more severe waves and more challenging ice conditions for shipping.
“In an ice-free Arctic, wave height conditions of 25 feet (about eight metres) or greater could be the new norm that mariners may have to design a plan for,” the WMO warned.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35513778/new-scrutiny-of-poles-as-world-braces-for-climate-shifts-un/
the UN statement:
15 May: UN News Centre: Amid ‘dramatic’ climate changes, UN launches plan to step-up polar weather and sea-ice monitoring
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=56755#.WRqfAZK1sRo
10
So the alarmists are taking advantage of the massive solar coronal holes that have appeared on the sun since mid-November last year.
So far four (November, December/January(2off), March/April) of these have been earth facing events, and caused significant weather disruption each time.
As these coronal holes eject large amounts of charged particles our way they are attracted to the magnetic poles. As they arrive at earth’s polar regions they can cause significant warming in the atmosphere above the poles, over time (7 to 10 days or so) this filters down, and are seen as Stratospheric warming events. This transitory warming (lasting from a few days to a week or more) push the polar winds away towards the equator, and displace the normal air circulation around the poles. This also move the jet-streams towards the equator.
So far these events have have occurred prior to announcements of unusual polar warming.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/suvi-sees-large-coronal-hole-march-27-2017
So natural solar events have caused the polar warming, it is NOT a man-made conditions as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) attempts to elude to, and do not require the magic of ‘teleconnections’ hocus-pocus.
30
Also see the effect of these solar events here http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/10/analysis-confirms-global-warming-defying-protracted-northern-hemisphere-winter/
10
can’t resist posting this.
remember the Calabrian mafia clan, Arena. reminder:
Nov 2013: Reuters: UPDATE 1-German homes, offices searched in mafia wind farm probe
* Investigation centres on wind farm in southern Italy
* Wind farm seen controlled by Calabrian mafia clan
* Suspects believed to have helped mob launder money
The investigation centres on a wind farm near the “toe” of Italy’s boot that the Calabrian mob, known as the ‘Ndrangheta, is suspected to have bought using the proceeds from extortion, drug trafficking and other criminal activities.
Alexander Retemeyer, senior prosecutor in northern Germany’s Osnabrueck, told Reuters that about 20 homes and offices of suspects in the case were searched by around 200 officers in Germany. There were also raids in Austria, he said, without providing details.
The offices of German state-controlled lender HSH Nordbank , which had financed the wind park, were also searched, Retemeyer said. German wind turbine supplier Enercon said it had been visited but was not a target of the investigation.
HSH Nordbank provided 225 million euros ($304.3 million) in financing for the 96 megawatt (MW) wind farm near Isola di Capo Rizzuto in Calabria, but the lender itself and its employees are not under investigation, Retemeyer said.
Italian police first investigated the Calabrian wind farm in 2008, and the Catanzaro court seized it in 2012 on suspicion that the Arena clan owned it through a complex series of front men and companies.
At the time of its seizure in 2012, the 48-turbine wind park was considered one of the largest in Europe, finance police said, and it was indirectly owned by the brother of a former clan boss who was killed in 2004 when assassins shot his car with a bazooka…
http://www.reuters.com/article/hsh-investigation-idUSL5N0J43K220131119
they are in the news again today. worth reading all:
15 May: Local Italy: AFP: One of Italy’s largest migrant centres was mafia-run, say police
A police operation in the early hours of the morning led to 68 arrests, many of whom belonged to the Arena clan, part of the powerful Calabria-based ‘Ndrangheta mafia…
The Arena clan hit the headlines in 2012 after police seized assets from them worth 350 million euros, including one of Europe’s largest wind farms
https://www.thelocal.it/20170515/one-of-italys-largest-migrant-centres-was-mafia-run-say-police
20
An ice core temperature graph from the Antarctic Peninsula by Liz Thomson et al 2009
https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/plots_gomez_d18o.png
10
This isn’t about the Science here, but just a general observation about what is happening on that Antarctic Continent.
Every man and his dog is down there now doing all the research that
taxpayer’sgrant money can buy.Have you noticed that whenever you see any footage at all, they have every vehicle known to man, all of them driven by fossil fuels.
There’s more fossil fuel consumption going on down there than there ever has been in the history of the place. They have reliable access to electrical power, and they need it for what they do, and also to keep them all from actually freezing to death, again, all of it (reliably) powered by fossil fuels as well.
They get supplied from planes and ships, again all of them fossil fuel powered.
And surely they don’t actually think that we, the plebs paying for it all don’t see all this, or is it just taken for granted.
And tell me, the image at this link is right at the South Pole, where the highest average Summer temperature is only Minus 12.3C at best, and the average Winter Low gets down to Minus 63.4C
I, umm, wonder what the electrical power supply is for that place.
Tony.
52
more madness. according to the FakeNewsMSM –
Trump, who has not built or caused to be built a single coal-fired power station is a CLIMATE DENIER, CLIMATE PARIAH, DESTROYER OF THE PLANET, etc. etc…
while Xi Jinping/China are the CLIMATE LEADERS, CLIMATE SAVIOURS OF THE PLANET!
12 May: China Dialogue: Feng Hao: China’s Belt and Road Initiative still pushing coal
China’s involvement in coal power projects abroad casts a shadow over its first Belt and Road Forum.
The Global Environment Institute (GEI) has recently carried out a long term review of China’s involvement in coal power projects in 65 countries that are now participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
GEI’s figures show that between 2001 and 2016 China was involved in 240 coal power projects in BRI countries, with a total generating capacity of ***251 gigawatts.
The top five countries for Chinese involvement were India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Turkey.
The GEI research also found that China’s involvement in coal power projects in BRI countries, which often takes the form of contracting and equipment supply, has been increasing overall, despite large year-to-year fluctuations…
The BRI has created the conditions needed for Chinese power firms to work overseas, and there is also strong demand for new generating capacity among BRI countries…
China’s overseas coal power investments are regarded as ***possibly “exporting carbon emissions”…
In terms of development justice, Liu Qiang says that the poverty relief benefits associated with improving energy access through cheap coal power projects should also be considered when evaluating overseas coal projects…
Others are calling on China to shift its focus away from coal projects in Belt and Road countries altogether towards low carbon alternatives…(quotes a senior campaigner with Greenpeace India!)…
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9785-China-s-Belt-and-Road-Initiative-still-pushing-coal
***possibly “exporting carbon emissions”! lol.
10
Keep in mind that this is just in other Countries, and not the Chinese mainland itself.
That 251GW is Australian coal fired power Nameplate multiplied by 12
Tony.
10
Tony,
Maybe what we need is to rate coal (and gas) generation in equivalent wind power production(EWPP). Maybe that would get the message to penetrate better.
20
Annie May 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm
“I would go along with that PeterC. If God really is Almighty then He can use any means of creation or a mixture of them all; why not? Let us enjoy the Creation and puzzle our dear little human minds over it all…we’ve been given the gift of reason for a purpose although too many appear not to want to use it!”
The gift of reason ha!! GOD even uses Earthlings like T.A. Edison! He invented the “dark sucker”! Flip the switch and all the dark gets sucked from the surround. When the thing craps out; you can tell it is full of dark by that spot on one side! 🙂
14
The Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and is related to the universal pause in temperature.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/apr/Olivaetal2017b.jpg
10
***sooner or later….
16 May: WaPo: Speaking of Science: Experts fear ‘quiet springs’ as songbirds can’t keep up with climate change
by Ben Guarino
But the danger of a silent spring, according to ecologists who study birds, did not evaporate with DDT. The looming threat is not chemical but a changing climate, in which spring begins increasingly earlier — or in rare cases, ***later — each year…
“The rate at which birds are falling out of sync with their environment is almost certainly unsustainable,” ecologist Stephen J. Mayor told The Washington Post. Mayor, a postdoctoral researcher at University of Florida’s Florida Museum of Natural History, echoed Carson: “We can end up with these increasingly quiet springs.”
Certain migratory songbirds can’t keep pace with the shifting start of spring, Mayor and his colleagues wrote in a Scientific Reports study published Monday…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/16/experts-fear-quiet-springs-as-songbirds-cant-keep-up-with-climate-change/?utm_term=.d36383bec3ba
***not a lot, as they are lost…but…
16 May: Phys.org: Lindsey Brooke: ***What can lost underwater lands tell us about climate change?
Underwater lands that were submerged following the last Ice Age could yield vital clues about our current approach to climate change. Global experts in archaeology, climate change, history and oceanography are discussing how we can unlock these secrets at a prestigious Royal Society meeting on 15 May 2017.
Among the speakers will be Dr Eugene Ch’ng, an expert in modelling and visualization of large ancient terrestrial and marine landscapes from the University of Nottingham Ningbo China. Dr Ch’ng heads the NVIDIA Joint-Lab on Mixed Reality and is project lead for complex systems modelling and simulation of the European Research Coucil’s (ERC) ‘Lost Frontiers’ research project.
Dr Ch’ng said: “The modelling, mapping and analysis of massive ancient terrestrial and marine landscape ecology, environmental change, population movement spanning hundreds of thousands of square kilometres and hundreds of millions of agents – such as the flora, fauna, people and environmental factors – have implications for real-world discovery and applications. However, the greatest barrier to realising massive agent-based modelling is the computational resources required to store and simulate these detailed interactions within 3-D terrains. We need to develop strategies for scalable agent-based modelling, simulation and visualisation in time and space of large ancient landscapes.”…
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-lost-underwater-climate.html
10
a month ago this was a potential $9 billion find, which could provide thousands of jobs:
16 Apr: Courier Mail: Rare geological structures found in Queensland could trigger new gold rush
by Jessica Marszalek
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/rare-geological-structures-found-in-queensland-could-trigger-new-gold-rush/news-story/f9de39837c949b6b39908a420221235c
today it has a CAGW slant, is worth trillions of $$$, and could employ a million people!
Get set for a new Queensland gold rush
Courier Mail-21 hours ago
btw they changed the headline; guess it was too similar to the one they used last month! it is now:
16 May: Courier Jacinda Tutty: Diamantina minerals province next mining boom
TUCKED away in the Queensland Outback, trillions of dollars lies buried beneath the ground…
The potential lies in the discovery of a treasure trove of rare geological pipe structures southwest of Mount Isa, thought to be up to 6km in diameter and laden with valuable minerals.
They are believed to be holding vast deposits of gold, silver, platinum and rare earth minerals used in modern technologies such as mobile phones, batteries and engines, as well as cobalt, nickel, copper, niobium, hafnium, zirconium, tantalum and diamonds…
Every megawatt of electricity generated in a wind turbine needs 200kg of neodymium. For every five turbines, that’s one tonne…
A Toyota Prius uses 9kg of rare earths in its battery alone. There are more than 30,000 on the road in Australia and it’s just one of many hybrid vehicles being sold today.
If renewable energy is going to play a big part in replacing fossil fuels, the world needs to secure an increased supply of rare minerals in the coming decades.
It’s what makes this latest discovery in Queensland such a prize…
***Minister for Natural Resources and Mines Dr Anthony Lynham: “Rare earths can be regarded as pivotal for the shift from a carbon-based economy to the new 21st century electron economy of the future.”…
Northern Minerals managing director George Bauk predicts that about 100 people can be employed in a rare earth mine itself, but if a supply chain could be developed downstream for in-demand products in Australia similar to China, it could employ one million people…READ ALL
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/diamantina-minerals-province-next-mining-boom/news-story/94affdb3a975f1662688ebf0fdb97bc9
10
16 May: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Network owner Ausnet sees grid dominated by wind and solar
Ausnet Services, the largest operator of electricity and gas networks in Victoria, has given its vision of what the grid of the future might look like in that state – and it is one dominated by wind and solar…
CHART
The chart above, made during Ausnet’s annual results presentation on Tuesday, indicates how the network operator sees the generation portfolio expanding – the number of wind farms will double, and numerous solar farms will be built in the north-west and north of the state…READ ON
http://reneweconomy.com.au/network-owner-ausnet-sees-grid-dominated-by-wind-and-solar-19103/
16 May: RenewEconomy: Sophie Vorrath: Big solar passes 100GW global milestone, Australia in reach of top 10
Global installed capacity of utility-scale solar power stations has passed the milestone 100 gigawatt mark, according to the latest data from wiki-solar.org, which has put the global total at just above 101GW, as at the end of March, 2017.
The Wiki-Solar report, released late last week, said that more than 70 countries around the world had now installed at least some capacity of utility-scale solar plant, with 13 countries – led by China –accounting for almost 95GW of that global total…
Australia, which just two years ago was dragging its heels at number 24 in the global rankings, is coming up in the big solar world, according to Wiki-Solar founder Philip Wolfe, with enough large-scale projects in the development pipeline to bring into the top 10…READ ON
http://reneweconomy.com.au/big-solar-passes-100gw-global-milestone-australia-reach-top-10-40378/
10
15 May: CapeBretonPost: Nancy King: Forgotten washer suspected to have caused Point Tupper turbine collapse
Second wind turbine to collapse in Cape Breton in past year
POINT TUPPER, N.S. — It was suspected that a washer was forgotten inside the hub of a wind turbine under repair that subsequently collapsed hours later, labour department documents show.
E-mails between the investigating body, the Department of Labour and Advanced Education, and turbine manufacturer Enercon were recently disclosed by the department…
In January, the Cape Breton Post made a request under Freedom of Information for the labour department’s report on the investigation into the collapse, after another unrelated collapse occurred at a turbine in Grand Etang, Inverness Co…
Initially, when The Post requested the Department of Labour and Advanced Education’s report on its investigation into the collapse, it was told the investigative file contained more than 1,200 pages of documents that would require 60 hours to process and would cost a total of $1,890 to obtain…READ ALL
http://www.capebretonpost.com/news/local/2017/5/15/forgotten-washer-suspected-to-have-caused-point-tupper-turbine-c.html
10
1 out of 7 models not being completely wrong (showing any positive trend toward more ice) is a lot more than I would have thought given the stellar (/sarc) performance of the climate models to date. Cheers –
10
Why does HTML force T^4 as T²·² and T^5 as T³·²
I know picky picky!
10
Modelling Antarctic sea ice extent has been difficult, but it is worth noting that March 2017 saw the lowest Antarctic sea ice extent on record by quite a long shot. It is also worth noting that total planetary sea ice has been steadily declining since 1979 when continuous satellite measurements begun. This is consistent with increasing average global surface temperatures, wouldn’t you say?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
10
Only if you believe that correlation always implies causation, which it does not.
What scale of measurement is implied by “a long shot”? The Antarctic has been gaining sea ice, and the Arctic has been losing it. It appears to be a cyclic phenomenon. I am left wondering why you chose the specific month of March 2017, as your frame of reference?
I doubt that it is caused by the traffic in down-town Manhattan. More probably, it is down to variations in solar output, and corresponding changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere.
11
Hello, thanks for your reply.
“long shot” a bit colloquial I admit. To put the results on a scale using in the words of NASA themselves, “in Feb. 13, the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice numbers were at their lowest point since satellites began to continuously measure sea ice in 1979. Total polar sea ice covered 6.26 million square miles (16.21 million square kilometers), which is 790,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) less than the average global minimum extent for 1981-2010 – the equivalent of having lost a chunk of sea ice larger than Mexico”.
If you are wondering why I used the month of March 2017 as a frame of reference, it was because I was talking about the current state of sea ice in Antarctica in March 2017. It isn’t as if I have gone into the historical record to “cherry pick” some selective piece of data to try to make a point. Do you think that this latest measurement of sea ice extent is not relevant to this discussion on sea ice extent?
I am assuming that you are using traffic in down-town Manhattan as a rhetorical proxy for global CO2 emissions? We have a very good theory of how increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing at the surface. We also have direct in-situ measurements demonstrating this effect. Why would you conclude that variations in solar output and corresponding changes in the earths magnetosphere are more probably the cause of what we are currently observing. We know that variations in solar output are cyclical and the corresponding variation in solar forcing as a function of these cycles is pretty small compared to the increase in forcing due to greenhouse gases, so it can’t be that. You must be talking about some speculative, fringe ideas instead. I know that changes in the earths magnetic field does have an important influence on conditions in the thermosphere and ionosphere, but I am not aware of any well argued theory that these effects come close to displacing greenhouse gases as the major cause of warming at the surface. Moreover, unlike the case of greenhouse gases, I am not aware of any measurements that demonstrate this connection. Nonetheless, you think that despite the lack of any evidence to support your conjecture, and the preponderance of evidence in favour of the prevailing greenhouse theory, “More probably, it is down to variations in solar output, and corresponding changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere”.
That’s really interesting. It would be great to see the thought process that leads you to this conclusion.
10
Using the word “good” to describe any theory about greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is inaccurate. A test of a “good theory” is that it bears some relevance to what happens in the physical world. The terminology “greenhouse gasses” and “increasing radiative forcing” have no meaning in terms of the physical world. If you think they do then please describe it for me.
Who is the “We” and can you provide the measurements that support anything in the physical world that has meaning to this so-called good theory.
10
The terminology I have used is common and well understood in the current context and you know it. Trying to pretend that there is some semantic error in the way I have expressed myself is kind of funny.
What is mysterious about the use of the word “We”? Do you really have such a problem with the vernacular use of language?
Would you call this the work presented in the paper below “measurements that support anything in the physical world that has meaning to this so-called good theory”?
Feldman, D. R., W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, and T. R. Shippert. “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010.” Nature 519, no. 7543 (February 25, 2015): 339–43. doi:10.1038/nature14240.
By the way, the opening sentence is …
“The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified
in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between
estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present day
concentrations of these gases.”
10
Fred
Greenhouse gases and forcing are nonsense climate speak. They are nonsense words and do not convey useful meaning. Your “We” certainly does not include me.
There are constituents of the atmosphere that reflect, absorb and emit electromagnetic radiation. They affect the transmission of electro-magnetic waves through the atmosphere, both incoming SWR and OLR. No one can accurately quantify their impact on the global energy balance. Although gullible individuals believe otherwise.
One aspect that can be demonstrated by observation and measurement is that water dominates over all other radiative responsive constituents of the atmosphere with regard to affect on EMR. The rest of the constituents are bit players that are dominated by water to the extent that there are just part of the noise. The one exception is the occurrence of extremely large volumes of volcanic ash that have altered the energy balance from time to time.
00
Will,
those are some of the most stunningly misinformed comments I’ve heard. Of course, if you are not prepared to avail yourself of the published results of scientific examination, then I completely understand your insistence on withdrawing yourself from the set of those of us that I am referring to when I use the collective “We”.
Greenhouse gas and radiative forcing are ubiquitous terms that are so widely used that they have definitions in the Oxford dictionary. Claiming that they are nonsense words seems to be an attempt obfuscate. Where do you get these ideas from?
The 020 (v=2 centred at around 660cm-1) band of CO2 is a highly prominent feature on the spectra of outgoing infrared radiation from the planet as well as spectra of downwelling radiation at the surface. To say that the effects of CO2, and other IR active gases in the atmosphere apart from water are indistinguishable from noise is an amazing claim. CO2 absorptions alone effectively attenuate the outgoing OLR by about 10%.
Accurately quantifying the impact of CO2 and other atmospheric gases on the global energy balance is not easy to to do, good estimates exist, but as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, We ( don’t worry, I don’t mean you Rick ) will be able to refine this a great deal. That isn’t gullible, it is actually a worthy scientific endeavor.
00
Fred you have made some bold claims here:
Can you provide any measured evidence that CO2 is anything but a bit player, indistinguishable from noise of water, in Earth’s energy balance. Water in the atmosphere in the form of clouds reflect almost 30% of TOA SWR and absorbs another 20% – 50% of all SWR reaching the planet is affected by water. The little green bit right out at the low energy end of the spectrum in the linked chart clearly shows the infinitesimally small absorption of CO2 for downwelling solar radiation under clear skies:
https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/drawing.png
Specifically how much more or less solar energy would reach the surface if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere compared with existing concentration? How does it compare with the 50% that water has affected.
Under what basis does CO2 attenuate 10% of the OLR? Is that clear skies? Cloudy? 30% humidity, 80% humidity? Any detectible impact of CO2 on OLR through the atmosphere is saturated by 100ppm. Increasing CO2 above that level has an insignificant affect on OLR. Water is significant and small changes in water are significant. CO2 is insignificant and changes in CO2 are have undetected impact. If it did have an impact data rather than models could be used to prove it.
00
Fred
Rather than just believe what you read it pays to do your own research and look at data objectively. I took the NSIDC of sea ice extent data and plotted it to a zero baseline. This is the result:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgVQxxALD4EXWLeWB
No cause for concern there. The globe is/was heating at least to the end of 2015 – about 0.19C since 1970. There was a large loss of heat in 2016 due to high ocean temperature in the Coral Sea and reduced Antarctic ice in the Austral summer as all that warmer water headed south. That means there has been a tremendous loss of heat in the climate system in the last 12 months so ocean temperatures are still heading lower for the next year or so.
11
Yes,
2016 was unusual in many ways, and I am sure we will see some recovery in the antarctic sea ice extent over the winter. I wasn’t attempting to suggest that the March 2017 results were a part of a trend, I was pointing it out because they were anomalous and therefore noteworthy.
I will be interested to see how things shape up in the next couple of years.
With respect to you graph, it would be interesting to have a look a the following for each hemisphere
plot the average April monthly ice extent ( for the arctic at least )
plot of annual min
plot of annual max
and plot of max – min
The theory says that increased warming of the atmosphere should lead to increased moisture content and therefore more precipitation in winter, but greater melt losses in the summer, so looking at annual averages is interesting, but there may be some more info in the data.
10
The precipitable water has gone up as expected with rising ocean surface temp – about 0.7C since 1960 to 2015:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/ps2pdf.cgi?file=data/iersstv4_0-360E_-90-90N_n.eps.gz
resulting in about 5% increase in TPW
http://climexp.knmi.nl/ps2pdf.cgi?file=data/ihadcruh_q_0-360E_-90-90N_n.eps.gz
Rain occurs due to radiative heat transfer to space from the atmosphere. That has very little to do with TPW in the atmosphere although atmospheric water distribution can affect it. Rain only increases if there is more heat being lost through atmospheric OLR. There is no trend in precipitation:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/ps2pdf.cgi?file=data/igpcp_23_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1997:2017.eps.gz
Essentially constant at 2.7mm/day for the last 20 years; representing 80W/sq.m lost to water evaporation and then solidifying to ice in the upper atmosphere to form clouds.
None of the present climate trends are alarming. Variations observed are typical of a system that is self-stabilising. There could be serious consequences if Drake’s Passage is bridged by ice from Antarctica as that will slow the current in the Southern Ocean and lead to dramatic redistribution of heat on the globe – notably Europe and eastern side of North America freeze up. Australian east coast will get warmer and much wetter.
11
The effects of warmer atmosphere and declining sea ice on winter precipitation in the Arctic is fairly well documented around the place. For example this paper from non other than Judith Curry
Liu, J., J. A. Curry, H. Wang, M. Song, and R. M. Horton. “Impact of Declining Arctic Sea Ice on Winter Snowfall.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 11 (March 13, 2012): 4074–79. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114910109 (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4074.full.pdf).
It is interesting that you say “Variations observed are typical of a system that is self-stabilising”. If you mean that at certain timescales the climate will tend to equilibrate, then that is pretty hard to dispute. A stable climate system (at a changed equilbrium point) isn’t necessarily advantageous on balance. That’s not being alarmist, that’s just being uncertain.
10
The paper was published in 2011. The Arctic sea ice extent reached its minimum in the satellite era in 2012. The paper needs to be revisited and updated to reflect the increasing extent.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_5years_en.png
Arctic temperature has been lower than average for some weeks now:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Greenland has shown a dramatic rise in ice accumulation this year:
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
The chart I linked to above shows no trend in global precipitation. I expect I could find regional trends if I looked for them but the total is trendless. Things that might increase global precipitation would be higher land retention of water due to increased greening as a consequence of more CO2 in the atmosphere but that is multi-decade to centuries trend. In that case there is more water distributed above the land and higher proportion of OLR has to take the long road out via radiative gasses rather than the direct path causing more rain.
01
So six out seven models got one year right out of how many?
I though climate was about “trends”…
It’s consistent with random chance.
01