Q&A: Europe's freezing Easter and global warming

Mar 29, 2013 by Karl Ritter
A swimmer gets out of the water next to a snowman with bunny ears at the snow covered beach of Strandbad Lake Wannsee lido in Berlin, Germany, Good Friday March 29, 2013. Bathing season at the lido traditionally starts on Good Friday. '(AP Photo/dpa, Rainer Jensen)

(AP)—Is it Easter or Christmas? Many Europeans would be forgiven for being confused by winter's icy grip on lands that should be thawing in springtime temperatures by now.

Britain is on track for the coldest March since 1962, according to the Met Office, which also says daily low temperatures in London are going to remain below freezing through the Easter holiday. The mean temperature in Britain from March 1-26 was 2.5 C (36.5 F)—three degrees below the long-term average.

In Berlin, saw a new round of snowfall and temperatures just above freezing. The city's popular lakeside beach opened for the season as planned, though it wasn't exactly beach weather. Some visitors built a snowman and few ventured into the freezing water.
___

What's going on?

As always when you talk about weather, natural variability is a big factor. But an increasing body of research suggests that cold spells like the one that has lingered in northern and for much of March could become more common as a result of global warming melting the .

A man pulls a child on a sled in a snowy park in Leipzig, Germany, Good Friday March 29, 2013. Weather forecasts predict a snowy and cold Easter weekend. (AP Photo/dpa,Jan Woitas)

Q: Why is it so cold in much of Europe right now?

A: Normally, European winters are kept relatively mild by wet, from the Atlantic. But in March, the wind has been blowing mostly from the northeast, bringing freezing down over much of Europe.

Q: So why are the winds coming from the northeast?

A: The winds are driven by which in turn are affected by differences in between northern and southern latitudes. For much of March this circulation has been in a negative state, meaning the pressure difference is small. That weakens the westerly Atlantic winds and paves the way for cold air to sweep down over Europe from the Arctic and Siberia.

Bicycles are covered with snow in Leipzig, eastern Germany, Good Friday March 29, 2013. Weather forecassts predict a snowy and cold Easter weekend. (AP Photo/dpa,Jan Woitas)

Q: What does that have to do with ?

A: Global warming is melting the ice cap over the . Last September, it reached its lowest extent on record. Climate models show that the loss of sea ice—which acts as a lid on the ocean, preventing it from giving off heat—triggers feedback mechanisms that shake up the climate system further. A series of studies in recent years have shown that one such effect could be changes in atmospheric circulation, resulting in more frequent cold snaps in Europe.

Snow-covered beach chairs stand at the lido of Strandbad Wannsee in Berlin, Germany, Good Friday March 29, 2013. Bathing season at the lido traditionally starts on Good Friday. (AP Photo/dpa, Rainer Jensen)

Q: How would melting Arctic ice lead to cold snaps?

A: The theory is the loss of sea ice means more heat is released from the open ocean, warming the layer of polar air over the water. That reduces the temperature and air pressure differentials with more southern latitudes, increasing the likelihood of a negative state in the atmospheric circulation. Experts stress that winter weather is affected by many other factors, but several studies have shown the Arctic melt loads the dice in favor of colder and snowier winters in Europe. One study by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany showed European cold snaps could become three times more likely because of shrinking sea ice.

The first swimmers of the season walk into the water at the snowy beach of Strandbad Wannsee in Berlin, Germany, Good Friday March 29, 2013. Bathing season at the lido traditionally starts on Good Friday. (AP Photo/dpa,Rainer Jensen)

Q: What's the impact on the jet stream?

A: Some studies suggest that the shrinking sea ice also shifts the polar jet stream, a high-altitude air current that flows from west to east. Bigger waves in the meandering jet stream allow frigid air to spill southward from the Arctic, they say. Other climate experts are uncertain about this effect, saying more research is needed.

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

3.7 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arctic ice melt sets stage for cold weather

Jun 06, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think. That's because melting Arctic sea ice can trigger a domino effect ...

Is global warming causing harsher winters?

Mar 28, 2013

Millions of people in northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when—officially—spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 111

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VENDItardE
1.7 / 5 (27) Mar 29, 2013
total Bullsh*t
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 29, 2013
total Bullsh*t


Would you like to elucidate as to why?
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2013
If you look closely, you can see it is not really Vendi but rather someone sprinkling capital letters in the name. Just a troller trying to get someone wound up.
radek
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2013
"The theory is the loss of sea ice means more heat is released from the open ocean, warming the layer of polar air over the water. That reduces the temperature and air pressure differentials with more southern latitudes, increasing the likelihood of a negative state in the atmospheric circulation."

currently Arctis Sea is fully frozen so what makes air to warm? Described mechanism doesn`t work at this moment.

Additionally - it`s no only Europe suffering harsh winters last few years.

gregor1
2 / 5 (20) Mar 29, 2013
Here's a rebuttal. "European Institute For Climate And Energy Calls The New "Warm-Cold Hypothesis" Meteorological Nonsense!"
http://notrickszo...onsense/
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2013
It's a pretty good article. I don't know why they're saying "the theory is..." haven't they cateloged the weather patterns? History, not theory?
As usual, they miss the primary power of water to store and release heat, and focus on secondary effects. But hey, pobody nerfect.
Good article.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2013
@gregor1, good article thanks, it does need a grain of salt, and less sarcasm though.
If I put a candle underneath a basin of water with ice in it, it is not difficult to contrive scenario's where the water increases temperature (heat is added quickly), cools overall (ice is allowed to melt quickly), have local effects, (hotter on the bottom, colder on the top), the net effect, is of course, little temperature change. Which is what we observe with our own Earth.
Europe is experiencing what the US Pacific Northwest did through the '90s, drastic effects of cold arctic run-off.
praos
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 30, 2013
Has anyone troubled to study the influence of all these windmills on the circulation of the atmosphere? Total average power of the wind over Germany is about 150 GW (in winter even less), while rated power of German windmills is about 30 GW. A windmill stops wind more efficiently than a hill. All these windmill-belts (Scotland, Holland, Denmark, Germany) act essentially as a new Alps pushed up in the North Europe. So much about green energy.
Bob_Kob
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
Where did you get the figure of 150GW? I would summise that even a slight breeze over a country would have a staggering amount of energy in it, greater than the little that could be extracted through turbines.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013
Bob: He made it up. I would also like to see the reference that praos used for his rant. praos would you please give us some references that back up your numbers?
Doug_Huffman
1.9 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2013
The new normal, with doxastic commitment from N45.8. Windmills are the target subjects of Don Quixote and squire Sancho PONZI's sanchismos.

On windmills; Cada buhonero alaba sus agujas. ("A peddler praises his needles (wares).)" Each seller tries to convince potential buyers that his merchandise is the best. In a broader sense, people tend to praise what is theirs, often overstating qualities.
Used ironically to criticize a person who boasts about his merits.

triplehelix
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 30, 2013
"It's a pretty good article. I don't know why they're saying "the theory is..." haven't they cateloged the weather patterns? History, not theory?" - TheAlchemist.

That is not how scientific theories work. A theory is a body of facts and laws that together provide an overall "panoramic" view of the subject, a highly useful explanative tool.

However, this "theory" is rubbish anyway because March-April in Europe last year was record high, and the Arctic ice had receded similarly to this years as well, so you've got Variable A, arctic ice, and Variable B, temperature. Variable A barely changes, and yet Variable B is swinging all over the place. Ergo, we will get a p value of 0.9999 so we must accept the null hypothesis that these variables are not affecting each other.

Eastern winds make it cold, western winds make it warm due to gulf stream. What decides these winds? Many MANY variables, not just CO2....But try telling that to the envirozealots. UND PRECIZELY VUN ZARIABLE!!!!!!
triplehelix
2.1 / 5 (21) Mar 30, 2013
http://nsidc.org/...re22.png

Shows sea ice cover of arctic, as you can see, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 are almost identical.

Now lets look at temperature records of 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, more specifically, the months of Feburary, and March, which this article is discussing.

Now lets see...

http://www.metoff...rch.html

What? Record high temperatures??

So again, we have sea ice coverage staying virtually the same last year and this year, and temperaturs are OPPOSITE, one breaking hot records, the other, cold records.

Sea ice coverage is OBVIOUSLY NOT A KEY VARIABLE HERE
triplehelix
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 30, 2013
Actually, on a 2nd more intensive look, 2012-2013 has MORE sea ice coverage than last years! Yet this year is cold, not last year!

Here come the "You have only used 2 years of data which is insignificant" argument.

My rebuttal, you only test variables on one sample, one planet, and cannot repeat or replicate, yet apparently I am wrong on this? So its okay for everyone to state 1-2 dataplots aren't significant, but testing on just one planet, about planetary science is fine...Pot kettle black.
radek
1.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013
it`s easy to explain why it`s cold in Europe - that`s because snow coverage. It has high albedo so reflects solar energy and ground is not heated enough to melt snow. Less melting couses less watar vapour in the atmosphere so it means less clouds. Energy is radiated back to atmosphere from the ground during cloudless nights. But this is only RESULT not the reason.
triplehelix
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 30, 2013
Radek if that was the case any time anywhere snowed it would be a positive feedback response. Many times snowfall has been followed by sudden warmth. I agree with your science on a local level, but an entire continent...Hmmm...

The reason is shit happens, that and the sun this year is very inactive

http://www.solarham.net/

I know it sounds crazy to the envirozealots but a massive fusion reactor 1.3 million times bigger than our planet does tend to make a difference to temperatures.
triplehelix
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 30, 2013
A simple google is your friend.

It is no coincidence that 2012 contained massive solar storms and high sunspot activity and was a considerably hot spring, record hot in fact, since 1910 and 1957 depending on locations.

It is also no coincidence that 2013 we are seeing an unusually low amount of sun activity despite the fact the sun is meant to be at its maximum part of the cycle. Regardless, sun activity so far has been extremely weak, and lo and behold, we have cold weather. The sun is supposed to up its activity later this year. It appears the suns activity is getting later naturally, and thus explains why seasons are shifting slightly and why november/december has been uncharacteristically warm over many years now, but winter has shifted more into the March April.

A giant fusion reactor astronomically very close to us does affect temperatures I am afraid...
radek
2.2 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2013
looks like I`ve been misunderstood - I wanted to say that localy or from meteorologist perspective we know why. But is not the answer from climate perspective and we should look for reason why snow coverage last so long.

I`m also convinced that solar activity is a key and I wrote it few times on Phys. I`m sure that current way we measure solar activity is wrong. We should focus on Eart directed CME because they provide huge amount of energy.Of course there is a link between number of spots - the chance that the CME will hit the Earth is simply higher because of bigger number of CME. But I`m sure there were a lot of years then high number of spots doesn`t mean that there high number of CME Earth directed. We need to measure it and currently we can. But we need more data.
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (16) Mar 30, 2013
@radek, you're absolutely right about the Sun being the dominant driver. However, imagine every day from the US commute/gasoline consumption, we release the same amount of energy, as waste heat, as a nuclear bomb. It is enough energy to melt 5.5 million cubic meters (m3) of ice, or raise 434 million m3 of water 1 degree centigrade. The world releases 8-10 x this every day.
Unlike the Sun's energy, nearly 100% is absorbed into the environment.
@triplehelix, history and measurement are the best ways to remove a theory. If you want to dispute the measurement, peace.
However, the article's statments are hardly controversial or theoretical. The effects are well established in any textbook. Since they *purport* to be measurig them...
Anyway, I like your links, but you do seem to be rushing to conclusins with them.
Doug_Huffman
2.4 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2013
You can find anything you want in G00gle's Restaurant, 'ceptin' Alice - truth!
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (22) Mar 30, 2013
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

http://www.theaus...09140980
Sean_W
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 30, 2013
"Global warming is melting the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean. Last September, it reached its lowest extent on record."


The fact that this is constantly mentioned without mentioning the associated fact that the record low sea ice last year was caused by storms (not common but not unheard of) which broke up the sea ice and pushed it south just so people will think it is evidence of warming, is evidence that these people have no faith in their own theory.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013
currently Arctis Sea is fully frozen so what makes air to warm? Described mechanism doesn`t work at this moment.


At the start of this winter a large area of the east Arctic seas were open - that is the critical bit, initial conditions, because that warmth/moisture is available to aid the early/stronger formation of the Eurasian snowfield ( otherwise quite isolated from ocean moisture ). In winters when this happens the Siberian high becomes a more dominant force for the following winter. That in turn induces long-waves in the NH circulation - which this year caused wave breaking into the stratosphere - disrupted the vortex and caused a negative AO to persist since the New year. Weak solar years ( Maunder ) are more likely to cause a warming of the strat from above this also weakens/disrupts the vortex.
http://www.nws.no...2211.htm
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2013
........fact that the record low sea ice last year was caused by storms (not common but not unheard of) which broke up the sea ice and pushed it south just so people will think it is evidence of warming, is evidence that these people have no faith in their own theory.


No.....http://phys.org/n...ice.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
Actually, on a 2nd more intensive look, 2012-2013 has MORE sea ice coverage than last years! Yet this year is cold, not last year!

No....http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
And how thick is it given a warmer that average Arctic winter? Likely thinner than last and more vulnerable to the coming Summers melt. This things can get into a feed-back loop once started.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013
Now lets see... http://www.metoff...rch.html What? Record high temperatures??[/q}
Regional temps and a small region at that. No one is saying that Low Arctic ice will give the same following winter conditions every year. So again, we have sea ice coverage staying virtually the same last year No we haven't see earlier post AND it's INITIAL CONDITIONS that matter. See earlier post.
and this year, and temperatures are OPPOSITE, one breaking hot records, the other, cold records. Sea ice coverage is OBVIOUSLY NOT A KEY VARIABLE HERE

Cherry-picking. The whole point of this article is to try to give an explanation to a hemispheric circulation change and picking out regional temps will mislead. Here see the current temperature anomalies in the NH for an example ( at 850mb/5000ft - will be same anomaly at surface ). http://www.meteoc...rchive=0
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2013
However, this "theory" is rubbish anyway because March-April in Europe last year was record high, and the Arctic ice had receded similarly to this years as well


From article.. "Experts stress that winter weather is affected by many other factors, but several studies have shown the Arctic melt loads the dice in favor of colder and snowier winters in Europe. One study by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany showed European cold snaps could become three times more likely because of shrinking sea ice."

Usual denialist simplistic thinking. As the article says .."loads the dice in favor" and "3 times more likely". Do try and think of the climate in terms of probabilities arriving out of a very complex system - and AGW *may* play a part in this phenomenom. It's a region for further study but speaking as a meteorologist it makes intuitive sense.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
Here's a rebuttal. "European Institute For Climate And Energy Calls The New "Warm-Cold Hypothesis" Meteorological Nonsense!"
http://notrickszo...onsense/

Froma Blog wrtten by .. Pierre L. Gosselin

Who says of himself ...
"I'm a US citizen, received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Now I live in Europe and help my wife, the owner, run a small business that provides services for industry. I've always been a skeptic of the AGW hypothesis, and view myself as a mere spectator in the climate change debate and arena."

That is in no way a rebuttal.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013
Fixing broken link from earlier...

http://www.meteoc...rchive=0
radek
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
currently Arctis Sea is fully frozen so what makes air to warm? Described mechanism doesn`t work at this moment.


At the start of this winter a large area of the east Arctic seas were open - that is the critical bit, initial conditions, because that warmth/moisture is available to aid the early/stronger formation of the Eurasian snowfield ( otherwise quite isolated from ocean moisture ).


I mentiond about this (snow coverage) but this is short term answer. Arctic Sea have never been completly frozen when one look at avarage September/October ice extent: http://neven1.typ...2970b-pi so Syberia is not isolated from that warm/moistured air

However last autumn ice extent was record law. It made me check how ice coverage impact the average temparature in Europe. I`ve found data about ice coverage 2007-2012 (minimum ice)
http://nsidc.org/...minimum/

radek
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013
cd runrig

http://nsidc.org/...minimum/

Then I`ve found temperature statistics (three Norwegian cities- Tromso located SW, Trondheim coast middle of Norway, Narvik located NE) from 2008-2013 to calculate Pearson corelation between ice coverage in the autumn and temperature in February (no data available for March 2013).

Results: Tromso -0,727 (-0,49*); Trondheim -0,496(-0,35*); Narvik -0,775 (-0,439*)

*when data set includes longterm avarage

As You see this is closer to opposite correlation which means - more ice coverage = lower temperature

Find another data set (different cities) do the math and post.

http://www.yr.no/...h02.html
http://www.yr.no/...h02.html
http://www.yr.no/...h02.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013
At the start of this winter a large area of the east Arctic seas were open - that is the critical bit, initial conditions, because that warmth/moisture is available to aid the early/stronger formation of the Eurasian snowfield ( otherwise quite isolated from ocean moisture ).


I mentioned about this (snow coverage) but this is short term answer. Arctic Sea have never been completely frozen when one look at avarage September/October ice extent: http://neven1.typ...2970b-pi


No, the Eurasian coast is never fully ice-locked but look at that link - there is ( by eye ) around twice as much sea exposed and of course at a higher temperature than average to boot. Look here ..........http://www.ospo.n...2012.gif
E Arctic seas of order of 5C above average. That's a lot of extra moisture available to convect into the atmosphere and fall as snow.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013
Then I`ve found temperature statistics (three Norwegian cities- Tromso located SW, Trondheim coast middle of Norway, Narvik located NE) from 2008-2013 to calculate Pearson corelation between ice coverage in the autumn and temperature in February (no data available for March 2013). Results: Tromso -0,727 (-0,49*); Trondheim -0,496(-0,35*); Narvik -0,775 (-0,439*) *when data set includes longterm avarage As You see this is closer to opposite correlation which means - more ice coverage = lower temperature


I would not expect those particular locations to correlate - much too far north. If there is a correlation ( and this article says there is ) it will be with places like Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, more weakly London. They are more likely to receive milder westerlies in an average winter.
radek
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013
Then I`ve found temperature statistics (three Norwegian cities- Tromso located SW, Trondheim coast middle of Norway, Narvik located NE) from 2008-2013 to calculate Pearson corelation between ice coverage in the autumn and temperature in February (no data available for March 2013). Results: Tromso -0,727 (-0,49*); Trondheim -0,496(-0,35*); Narvik -0,775 (-0,439*) *when data set includes longterm avarage As You see this is closer to opposite correlation which means - more ice coverage = lower temperature


I would not expect those particular locations to correlate - much too far north. If there is a correlation ( and this article says there is ) it will be with places like Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, more weakly London. They are more likely to receive milder westerlies in an average winter.


most parts of Norway as well as most of Western Europe is sea climate with strong impact of Gulfstrom. But I didn`t count. Find a city do the math and we will see.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Mar 30, 2013
Europe's freezing Easter and global warming
There are no natural weather and climate variables anymore. If it's warm, it's because of AGW. If it's cold, it's because of AGW. If it's raining, it's because of AGW. If it's sunny, it's because of AGW... If global temperatures go up, it's AGW. If global temperatures decline, it's AGW.

AGW, AGW, AGW, AGW. It's all AGW, all the time.

Don't bother trying to reason it out. Don't bother trying to explain it. It is what it is, regardless of what it is. It's AGW, Baby.

...So, is "AGW" the new way to spell, God?
triplehelix
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2013
TheAlchemist, you said

"@triplehelix, history and measurement are the best ways to remove a theory. If you want to dispute the measurement, peace."

What? The theory of evolution has lots of measurements from history, this does not "trump" a theory. You still don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes.

http://www.homerd...udes.pdf
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2013
TheAlchemist, you said

"@triplehelix, history and measurement are the best ways to remove a theory. If you want to dispute the measurement, peace."

What? The theory of evolution has lots of measurements from history, this does not "trump" a theory. You still don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is!


OK, you win, I'm an idiot.
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2013
Did you read my link runrig? Perhaps you missed this bit?
"By meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls
European Institute for Climate and Energy
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)"
http://notrickszo...onsense/
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2013
Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes.

http://www.homerd...udes.pdf


Oh, sure run, when I say exactly the same, I'm wrong.
It's a great article, I recommend everybody chew their way through it, it is much less dry than, say, "A Tale of Two Cities."
Incidentally, they are mistaken… AGW causes more but weaker storms (with usual exceptions from circumstance). I think it is just a counter-intuitive typo, though, from context. Notice nowhere does it mention CO2, in fact...
We all know that humidity drops to "nothing" below freezing-the H2O precipitating. So with temperatures increasing in the climates that are our poles, what GH gas do you think is going to play more and more? CO2, holding relatively constant, or H2O which has been/will not only increase dramatically, its effects will encroach beyond where its presence is significant.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2013
Incidently, my quaint little model explains the article's issues and anomalies quite well. In fact, it did 30 years before the article was even writen...
facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
I say smugly.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (21) Mar 31, 2013
Oh! Snow and Ice. Now, where's Mann's Hockey Stick?
I heard it takes 20 lies to coverup 1, and so it continues, from the Hockey Stick to this.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2013
Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes.

Incidentally, they are mistaken… .. Notice nowhere does it mention CO2, in fact...
We all know that humidity drops to "nothing" below freezing-the H2O precipitating. So with temperatures increasing in the climates that are our poles, what GH gas do you think is going to play more and more? CO2, holding relatively constant, or H2O which has been/will not only increase dramatically, its effects will encroach beyond where its presence is significant.

CO2 is not mentioned, true, but whatever the cause (relatively) warm open water in the Arctic is a plausible cause of the observed effect. The effect observed is not that the Arctic becomes warmer locally due direct evap of WV ( or any other cause ) but that the Rossby wave train is amplified, disrupting the PV (polar vortex). The Siberian high formed as a result is a dominant driver of NH circulation pattern - and it forms because of dense COLD air.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2013
Did you read my link runrig? Perhaps you missed this bit?
"By meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls
European Institute for Climate and Energy
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)"
http://notrickszo...onsense/


Apologies .. missed that. However I am a meteorologist and I debunk the debunk.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 31, 2013
Europe's freezing Easter and global warming
There are no natural weather and climate variables anymore. If it's warm, it's because of AGW. If it's cold, it's because of AGW. If it's raining, it's because of AGW. If it's sunny, it's because of AGW... If global temperatures go up, it's AGW. If global temperatures decline, it's AGW.

AGW, AGW, AGW, AGW. It's all AGW, all the time.

Don't bother trying to reason it out. Don't bother trying to explain it. It is what it is, regardless of what it is. It's AGW, Baby.
So, is "AGW" the new way to spell, God?


What makes you think there needs to be a reason for ANYTHING? I mean anything at all? Live life, go with the flow & enjoy yourself the best you can, that's what I do while making a good living at working in an industry that sells a lot of hardware in the energy field on both sides of the AGW debate. The more the two sides argue the higher my Engineer's salary goes because I'm expected to design new hardware for either side.
radek
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
We talking about NH but as Earth is a one weather system so I looked at SH ie Antarctic.

Looks like the polar jet stream is weakening as well and the process had started long ago: http://www.cosmos...s-study/

What about ice coverage? It`s going oposite direction comparing to Arctic: http://nsidc.org/...e_index/

so it highly unlikely that ice coverage is a main factor impacting polar vortex

BTW could anyone point where I can get weather statistics for Western Europe cities (monthly averages in particular years)?

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 31, 2013
The more the two sides argue the higher my Engineer's salary goes because I'm expected to design new hardware for either side.


If you are an engineer you should abhor the waste caused by the AGW faith and their flawed regulations.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2013
SeanW. "record low sea ice last year was caused by storms"

Over the past 33 years - ice reduction has been about 3% per decade.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/

But Sean attributes last year to storms - dismissing decades of data.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 31, 2013
Froma Blog wrtten by .. Pierre L. Gosselin

Who says of himself ...
"I'm a US citizen, received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering......


That is in no way a rebuttal.
-- runrig
And this is a link http://en.wikiped...McIntyre to the guy who broke your hockey stick. So, what's your point.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
Triplex: "So again, we have sea ice coverage staying virtually the same last year and this year, and temperaturs are OPPOSITE"

So Triplex is asserting that if a relationship does not exist between temperature data and ice data - then the whole theory collapses. Well:

Here is temp data for the northern hemisphere for the past 30 years: http://www.woodfo...13/trend

Here is arctic sea ice data:

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/

Perfect correlation of the linear trends right? Case closed - Triplex will no longer attack the science of global warming - silly me right?
radek
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2013
SeanW. "record low sea ice last year was caused by storms"

Over the past 33 years - ice reduction has been about 3% per decade.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/


I don`t now if it`s because storms or not but could You explain 3,7% per decade growth of ice around South Pole?

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

perfect opposite corelation
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
I don`t now if it`s because storms or not but could You explain 3,7% per decade growth of ice around South Pole?

Complex topic radek - but here is a good start if you want to research the issue.

http://www.wunder...heet.asp

Be sure to go to the 'intermediate tab'

I think a significant quote: "Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly."
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
Over the past 33 years - ice reduction has been about 3% per decade.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/

perfect opposite corelation

Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).
and
The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain, glacial run-off and snowfall. This changes the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea ice (lower salinity - easier freezing ).
http://www.guardi...-sea-ice
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
Froma Blog wrtten by .. Pierre L. Gosselin

Who says of himself ...
"I'm a US citizen, received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering......


That is in no way a rebuttal.
-- runrig
And this is a link http://en.wikiped...McIntyre to the guy who broke your hockey stick. So, what's your point.


Where does the hockey-stick come into it within the compass of this paper?

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2013
From Wiki.. "In an extension and confirmation of the hockey stick graph, Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies, which were completely independent of those used in earlier studies, to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, covering the entire Holocene. Temperatures had slowly risen from the last ice age to reach a level which lasted from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago, then in line with Milankovitch cycles had begun a slow decline, interrupted by a small rise during the Medieval Warm Period, to the Little Ice Age. That decline had then been interrupted by a UNIQUELY RAPID RISE in the 20th century to temperatures which were already the warmest for at least 4,000 years, within the range of uncertainties of the highest temperatures in the whole period, and on current estimates were likely to exceed those temperatures by 2100."
Broken hockey-stick ??

http://www.newsci...led.html
radek
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 31, 2013
djr, runrig - this is the same story like in Arctic with record ice melting on Greenland - why the efect is opposite?
http://en.wikiped...ce_sheet

this results simply shows thats there`s no correlaton between rising temperature of sea and ice coverage.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2013
djr, runrig - this is the same story like in Arctic with record ice melting on Greenland - why the efect is opposite?
http://en.wikiped...ce_sheet

this results simply shows thats there`s no correlaton between rising temperature of sea and ice coverage.


I'm sorry, yes ice is melting in Greenland AND temperatures are rising there. Yes temperatures are rising in the Arctic ( as evidenced spectacularly by record ice loss ) and yes since an acceleration in that there have been a succession of neg AO winters in the NH. I'm NOT saying that this is the cause but meteorological theory supports it. Weaken the temp contrast and you weaken the jet, which is then more likely to wander and "block". This coupled with a possible link to earlier snowfall and formation of the Siberian High being an aspect that is known to precede a neg AO.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2013
Re: Formation of siberian High
From...http://www.nws.no...2211.htm

"During the fall when snow cover rapidly advances across Siberia, the Siberian high starts to form. If snow cover extent is above normal this favors a stronger and more expansive Siberian high. During those falls when snow cover is more extensive, anomalous high pressure is more common stretched across Northern Eurasia. Then during the winter the high-pressure anomalies first limited to northern Eurasia spread across the Arctic Ocean. Simultaneously, low-pressure anomalies dominate the mid-latitude ocean basins. This pattern of sea level pressure variability is recognizable to climatologists as the negative phase of the AO."

Negative phase AO causes cold air to move south especially affecting Europe.
maowcat
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2013
Some of you people are so fucking thick it makes me wonder how your mother's spawned something so stupid. The abnormally cold weather in europe is caused by changes in wind flow, normally the northwesterly winds would be ramming you up the butt with warm air, but this year mother earth decided to send an arctic air flow your way. The earth isn't cooling, it's warming up, argue about how much it is affecting us all you want, but stop staying it isn't man made, it is.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2013
Some of you people are so fucking thick it makes me wonder how your mother's spawned something so stupid. The abnormally cold weather in europe is caused by changes in wind flow, normally the northwesterly winds would be ramming you up the butt with warm air, but this year mother earth decided to send an arctic air flow your way. The earth isn't cooling, it's warming up, argue about how much it is affecting us all you want, but stop staying it isn't man made, it is.

Wow, the Turd scientific explanation. Well, I'm convinced. So, when are you Turds going to stop expelling CO2 and save the planet?
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2013
So, when are you Turds going to stop expelling CO2 and save the planet?

CO2 again, haven't you been listening? an increase from 320 (0.032%) to 370 ppm could no more warm the planet than flapping your arms.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2013
So, when are you Turds going to stop expelling CO2 and save the planet?

CO2 again, haven't you been listening? an increase from 320 (0.032%) to 370 ppm could no more warm the planet than flapping your arms.

What about all the hot air the Alarmist are expelling, claiming it's CO2?
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Some of you people are so fucking thick it makes me wonder how your mother's spawned something so stupid. The abnormally cold weather in europe is caused by changes in wind flow, normally the northwesterly winds would be ramming you up the butt with warm air, but this year mother earth decided to send an arctic air flow your way. The earth isn't cooling, it's warming up, argue about how much it is affecting us all you want, but stop staying it isn't man made, it is.


It's pretty hard to see the big picture when your face is crammed into the corner where the artists name is...screaming there is no way he painted it to anyone dumb enough to listen.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013

runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013



I didn't look but I know there has been more snow cover this year in the NH. The puzzle is ( by inference ) that you equate it with cooling ( or at least no warming ). We have had a winter of largely negative AO. And as has been repeatedly pointed out on many threads, not least by me - that has pushed cold Arctic originating air further south than is usual, actually getting colder as it does so ( until early Feb ) due location over land and still imbalance in in/out solar radiation. I know you know that more snow is also equated to greater humidity, which is equated to greater warmth. Yes?

cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2013
Cont

Also the article is about "Europe's freezing Easter and global warming" and I have discussed the plausibility of this in meteorological terms on this and other current threads.

Yet, still we've had the 9th warmest warmest February on record. As you americans say. Go figure.

Global winter temperatures....

http://data.giss....;pol=reg

and
http://www.livesc...ure.html
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

And here is Uba - providing supporting data to the premise of the article - that unusual cold spells (called weather) are an interesting component of a warming climate - que to a cherry picked graph of the last 4 years of data to prove that uba still does not understand the difference between weather and climate.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
I didn't look but I know there has been more snow cover this year in the NH. The puzzle is ( by inference ) that you equate it with cooling ( or at least no warming ).
Where did I supposedly do that?

We have had a winter of largely negative AO. And as has been repeatedly pointed out on many threads, not least by me - that has pushed cold Arctic originating air further south than is usual, actually getting colder as it does so ( until early Feb ) due location over land and still imbalance in in/out solar radiation. I know you know that more snow is also equated to greater humidity, which is equated to greater warmth. Yes?
No. If it was this simple, it would rain every day in the Sahara.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
Cont

Also the article is about "Europe's freezing Easter and global warming" and I have discussed the plausibility of this in meteorological terms on this and other current threads.

Yet, still we've had the 9th warmest warmest February on record. As you americans say. Go figure.
Which only means it's been cooling, not getting warmer, as it's not as hot as it has been.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

And here is Uba - providing supporting data to the premise of the article - that unusual cold spells (called weather) are an interesting component of a warming climate -
So are you now claiming that you lied when you admitted it hasn't been warming for more than a decade?

que to a cherry picked graph of the last 4 years of data to prove that uba still does not understand the difference between weather and climate.
What are you talking about? I don't see me posting any four year graphs here.

Perhaps you're talking about another thread where you couldn't be bothered enough to read the article which was discussing a four year period?

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2013
So are you now claiming that you lied when you admitted it hasn't been warming for more than a decade?

No stupid - shame you can't follow an argument - I never said it hasn't been warming for more than a decade - I said that surface temperatures have been on a plateau for about 20 years - but then I went on to explain that surface temperatures are just one component of the climate - and all data suggests that warming is continuing. If you were a little brighter - you would understand simple constructs like the difference between weather and climate - and that the earth's climate system is highly complex - and that surface temperatures are only one component of this highly complex system.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 04, 2013
So are you now claiming that you lied when you admitted it hasn't been warming for more than a decade?
No stupid - shame you can't follow an argument - I never said it hasn't been warming for more than a decade - I said that surface temperatures have been on a plateau for about 20 years - but then I went on to explain that surface temperatures are just one component of the climate - and all data suggests that warming is continuing. If you were a little brighter - you would understand simple constructs like the difference between weather and climate - and that the earth's climate system is highly complex - and that surface temperatures are only one component of this highly complex system.
Liar. You're backpedaling. That's not what you said at the time.

And, global warming only recently became about "climate change" when the temperatures refused to cooperate.

How "specious" of you.

djr
4.1 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2013
Liar. You're backpedaling. That's not what you said at the time.

I have been very consistent in my position - I understand that surface temperatures are currently on a plateau. I have acknowledged that over and over. I also understand that we can play games with woodfortrees - by selecting cherry picked start and end dates - we can make the linear trend slope up or down - but that is your silly game. I prefer to look at the 100 year data. However - I have also consistently discussed with you and others that there are more factors involved that just surface temps, and I have talked about the melting of the glaciers, ice sheets, etc. extensively. I have posted references to this article - http://theenergyc...confirms Not specious at all - very consistent. Sorry - I know it is difficult when the argument becomes a little complicated - perhaps you should go back to school.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2013
I have been very consistent in my position - I understand that surface temperatures are currently on a plateau. I have acknowledged that over and over.


Yes he has been, over several threads and often several times in each thread.

For what it's worth, I don't agree they have plateaued, I think the evidence supports ongoing temperature rise, albeit at a slower pace than expected.

But regardless, Uba accusing djr of being inconsistant is laughable. Predictable, but still laughable.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 04, 2013
Folks, would you all take a minute to try to comprehend what it means to change the temperature of the Earth.
Step 1: Understand what temperature is.
Step 2: Imagine circumstance(s) necessary to bring about a average temperature change. It boggles my mind anyone could think that temperature would be a significant long term measurable.
There are a bevy of other significantly measurable effects to either adding insulation (CO2) or heat (fossil fuels) to the Earth-Sun system.
Could anyone please explain, WHY you would think temperature would be a significant measurable-except that the media has told you so?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2013
Could anyone please explain, WHY you would think temperature would be a significant measurable-except that the media has told you so?


Because I'm an ex-professional meteorologist with the UKMO and I understand/follow the science - even still study new developments.

PS I'm still trying to get a reply from you on this thread ...

http://phys.org/n...ers.html

and this thread ...

http://phys.org/n...des.html
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
"Could anyone please explain, WHY you would think temperature would be a significant measurable-except that the media has told you so?"

Isn't that what all the satelites, and the temperature stations, and the ocean temperature buouys are there for? What do you thing the 'warming' in global warming is talking about.

Sometimes this board is really weird!!!!
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
@djr-Ah, no, that is what everyone keeps arguing about. "This website says increasing, well my website is better than yours, and it says decreasing..." Blah, blah, blah, use your heads.
@runrig checking posts-
@runrig, no offence buddy, but weather reports are only good for scaring people to the store to buy milk and eggs, they've become increasingly worse through the years (???!!!). And I hate to say it but weather is not climate, and statistics certainly are NO predictor of climate change.
So, all, how about a reason, not a job description. Or here, I am a physical chemist with a perfectly predictive model, and after that I am not listening to myself anymore. :o)
Heat raises the temperature of your home, so I can understand why everone is confused by heat NOT raising the temp of the Earth. But apply some neurons already.
Of course the same people fail to apply the CO2/insulation arguement... Eg. you insulate your home maintaining temperature...
Sheesh, guys, sheesh. :o)
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
@runrig-tone below is chiding/cordial NOT sarcastic/clinical. I am not trying start WWIII! Sorry!
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
I have been very consistent in my position - I understand that surface temperatures are currently on a plateau. I have acknowledged that over and over.
pla·teau
A relatively stable level, period, or state:

i.e. Not warming.

I have also consistently discussed with you and others that there are more factors involved that just surface temps, and I have talked about the melting of the glaciers, ice sheets, etc. extensively.
But have not shown these to be other than natural variances.

I have posted references to this article -
Which is easily exposed as false, thusly:

It discusses "estimates" of deep ocean heating, greater than depths of 700m. Sunlight generally doesn't reach much more than about 200m. Ergo, any deep ocean heating is not a result of atmosphereic CO2 interacting with sunlight. And, the surface hasn't been warming in the last 15 years either:

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

cont
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2013
And, if these "scientists" had even a basic understanding of thermodynamics and the energy density difference between the atmosphere and the ocean, they would know the ocean depths can't heat up significantly as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentration, without first significantly heating both the atmosphere and sea surface.

Frankly, that you bought into it is laughable.

Not specious at all
It meets the very definition:

spe·cious
1.Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument".

- very consistent.
Consistently wrong, perhaps.

Sorry - I know it is difficult when the argument becomes a little complicated - perhaps you should go back to school.
Didn't you just complain about ad hominem arguments?

Hypocrite much?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
Yes he has been, over several threads and often several times in each thread.
Apparently then, he has his own definition for "plateaued."

For what it's worth, I don't agree they have plateaued, I think the evidence supports ongoing temperature rise, albeit at a slower pace than expected.
Agree or not, the science says otherwise.

But regardless, Uba accusing djr of being inconsistant is laughable. Predictable, but still laughable.
Well excuse me for not knowing his personal definition for "plateaued."

djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
Uba - "But have not shown these to be other than natural variances."

Wow - now your ignorance really shows. So - I will assume that you are using the term 'natural'- to mean 'not anthropogenic'. So Uba declares that climate change is natural - not anthropogenic - contradicting "every National Academy of Science of every major country in the world" Uba makes this declaration on a science web site. What a buffoon.

Reference - http://www.mother...PbSzKKbg
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2013
Uba: You said: "And, if these "scientists" had even a basic understanding of thermodynamics and the energy density difference between the atmosphere and the ocean, they would know the ocean depths can't heat up significantly as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentration, without first significantly heating both the atmosphere and sea surface."

That is an interesting observation. As you know, heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. It is easy to move heat by convection (forced , and natural
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2013
Continued
It is the convective forces that move heat rapidly from the surface to the intermediate depths. The slow processes in water are conduction and radiation, but convection can be fast. The ocean air interface efficiently transfers heat. That heat can then be rapidly transferred many directions in the ocean by convection. So your comment that it cannot be transferred without heating up the air is nonsense. You need to take a course in heat transfer.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
Of course the same people fail to apply the CO2/insulation arguement... Eg. you insulate your home maintaining temperature...Sheesh, guys, sheesh. :o)


Sheesh is right Alchemist. Tell me, what is it that is adding significant heat to the atmosphere, which heat is then being held in by the "insulation"?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
It discusses "estimates" of deep ocean heating, greater than depths of 700m. Sunlight generally doesn't reach much more than about 200m. Ergo, any deep ocean heating is not a result of atmosphereic CO2 interacting with sunlight. And, the surface hasn't been warming in the last 15 years either:


Your ignorance of the system you are trying to denounce is epic.

You're just playing pidgeon chess Uba.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2013

Sheesh is right Alchemist. Tell me, what is it that is adding significant heat to the atmosphere, which heat is then being held in by the "insulation"?

At this point on the game, if you don't know, we have not been corresponding.
Imagine a scenario of obvious CO2 effects, say 10% in the atm, it is intuitive, after extrapolation, that this in not what is occurring.
Heat is from fossil fuels. It is too low a frequency to escape from the mid-lats. so goes to where the environment is colder than waste heat.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
No Alchemist, the question was rhetorical but to the point. You say that the mechanical burning of fossil fuels and the heat generated by this process is causing global warming, despite the fact that you have been shown that the amount of heat generated in this matter is miniscule as compared to the sun. You, yourself, have used the insulation argument, even comparing the situation to a house. Yet you continue to ignore (or at least downplay) the main source of heating. It is not even the heating that is the problem, per se, it is the lack of cooling effects arising from the insulation stopping the heat from dissipating.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
I've been shown no such thing. Sun plus a little bit causes a change in equilibrium, by the principle of LeChatelier's, just to start. When you consider where the heat is released (on earth), its frequency (below threashold), that 100% is absorbed, and many other factors, you see that huge difference get closer to parity.
Of course using your own arguent a trivial addition of GH gasses should have no effect, and I have no such chain of products (x's)to increase CO2's effects.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
I've been shown no such thing.

Pidgeon chess. Its not that you haven't been shown it, it's that you refuse to see it. You have already decided, and that's that.

Sun plus a little bit causes a change in equilibrium, by the principle of LeChatelier's, just to start.


Actually, homeostatis supports the contention that the addition of a insulating factor will cause a shift from the established equalibrium condition to a new equalibrium.
When you consider where the heat is released (on earth), its frequency (below threashold), that 100% is absorbed, and many other factors, you see that huge difference get closer to parity.

Gish gallop.
Of course using your own arguent a trivial addition of GH gasses should have no effect, and I have no such chain of products (x's)to increase CO2's effects.

Of course it should have an effect Alchem, it is adding an insulator to the system. That means it holds the heat in. Stops it from dissipating. Prevents it from radiating.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2013
Well that's argument isn't it? The contention that an irrelevent amount of heat is going to have an effect, or an irrelevent amount of insulation.
The difference between you, and indeed everyone else on the 'boards, is that I brought my math-backed physics to demo., and you all talk a good fight.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2013
The difference between you, and indeed everyone else on the 'boards, is that I brought my math-backed physics to demo., and you all talk a good fight.


Thats rather disingenuous of you Alchem. I have given your arguments a reasonable hearing, and I have carefully and respectfully considered the arguments you have presented.

Your argument is flawed, in that there is not enough energy in the method you propose to support your theory. Not by a little bit, mind you, but by orders of magnitude. You are confusing cause with effect.

And I have learned something from you. I thought the effect of mechanical heating was negligable, not zero but not measurable. I was wrong, it is tiny but probably measurable.

I hope you don't turn into another Zephyr and endlessly repeat your view of how things should be without due consideration of the critique of your theory, and without something new to add.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
Well that's argument isn't it? The contention that an irrelevent amount of heat is going to have an effect, or an irrelevent amount of insulation.
The difference between you, and indeed everyone else on the 'boards, is that I brought my math-backed physics to demo., and you all talk a good fight.


Al: You have been shown before that the amount of CO2 you consider "irrelevant" is not. It is a marginal increase in one of the few "active" gases (H2O and CO2 being the most important with CH4 coming in third). O2 and N2 (the bulk of the atmosphere) change almost nothing. So, you profess to have math-backed physics and, instead sent us to a blog where you wrote a bit about pseudo-physics, waved your hands, and disgraced yourself. If you are working at a science related job, please take your threads and present them to your supervisor so they can fire you and replace you with a smart high-school kid. Thank you for your time.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
You will have to forgive me guys, I've been at this a long time, long enough to be mocked for saying the primary effect of global warming was glacial/polar melting.
Ten years later, glaciers and polar ice are melting, and people like you can't remeber it has been what I've been saying.
You can sing and dance all you want, which has been the respectfull weighing of arguements, but no real back-up.
Then there is the perfectly predictive model, which fails very well if you base it on CO2, but so well if you base it on heat and water.
So, gentlemen you're logic is flawless, but you're missing one thing, my systems works.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
So you've shown me this and that, and yet I haven't seen an "=" sign... so you'll forgive me. (Barring the magnitude of the Sun, which I understand.)
So here are two song and dance numbers:
1. An increased greenhouse effect results in temperature and climate stabilization, even though the temp. increases.
2. There should be a measurable difference in the time it takes the Earth to cool off at night.
If you've heard evidence of these profound and observable effects, please let me know.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2013
So, gentlemen you're logic is flawless, but you're missing one thing, my systems works.

A naked assertion.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2013
So, gentlemen you're logic is flawless, but you're missing one thing, my systems works.

A naked assertion.


Please Deep. The term "naked" used in the same message that was answering Al, has burned a terrible picture onto my retina. I will lose much sleep over this horror.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
Uba - "But have not shown these to be other than natural variances."

Wow - now your ignorance really shows. So - I will assume that you are using the term 'natural'- to mean 'not anthropogenic'. So Uba declares that climate change is natural - not anthropogenic - contradicting "every National Academy of Science of every major country in the world" Uba makes this declaration on a science web site. What a buffoon.
LOL. So beyond linking to a radical environmentalist site's opinion piece, you're saying you can't prove your assertions that glacial conditions and sea level changes are strictly anthropogenic in nature? Figures... AGWites have trouble differentiating science form opinion. LOL.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2013
That is an interesting observation. As you know, heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. It is easy to move heat by convection (forced , and natural It is the convective forces that move heat rapidly from the surface to the intermediate depths.
Idiot. Warmer materials tend to rise, not sink. And, ocean circulations generally deliver wamer surface waters to the poles, as the cooling polar waters sink and displaces it.

The slow processes in water are conduction and radiation, but convection can be fast. The ocean air interface efficiently transfers heat.
Idiot. The energy density difference from air to water virtually precludes any significant heating from air to water.

That heat can then be rapidly transferred many directions in the ocean by convection. So your comment that it cannot be transferred without heating up the air is nonsense. You need to take a course in heat transfer.
Obviously, you don't understand any of this.

The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 08, 2013
@Uba-water is at highest density at 3.98 Celcius. In water's case, it is an effect that allows us to survive winters: That warmer materials tend to rise does not apply to water. That rule is not terrible accurate, all in all. Think about the reason why warmer materials tend to rise...it is not a physics principle, for a reason.
@thermodynamics-you belie your name in you description of efficient heat transfer. Thermal connectivity (~Area), temperature difference (exponential), etc., then that surface effects are different in the first few feet, than the rest-subsurface currents and all that.
Is everybody having a bad physics day?
Respect/peace/cordially.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2013
A naked assertion

Since my simple and intuitive model seems to complicated for some, I am always willing to walk anyone through a scenario, predicticting climate/macro-weather for an region, from any time to any time.
Pick a region, we'll even do a model where CO2 effects rule, to compare.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2013
@Uba-water is at highest density at 3.98 Celcius. In water's case, it is an effect that allows us to survive winters: That warmer materials tend to rise does not apply to water. That rule is not terrible accurate, all in all. Think about the reason why warmer materials tend to rise...it is not a physics principle, for a reason.
Incorrect. Salinity makes the difference. Here's a handy calculator (with an explanation) for you:

http://www.csgnet...alc.html

@thermodynamics-you belie your name in you description of efficient heat transfer. Thermal connectivity (~Area), temperature difference (exponential), etc., then that surface effects are different in the first few feet, than the rest-subsurface currents and all that.
He didn't even know sea ice melts at a different temperature than glacial ice.

Is everybody having a bad physics day?
Not me. LOL

The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (14) Apr 09, 2013
@Uba-I read something else into what you were saying. Still, the salinity point was deceptive.
You were right, why ruin it? (rhetorical).
@others-So, again, once tap-dancing and arm-waving are challenged, the discussion is abandoned.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2013
@others-So, again, once tap-dancing and arm-waving are challenged, the discussion is abandoned.

How very self-descriptive.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2013
Al said:
@others-So, again, once tap-dancing and arm-waving are challenged, the discussion is abandoned.


No, your nonsense was answered. The knowledgeable reader has had the science explained with links, in many cases, and there has been nothing presented by you that needs further explanation. You must not be a competent scientist or that would have been clear to you. We have just gotten bored continuing to answer the same non-science points you make and have abandoned the discussion because you have nothing new to offer.
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (14) Apr 11, 2013
@thermo-
Still another thing about the tiny bit of energy, it is below threashold, it does not ever go away until it basically melts ice.
The assertion that I've been answered by links is [no nice term] as I can find links from credible sources that take any side of the issue I want.
And I am still waiting for anyone to show me anywhere CO2 is thermodynamically capable (Eg. with a thermodynamic arguement) of insulating the earth better than aqua.
Indeed, no one has been able to even convince me they understand what temperature even IS, or what is required to meaningfully raise it for the Earth.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 11, 2013
You must not be a competent scientist or that would have been clear to you.

I find this comment to be charming.
1. To make it, you must not be a scientist at all.
2. Though, I don't pretend to be a Pauli, by making it you make me feel a sort of kinship with them. Thanks.

Here's a good analogy for the tiny bit of energy from fossil fuels, considering how tiny solar fluctuations are that have terrestrial effects:
"If it has heated so much, it is because it has stood on the shoulders of giants."
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (14) Apr 11, 2013
Hey, does everybody know that they're measuring the increasing CO2 from a station with an active volcano? I can't get good info., but its activity seems to be increasing lately...
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 11, 2013
Hey, does everybody know that they're measuring the increasing CO2 from a station with an active volcano? I can't get good info., but its activity seems to be increasing lately...
That's a good question. Here's NASA's official position (watch me get downranked, even for this);

http://earthobser...-record/

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2013
Hey, does everybody know that they're measuring the increasing CO2 from a station with an active volcano? I can't get good info., but its activity seems to be increasing lately...
That's a good question. Here's NASA's official position (watch me get downranked, even for this);

Uba: I gave you a 5 for that one. It is a great URL.
http://earthobser...-record/


More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...