British scientists offer explanations on global warming pause

Jul 23, 2013 by Bob Yirka report

(Phys.org) —A team of climate experts from Britain's national weather service (The Met Office) has given a series of presentations at the Science Media Centre in London with the aim of trying to explain why global warming has flattened over the past decade. Journalists were invited to listen as climatologists explained theories that have been developed to describe the current "pause" in global temperature increases the planet has been experiencing.

Scientists around the world have noted that despite increasing amounts of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, average have leveled off since the late 1990's. The main theory to explain why this has occurred, members of the team explained, centers around the world's oceans. Researchers studying the temperature of the oceans have found that increased as expected—what's new is an increase in water temperature at much greater depths. The ocean is acting as a giant heat sink, they say, absorbing much of the heat that would otherwise be found in the atmosphere. They back this up by noting that satellites that measure the amount of heat that arrives and leaves our planet indicate that heat retained by the planet continues to rise, even as atmospheric temperatures have leveled off. That heat, the scientists said, has to be going somewhere, and since it's not likely being absorbed by dry , that leaves the sea. They acknowledged that no one really knows what impact rising deep might have on the planet.

Another possible explanation the team said was that the sun has temporarily been putting out less heat than normal—not necessarily enough to explain a leveling off of global warming, but enough to cause a slight perturbation. They noted that volcanic eruptions spewing particulates into the atmosphere (reflecting heat back into space) have also worked to stabilize rising temperatures.

The team also pointed out that the pause in global warming is almost certainly temporary and that the consensus among world climatologists is that temperatures will once again begin to rise, likely sooner than later. They insisted that earlier projections of an average global rise in temperature of 2°C by the end of this century are still correct, insinuating that skeptics should not take the leveling off of temperatures as a sign that climatologists have been wrong. Periodic flattening of rising temperatures, they noted, have always been in the projection models.

Explore further: Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA

Related Stories

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

Jul 02, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Century-old science helps confirm global warming

May 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —Ocean measurements taken more than 135 years ago during the scientific expedition of HMS Challenger have provided further confirmation of human-produced global warming over the past century.

Recommended for you

Severe drought is causing the western US to rise

48 minutes ago

The severe drought gripping the western United States in recent years is changing the landscape well beyond localized effects of water restrictions and browning lawns. Scientists at Scripps Institution of ...

A NASA satellite double-take at Hurricane Lowell

1 hour ago

Lowell is now a large hurricane in the Eastern Pacific and NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites double-teamed it to provide infrared and radar data to scientists. Lowell strengthened into a hurricane during the ...

Arctic sea ice influenced force of the Gulf Stream

3 hours ago

The force of the Gulf Stream was significantly influenced by the sea ice situation in the Fram Strait in the past 30,000 years. Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ...

User comments : 135

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gmurphy
3.1 / 5 (40) Jul 23, 2013
Before the usual parade of sneering deniers come to gloat, it's worth noting that 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurred since 2000, that's what this 'pause' in global warming has resulted in.
Sean_W
2.4 / 5 (50) Jul 23, 2013
But there is no pause. We have been told quite often that people who believe in this pause are climate deniers.

And 17 years is a pretty long "decade".
zorro6204
2.7 / 5 (28) Jul 23, 2013
That's it, they think?? Or maybe the sun's slowed down? Not a lot of science there, how about some actual measurements? That CFC explanation recently published here made more sense, though I understand it's controversial. At least there was data.
Sean_W
2 / 5 (46) Jul 23, 2013
Before the usual parade of sneering deniers come to gloat, it's worth noting that 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurred since 2000, that's what this 'pause' in global warming has resulted in.


Or they resulted from all the weather stations located next to air conditioner vents and over newly located pavement.
sstritt
1.8 / 5 (38) Jul 23, 2013
"Periodic flattening of rising temperatures, they noted, have always been in the projection models."
Really? I thought they said it was a travesty that they couldn't explain it!
sstritt
1.6 / 5 (36) Jul 23, 2013
"Periodic flattening of rising temperatures, they noted, have always been in the projection models."
Really? I thought they said it was a travesty that they couldn't explain it!
NotAsleep
2.4 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2013
A recent article on PhysOrg seems to indicate CFCs are the culprit for the slowing-down of global warming:

http://phys.org/n...ide.html
GuruShabu
2.1 / 5 (41) Jul 23, 2013
BS about GW and the last try Climate Change (for sure it changes all the time since planet Earth was formed! Just a data: in the carboniferous age CO2 concentration was 800ppm more twice as much as present levels and temperatures were quite similar to nowadays but the sea level was 120m above today's!) never ends and those "believers" will believe for ever no matter what data can show.
They are all spellbound and when people "believe" instead of check and analyse there is nothing one can do.
So, let mr gmurphy preach for the rest of his life.
jdbertron
2.8 / 5 (22) Jul 23, 2013
A research paper with a link would be nice. Otherwise this could just be wild speculation with no science to back things up.
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (27) Jul 23, 2013
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (50) Jul 23, 2013
Why do they need to offer explanations for the "pause", according to them, "Periodic flattening of rising temperatures have always been in the projection models." Yet they feel they need to "theorize" about heat sinks and volcano activity. Sounds like their lies are coming back around to haunt them and they are backpedaling to save face. Deceitful scumbags those climate "scientists" be...
jackjump
2.2 / 5 (38) Jul 23, 2013
Warming us up a couple of degrees centigrade only gets us back to where the current heat spike (called the Holocene) out of the on going several million year old glaciation (ice age) began (i.e. the top of the spike was at the initial warming):

http://cdiac.ornl...lot5.gif

The spikes occur regularly every 100K years and last about 10K years. We've been in the Holocene for about 11K years. We're due to sink back into a glaciation. The drop in temperature will be about 10-11 degrees centigrade. It's obvious that the problem for our civilization is cooling not warming. We need more warming not less. If the oceans are storing heat, great! They'll be useful when we're living on top of an ice shield.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (40) Jul 23, 2013
There have been multiple papers which trace temperatures over the past 2000 years that show temperature changes greater than we have today. The CO2 levels were much lower than they are today but temperature variations were larger. Thus, it is obvious that there are other cycles occurring which have a much greater effect than CO2 levels.
MR166
2 / 5 (43) Jul 23, 2013
Before the usual parade of sneering deniers come to gloat, it's worth noting that 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurred since 2000, that's what this 'pause' in global warming has resulted in.


And yet Europe has had 5 unusually long and cold winters in a row. Perhaps the computation of "hottest years on record" has some AGW biases built in.
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (41) Jul 23, 2013
Before the usual parade of sneering deniers come to gloat, it's worth noting that 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurred since 2000, that's what this 'pause' in global warming has resulted in.


According to most every multi-century thermometer record, your statement has been boringly true every other decade or so for 350 years, seen in a single glance here:

http://s13.postim...mage.jpg

In 2010, the Central England plot once again plunged below the linear trend line along with the coldest winter in 130 years.
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (41) Jul 23, 2013
One of the biggest online supporters of the Global Warming fraud, the scientist Grant Foster also known as the blogger Tamino, was so threatened by the above Central England real thermometer record that he used his background in mathematics to turn it into a hockey stick.

Witness how Global Warming science is done!

http://s1.postimg...INAL.gif
runrig
3.6 / 5 (25) Jul 23, 2013
Before the usual parade of sneering deniers come to gloat, it's worth noting that 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurred since 2000, that's what this 'pause' in global warming has resulted in.


And yet Europe has had 5 unusually long and cold winters in a row. Perhaps the computation of "hottest years on record" has some AGW biases built in.


We are talking global average temps. Cold winters in Europe are irrelevant in that. Regional seasonal or any other cold does not negate GW, much though you want it too. In fact greater variability is predicted.
BobSage
2.2 / 5 (37) Jul 23, 2013
In college I went looking for patterns in horse racing in order to predict the winners of future races. I found lots of patterns. Each time I found one I applied it to the future. It didn't work. But each time I was able to add some complexity until I had another good candidate...which didn't work.

You can take any data and fit a polynomial of high enough order to it to get an exact fit. And it won't predict the next data point.

That in effect is what these scientists are doing. They make a prediction based on past data. It doesn't work. So they jigger the prediction retroactively so it looks good again. That is not science. That is blind faith. It reminds me of the guy who predicted the end of the world based on numbers in the bible. And each time the end did not arrive he found his mistake and made another prediction.

In 10 years we may be freezing our butts off because the CFC level in the atmosphere has tanked. There will still be a few lonely warmists left.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (25) Jul 23, 2013
In 2010, the Central England plot once again plunged below the linear trend line along with the coldest winter in 130 years.


Nik: Again I catch you out.

No, it was the December of 2010 that was the coldest for 100 odd years - NOT the winter.
February was mild and overall ave temps were a little below normal.

If you're going to use regional anomalies to deny GW, at least get your facts right.
BTW: Regional cold does, of course not invalidate GW.

http://www.metoff...ter.html
runrig
3.8 / 5 (24) Jul 23, 2013

In 10 years we may be freezing our butts off because the CFC level in the atmosphere has tanked. There will still be a few lonely warmists left.


Could you please provide causation physics to back-up your assertion?

Correlation does not prove causation, especially one limited to beginning around 1960.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (58) Jul 23, 2013

In 10 years we may be freezing our butts off because the CFC level in the atmosphere has tanked. There will still be a few lonely warmists left.


Could you please provide causation physics to back-up your assertion?

Correlation does not prove causation, especially one limited to beginning around 1960.


Right, like the correlation between the raise in global temperature and the industrial revolution. If the argument is an anthropogenic one, then such a correlation is necessary, and by your own admittence, does not prove causation itself.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (42) Jul 23, 2013
"Catching" me in a lazy typo doubles my exposure as the whole AGW argument falls apart when exposed to the light of day, and what is revealed is not just error, but Enron level fraud.

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

There is *no* CO2 signal in the oldest real thermometer or tide gauge records: current warming and sea level rise exactly match their historical trend. If real thermometer records or any tide gauge record showed a sudden surge in trend, we all know these actual records would be held up as proof of emergency. There would be no significant skepticism if real records actually supported your case, but all you have are hellfire headlines based on bizarrely amplified computer models of the greenhouse effect.

Readers can see seasonal versions of the world's longest T record here, one that's "regionally" quite near the arctic circle too:

http://www.thegwp...-trends/
runrig
3.6 / 5 (26) Jul 23, 2013

In 10 years we may be freezing our butts off because the CFC level in the atmosphere has tanked. There will still be a few lonely warmists left.


Could you please provide causation physics to back-up your assertion?

Correlation does not prove causation, especially one limited to beginning around 1960.


Right, like the correlation between the raise in global temperature and the industrial revolution. If the argument is an anthropogenic one, then such a correlation is necessary, and by your own admittence, does not prove causation itself.


No, like the correlation back through re-industrial times ( it is a driver and a follower due to the carbon cycle ) and the radiative physics known for 150 years. Co2 causes warming. It has increased 40% during industrial times. We know the extra CO2 is anthroprogenic from isotopic analysis.
philw1776
2.2 / 5 (38) Jul 23, 2013
Physics tells us that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" storing heat. But water vapor is far more efficient in this regard. Since the Cambrian explosion we have had CO2 levels many times that of today. The "normal" condition for this planet has been polar ice free, not today's "icehouse Earth" state.

CO2 concentration has risen over the last 150 years, most probably human activities being a significant component. The problem with AGW hysteria proponents is that their empirical models with hypothetical positive feedback multipliers have NOT predicted the last 15 years measured temperatures. Earth's temperature may well increase over the coming decades and part of this may be from human introduced CO2 increasing atmospheric heat retention, but other factors come into play and the hysteria is unwarranted and driven by other than physical science.
foolspoo
2.2 / 5 (27) Jul 23, 2013
maybe, just maybe! we aren't at the apex of knowledge and we are actually just beginning to grasp all this world has to offer. self regulation happens in our body and inside of a star, why is so blasphemous to suggest that this incredibly biologically diverse world is perhaps "fighting" back?
runrig
3.5 / 5 (24) Jul 23, 2013
Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."


Correct: Now provide me with the "experiment" that has been done that provides the necessary energy and causation physics to better fit as the culprit of GW than CO2.

Readers can see seasonal versions of the world's longest T record here, one that's "regionally" quite near the arctic circle too:

http://www.thegwp...-trends/


Readers can find any and all trends in regional temperature trends. The GW signal is only aparrant in the (instrumental) record when crunching temps globally. BTW Central England as defined by this temp record is a very small area in world terms.

But neverthe less...
http://en.wikiped...arly.png
http://en.wikiped...perature
foolspoo
2.5 / 5 (30) Jul 23, 2013
The "normal" condition for this planet has been polar ice free, not today's "icehouse Earth" state


that is pathetically presumptuous
runrig
3.5 / 5 (27) Jul 23, 2013
......The problem with AGW hysteria proponents is that their empirical models with hypothetical positive feedback multipliers have NOT predicted the last 15 years measured temperatures. ......


Please read the article ( again ). The hiatus in temp rises IS predicted by models ( not to mention common sense ) - Just the timing is NOT predictable.
Egleton
2.8 / 5 (31) Jul 23, 2013
All the emotional words are well spent. We are deep in doo-doos. Here is a free University course you can use to back your assertations.
On second thoughts, No, I won't post it up. It will just attract the attention of Big Coal.
(Or were we talking about the tobacco lobby? Hard to tell them apart.)
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (38) Jul 23, 2013
runrig wrote: "We are talking global average temps. Cold winters in Europe are irrelevant in that. Regional seasonal or any other cold does not negate GW, much though you want it too."

Strongly note how the global average temperature plot in my above Tamino graphic tracks Central England.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (25) Jul 23, 2013
.....but other factors come into play and the hysteria is unwarranted and driven by other than physical science.


So denialism is not driven by factors other than physical science?
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (38) Jul 23, 2013
runrig wrote: "Correct: Now provide me with the "experiment" that has been done that provides the necessary energy and causation physics to better fit as the culprit of GW than CO2."

The warming trend exactly matches the low CO2 era one before it, so a creationist-like argument from ignorance gets you nowhere since CO2 is clearly not needed:

http://oi45.tinyp...bajo.jpg
runrig
4 / 5 (23) Jul 23, 2013
Strongly note how the global average temperature plot in my above Tamino graphic tracks Central England.


Strongly note that this plot is a rising one.
http://en.wikiped...arly.png
runrig
3.9 / 5 (22) Jul 23, 2013
runrig wrote: "Correct: Now provide me with the "experiment" that has been done that provides the necessary energy and causation physics to better fit as the culprit of GW than CO2."

The warming trend exactly matches the low CO2 era one before it, so an argument from ignorance gets you nowhere since CO2 is clearly not needed based on empirical data:

http://oi45.tinyp...bajo.jpg


The physics please for the cause if not CO2.
Albedo/orbital cycles?
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (34) Jul 23, 2013
Strongly note that this plot is a rising one.
http://en.wikiped...arly.png


Hey...*why* does activist run Wikipedia cut off the last five years of data?

Does a trillion dollars have anything to do with it? Slick haired billionaire Al Gore wants to know.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (34) Jul 23, 2013
The physics please for the cause if not CO2.
Albedo/orbital cycles?


The ocean embodies the vast amount of heat dynamics of the biosphere. The ocean is a chaotic beast in which heat exchanging currents that confront bizarre fractal coastlines and cycles within it come and go on century or millennial time scales, all by their very nature being unpredictable. The atmosphere is just along for the ride.

1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Ilya Prigogine for chaos theory in thermodynamics.
philw1776
1.8 / 5 (26) Jul 23, 2013
The "normal" condition for this planet has been polar ice free, not today's "icehouse Earth" state


that is pathetically presumptuous


Are you not at all familiar with the past history of the Earth? Notably since Cambrian times when life flourished, the steady state has been ice free with glaciation and polar caps a distinct minority of the time.
SuicideSamurai
3 / 5 (27) Jul 23, 2013
Boy are some of the people who post here absolute idiots. First off I figured this myself. That is I understood why there might be a pause in global warming. I figured that while the oceans "catch up" to the atmosphere they would draw energy out of the atmosphere preventing the atmospheric temperature from rising.

I am glad this article confirms my suspicions.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (30) Jul 23, 2013
As someone who believes that AGW is a reality, but believes the solutions are technological and not policy based I'm a bit perplexed here...

They're saying in one paragraph that these pauses are completely within the model and expected, and in the next they're offering explanations that don't seem to be a part of the original model or that have been taken into consideration prior to the pause. It's not a very helpful approach. It makes them appear duplicitous at worst, or at best incompetent/ignorant.
philw1776
2 / 5 (26) Jul 23, 2013
I tend to agree. I believe that there is an AGW signal and effect; just a lot smaller than touted. The long time AGW models failed to predict accurately what's happened. Now we have folks who came up with a new tweak that fits the curve. As an earlier poster BobSage described, it's easy to come up with a math model that fits a curve. The issue is does it use real physics to predict the future and is it verifiable? After the fact curve fitting is a necessary but not sufficient test for a model. I have a real problem with the empirical, positive feedback drivers used in climate models. Freeman Dyson raised this issue about 15 yrs ago if I recall correctly.
ECOnservative
2 / 5 (30) Jul 23, 2013
Fixation on trends not supported by observation sounds more like politics than science. Give me data..
runrig
4 / 5 (20) Jul 23, 2013
A recent article on PhysOrg seems to indicate CFCs are the culprit for the slowing-down of global warming:
http://phys.org/n...ide.html


It did nothing of the sort. It was just hand-waving correlation over a very limited period. If CFC's have GHE then why choose that as your driver when the GHE of CO2 far outways it. It may be a powerful GHG but it's measured in parts/trillion. CO2 is in ppm. In other words there is ~ million times more CO2 present in the atmosphere than CFC's. One molecule of CFC has the GHE of 10's thousands of CO2 molecules, ie ~ 1% of the GHE of CO2.

The other alternative is Cosmic ray/UV interaction and there is no correlation there, even less any causation physics.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (22) Jul 23, 2013
As we can easily see, there has been no pause over the last 17 years as SeanW has claimed.

http://www.woodfo...to/trend

"We have been told quite often that people who believe in this pause are climate deniers." - SeanW

People who lie about the pause - as SeanW has done, are guilty of denialism.

The fact that there has been little additional warming over the last decade is a matter of record that the denialists do their best to misrepresent.
full_disclosure
1.8 / 5 (32) Jul 23, 2013
As we can easily see, there has been no pause over the last 17 years as SeanW has claimed.

http://www.woodfo...to/trend

"We have been told quite often that people who believe in this pause are climate deniers." - SeanW

People who lie about the pause - as SeanW has done, are guilty of denialism.

The fact that there has been little additional warming over the last decade is a matter of record that the denialists do their best to misrepresent.


Idiot
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jul 23, 2013
"British scientists offer explanations"

"The Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel, the Americans superficial, and so on; but we are perfide Albion, the island of hypocrites, the people who have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial concessions in both pockets. Is the charge true? I think it is."

-For gun control and AGW at any rate-

Oh by the way congrats on the birth of the royal reptilian. Reptiles do like it hot.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2013
How sad it is for SeanW that when those stations are actually included in the computed averages, the computed global average actually goes down.

"Or they resulted from all the weather stations located next to air conditioner vents and over newly located pavement." - SeanW

Poor Sean. He just can't seem to think straight.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2013
"Idiot" - FullDiaper

I think that FullDiaper is waiting for a change of pants rather than a change of climate.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 23, 2013
"Really? I thought they said it was a travesty that they couldn't explain it!" - ssTardieBoy

That was said over a decade ago TardieBoy, in reference to a lack of earth observation data that would have enabled scientists to observe the earth's heat balance with sufficient resolution to observe where and how much heat was going where.

So now, a decade later, there is a preliminary answer.

The travesty continues.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2013
"Periodic flattening of rising temperatures, they noted, have always been in the projection models."

"Really?" - ssTardieBoy

periodic flattening of a count of heads in a series of coin tosses also produces periodic flattening.

The statistics of a coin toss aren't complicated. However, explaining why any coin toss produced the observed results typically is complicated.

Fools, like ssTardieBoy, confuse one for the other.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 23, 2013
"Hey...*why* does activist run Wikipedia cut off the last five years of data?" - NikfromTardieLand

Probably because other than hosting, Wikipedia didn't write the article, or create the graph.

The graphic was last updated in 1998. I guess that is why it doesn't show what you want it to show.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (23) Jul 23, 2013
In my theory the global warming is caused with passing of Earth through dark matter cloud and it can be monitored with speed of decay of radioactive elements, shift of geomagnetic poles, changes with speed of Earth rotation, gravity constant, speed of light, and many other ways.
zorro6204
3.5 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2013

"You can take any data and fit a polynomial of high enough order to it to get an exact fit. And it won't predict the next data point."

In the stock markets they call that "technical analysis". People actually make a living doing that voodoo.
MandoZink
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 23, 2013
We've definitely seen this before:
http://www.skepti..._500.gif

It's part of the trend.
MandoZink
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 23, 2013
The first person to rank my above post gave it a "1".

I wonder why graphical data would make a person so unhappy.
Kiwini
1.4 / 5 (23) Jul 23, 2013
I tend to agree. I believe that there is an AGW signal and effect; just a lot smaller than touted. The long time AGW models failed to predict accurately what's happened. Now we have folks who came up with a new tweak that fits the curve. As an earlier poster BobSage described, it's easy to come up with a math model that fits a curve. The issue is does it use real physics to predict the future and is it verifiable? After the fact curve fitting is a necessary but not sufficient test for a model. I have a real problem with the empirical, positive feedback drivers used in climate models. Freeman Dyson raised this issue about 15 yrs ago if I recall correctly.


Speaking of Freeman- http://appliedcli...ess.com/ And his comments about fudge are spot-on.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (25) Jul 23, 2013
A recent article on PhysOrg seems to indicate CFCs are the culprit for the slowing-down of global warming:

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

Phys.org is not peer review. This was claimed before and rejected before.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2013
"Speaking of Freeman" - Kiwini

Dyson is 90 years old and seems to have forgotten that back in the 60's his own Jason group came to the same conclusion as the IPCC concerning climate change.

Altimeters is a terrible thing.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2013
"In my theory" - ValeriaT

Children have many theories about how the world works.

No one cares.

Why is Uranus cooling while the earth is warming?
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2013
"Strongly note how the global average temperature plot in my above Tamino graphic tracks Central England." - NikkieTard

So you are suggesting that since the warming of the globe resembles the warming of central England that there is no warming.

Would you also conclude that since the symptoms of an individual case of plague resemble the global average symptoms, there is no such thing as the plague?

How do you idiots manage to feed yourselves?

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2013
"The warming trend exactly matches the low CO2 era one before it" - NikkieTard

I see, so your new claim is that in the equation .2+.2 = .4 since the .2's are the same, the sum must be zero.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2013
"why is so blasphemous to suggest that this incredibly biologically diverse world is perhaps "fighting" back?" - fools

Lack of evidence.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2013
"CFCs are the culprit for the slowing-down" - FastAsleep

One crackpot scientist thinks so.

In some alternate universe he might actually be right.

But not this one.

It is pretty simple to see. In order for his assertion to be correct, then the action of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to be zero. And since that is a measured impossibility, so is his assertion of CFC causation.

One day.. When you grow up and become a man... You might actually understand how to think logically.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2013
"Since the Cambrian explosion we have had CO2 levels many times that of today." - FoncusedConfuser

The Sun was cooler then. You do know that... Don't you?

rwinners
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2013
Weather changes. Always. It will NEVER be exactly the same at the same point on earth from day to day. Since the beginning of the earth, weather has never been the same, from one day to the next, or one millenia to the next.
Because we are short lived, in even an earthly sense, we fail to see that fluctuations in "weather" are progressing toward one condition or another. Oh well... Life IS short!
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2013
"The problem with AGW hysteria proponents is that their empirical models with hypothetical positive feedback multipliers have NOT predicted the last 15 years measured temperatures." - FoncusedConfuser

No one expects them to, since they are modeling climate, not weather.

Climate models don' t produce a forecast. They produce a statistical ensemble.

Further, the mixing of the ocean is not well modeled. Note the unpredictability of ElNino and LaNina, etc.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2013
"Speaking of Freeman" - Kiwini

Dyson is 90 years old and seems to have forgotten that back in the 60's his own Jason group came to the same conclusion as the IPCC concerning climate change.

Alzheimer disease is a terrible thing.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2013
"current warming and sea level rise exactly match their historical trend." - NikkieTard

Liar... Liar.. Pants on Fire...

http://www.global...ison.png

Vyhea
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 24, 2013
Why do they need to offer explanations for the "pause", according to them, "Periodic flattening of rising temperatures have always been in the projection models." Yet they feel they need to "theorize" about heat sinks and volcano activity. Sounds like their lies are coming back around to haunt them and they are backpedaling to save face. Deceitful scumbags those climate "scientists" be... -- cantdrive85"

Are you horrifically dense and cannot comprehend why science might further itself?

This temporary temperature stabilization is a recurring characteristic of the warming trend we have experienced for decades. Why in the hell wouldn't scientists want to know why? Why wouldn't we explore the finer details of a recognized climate phenomenon? Do we just stop and terminate research in any other field of science?

Scumbag? It's bad enough that the real scumbags simply badmouth research that might not agree with their preconceived notions.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (34) Jul 24, 2013
Climate "Science", where pure conjecture is presented as fact.
This is just a new passage added to the AGW Alarmist Cult's scripture, to keep the blind faithful true to the cause and the greedy False Prophets like Vicar Gore, wealthy.
Even as that scripture is increasingly loaded with pages upon pages of contradictions, the cultists choose to stay ignorant.

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2013
"You can take any data and fit a polynomial of high enough order to it to get an exact fit. And it won't predict the next data point. That in effect is what these scientists are doing." - BobbieRetardo

BobbieRetardo doesn't know the difference between a statistical model and a physical model.

He reminds me of a child who doesn't know that insects are animals and who is demanding that all animals have 4 legs.

Just Pathetic....

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2013
By the way Bobbie... Isn't betting on horse races, even more low brow than pimping your sister?
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2013
"Witness how Global Warming science is done!

http://s1.postimg...NAL.gif" - NikkieTard

You do realize don't you TardieBoy, that your own reference shows "the worlds oldest thermometer" showing a rise in temperature of around .8'C Right in line with the observed Global Average increase.

Are you suffering from the effects of high blood serum led levels?

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2013
"Just a data: in the carboniferous age CO2 concentration was 800ppm more twice as much as present levels and temperatures were quite similar to nowadays but the sea level was 120m above today's!) never ends and those "believers" will believe for ever no matter what data can show." - GuruPuPu

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). This is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2013
"Why do they need to offer explanations for the "pause"" - CantDriveTooStupid

Scientists are like that. They want to know why things happen.

You might have noticed but didn't because you are too busy not driving.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2013
"Europe has had 5 unusually long and cold winters in a row." - Mr166

The winter weather in Europe over 5 years has very little to do with global Climate.

You should really learn the difference between weather and climate.

Are you purposely trying to be stupid?
runrig
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2013
"British scientists offer explanations"

"The Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel, the Americans superficial, and so on; but we are perfide Albion, the island of hypocrites, the people who have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial concessions in both pockets. Is the charge true? I think it is."

-For gun control and AGW at any rate-

Oh by the way congrats on the birth of the royal reptilian. Reptiles do like it hot.


Nauseating - and a low point in Denialist argument in the 5 years I have been posting on here.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (28) Jul 24, 2013
I am so glad that I put on my hip boots before wading into this swamp of denialist dung.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (26) Jul 24, 2013
Climate "Science", where pure conjecture is presented as fact.
This is just a new passage added to the AGW Alarmist Cult's scripture, to keep the blind faithful true to the cause and the greedy False Prophets like Vicar Gore, wealthy.
Even as that scripture is increasingly loaded with pages upon pages of contradictions, the cultists choose to stay ignorant.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
TheKnowItAll
1 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2013
I don't know why they are so concerned about plankton food (CO2). The more CO2 = more Plankton = more photosynthesis. That energy gets released in the form of heat through animals so that is what we actually have to control. I say we start with household pets. They have no use in the ecosystem. lol
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (28) Jul 24, 2013
I am so glad that I put on my hip boots before wading into this swamp of denialist dung.

Well we won't want an AGW Alarmist Turd like you polluting the dung.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (21) Jul 24, 2013
"British scientists offer explanations"

"The Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel, the Americans superficial, and so on; but we are perfide Albion, the island of hypocrites, the people who have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial concessions in both pockets. Is the charge true? I think it is."

-For gun control and AGW at any rate-

Oh by the way congrats on the birth of the royal reptilian. Reptiles do like it hot.


Nauseating - and a low point in Denialist argument in the 5 years I have been posting on here.
Heehee no actually it was pretty funny but who cares what you think? As we get older we lose our ability to appreciate sarcasm - it's true.

Have you made out your will?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2013
"British scientists offer explanations"

"The Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel, the Americans superficial, and so on; but we are perfide Albion, the island of hypocrites, the people who have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial concessions in both pockets. Is the charge true? I think it is."

-For gun control and AGW at any rate-

Oh by the way congrats on the birth of the royal reptilian. Reptiles do like it hot.


Nauseating - and a low point in Denialist argument in the 5 years I have been posting on here.
Heehee no actually it was pretty funny but who cares what you think? As we get older we lose our ability to appreciate sarcasm - it's true.

Have you made out your will?


It's true yes - as I said nauseating. And I'm English - so we do do irony. That was just xenophobic filth. Have you paid up your dues to the TP?
Also have you have anything constructive to add to discussion?
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2013
"The more CO2 = more Plankton = more photosynthesis." - TheKnowNothing

You mean there are no other nutrients limiting plankton growth?

Why then, are there experiments conducted in which iron is being dumped into the ocean?

Think Child. Think real hard.

Don't poop yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2013
It's true yes - as I said nauseating. And I'm English - so we do do irony. That was just xenophobic filth
So why dont you ring up the chap who penned it?

"E.M. (Edward Morgan) Forster (1879-1970), British novelist, essayist. repr. In Abinger Harvest (1936). Notes on the English Character (1920). Forster defined English hypocrisy as "unconscious deceit" and "muddle-headedness."

-Oh. Hes dead I see. Pity wot?

Perfidious Albion. Known the world over.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (23) Jul 24, 2013
I am so glad that I put on my hip boots before wading into this swamp of denialist dung.

Well we won't want an AGW Alarmist Turd like you polluting the dung.

I applaud your sudden interest in the purity and integrity of what seems to be your primary nutrient source.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2013
It's true yes - as I said nauseating. And I'm English - so we do do irony. That was just xenophobic filth
So why dont you ring up the chap who penned it?


"He is known best for his ironic and well-plotted novels examining class difference and hypocrisy in early 20th-century British society. Wikipedia"

Indeed and his interpretation is hardly relevant a century later. Things have changed here a tad..

And as he was English it will be riddled with irony - a writing idiom that you did not signal.

Oh and don't confuse English with British - the Welsh, Scots and N Irish will have your head.

Now a constructive comment?

ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 24, 2013
Why is Uranus cooling while the Earth is warming?
Uranus has just passed into the equinox of its orbit where the whole of the planet is receiving sunshine evenly, as opposed to just the one pole getting continuous sunlight. So of course it is going to cool down on the poles. All other planets and moons exhibit signs of warming.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2013
Indeed and his interpretation is hardly relevant a century later. Things have changed here a tad..
Yah sure.

"Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes."

-Keep telling yourself that-

Deception is humanitys most refined quality.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2013
"Uranus has just passed into the equinox of its orbit" - ValeriaT

The term "equinox" is not applicable to the discussion of orbits.

Equinox Definition - "either of the two points on the celestial sphere where the celestial equator intersects the ecliptic"

" All other planets and moons exhibit signs of warming."

The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

Poor Tardieboy.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (23) Jul 24, 2013
The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming
Why do you think so? The Sun has its own troubles with it, too. The origin of all these events is apparently extrasolar.
Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).
Of course, when everything observable is getting warmed, then one planet is an exception (which has its easy explanation in addition, as I already stated). But my theory isn't based on global warming across whole solar system only. It has many other independent indicia/evidence. I never build my theories on single line of reasoning.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2013
"The origin of all these events is apparently extrasolar." - ValeriaT

With 6 out of 100 bodies in the solar system warming, how does this magical extra-solar force decide which body to change?

Is it through Love? Or is it space aliens who are directing their warming moon beams at your tinfoil hat?
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2013
"But my theory isn't based on global warming across whole solar system only. It has many other independent indicia/evidence." - ValeriaT

None of which is rational, let alone evidence.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (25) Jul 24, 2013
The origin of all these events is apparently extrasolar. ValT


What you linked to just give a more accurate portrayal of the Sun's magnetic field, not the teardrop they believe it to be. This image from your link show the "waist" of hourglass shape of the magnetic field created at a stellar z-pinch along a birkeland current.
The description of the magnetic field is here; http://electric-c...elds.pdf
Check out Fig. 8 for a side view of this z-pinch phenomena.
Here are more examples;
http://www.spacet...po9607a/
http://www.spacet...ic0910h/
http://www.spacet...po9935d/
http://www.spacet...ic0301a/

According to the data collected by the Voyagers and IBEX, not the mention info such as this;
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

There is no "gas cloud pressing on the solar system", that's just the shape of the Sun's expected magnetic field.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2013
Indeed and his interpretation is hardly relevant a century later. Things have changed here a tad..
Yah sure.

"Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes."

-Keep telling yourself that-

Deception is humanitys most refined quality.


What the f*^^ has Blair got to do with climate science?

I know I keep forgetting that the motivation of denialism is ideologically based - to the degree that conspiracy and deception becomes the obvious answer to AGW.

I seem to remember that Blair was just holding Bush's hand.

The fact remains you attacked science using xenophobic comments pertaining to the country of the scientists involved.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) Jul 26, 2013
Just the Brits? Even Reagan's Secretary of State is a 'warmist'
A Republican Secretary of State Urges Action on Climate Change
http://www.scient...d-energy
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (21) Jul 28, 2013
I am so glad that I put on my hip boots before wading into this swamp of denialist dung.

Well we won't want an AGW Alarmist Turd like you polluting the dung.

You've obviously confused us with your fellow alumni of Turd University.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 28, 2013
I am so glad that I put on my hip boots before wading into this swamp of denialist dung.

Well we won't want an AGW Alarmist Turd like you polluting the dung.

You've obviously confused us with your fellow alumni of Turd University.

(r)antigoracle seems peculiarly obsessed with Al Gore and anal excretion.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2013
The competing theories will be well tested over the next 20 years. Many skeptics argued that the ocean had absorbed solar energy in the 40s and 50s when solar activity was arguably at its highest level in 1000 years. They argue the following warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) with its more frequent El Ninos ventilated that heat which is why we saw the warming during the positive phase of the PDO. Ironically CO2 advocates poo-pooed that natural explanation but now use the very same mechanism to suggest warming by CO2 is being sequestered and will be ventilated during the next PDO warm phase. Because solar activity is dropping to levels approaching the Little Ice Age the next 20 years will be revealing. If the sun is the main heating driver then temperature during the next PDO warm phase will be lower than the 1990s. If CO2 is the driver then the temperature will be higher.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (21) Jul 30, 2013
Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."


Correct: Now provide me with the "experiment" that has been done that provides the necessary energy and causation physics to better fit as the culprit of GW than CO2.

Actually there is no experiment that proves the earth is sensitive to CO2. Attribution conclusions are based on subtracting model results from observation. Models have been nortoriously bad had predicting regional climates. There are tons of studies showing landscape changes and urbanization can raise local temperatures by 10 to 20 degrees. Between the 1997 El Nino and 1999 La Nina global temperatures changed more than the computed centruy climate change. The top 10 feet of the ocean contains more heat than the whole atmosphere so ocean cycles greatly affect temperatures.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2013
The BBC has a story entitled "The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade"
http://www.bbc.co...23346370
Jim Steele
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2013
Nature has done several experiments to show warming and cooling are independent of CO2. The hottest temperature on record in Death Valley happened in 1913. When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was in its warm phase, Alaska and the Bering Sea were considered one the fastest warming places. When it trended into its cool phase Alaska and the Bering Sea became the fastest cooling place on earth. Read Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116
Jim Steele
1.2 / 5 (23) Jul 30, 2013
The BBC has a story entitled "The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade"
http://www.bbc.co...23346370


This story is using zombie data when they argue "Kivalina's story is not unique. Temperature records show the Arctic region of Alaska is warming twice as fast as the rest of the United States"

True as the above referenced Wendler paper reported, "a sudden temperature increase in Alaska was recorded starting in 1977 [5], seemingly driven by the change in polarity of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index [6], which went from dominantly negative before 1977 to dominantly positive values after that year" However they continue for the 21st century "we plotted the mean values of these 20 first order stations and added the line of the best linear fit. The mean cooling of the average of all stations was 1.3°C for thedecade"

Bering Sea had record sea ice extent in 2012 and far above avearge in 2013. This article is dishonest Neinsense
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2013
And if you look at the nearest local tide gauge at Nome Alaska the sea level has dropped during the past decade. The BBC loses integrity points here. Go to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website

http://www.psmsl....high.png

or for Prudhoe Bay see http://www.psmsl....high.png
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 31, 2013
And if you look at the nearest local tide gauge at Nome Alaska the sea level has dropped during the past decade. The BBC loses integrity points here. Go to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website

http://www.psmsl....high.png

If you'd read the story, it isn't so much sea level rise, it's the removal of sea ice that allows storms to erode a coastline that also has permafrost to melt. Nice red herring maneuver though.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2013
Nature has done several experiments to show warming and cooling are independent of CO2. The hottest temperature on record in Death Valley happened in 1913. When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was in its warm phase, Alaska and the Bering Sea were considered one the fastest warming places. When it trended into its cool phase Alaska and the Bering Sea became the fastest cooling place on earth. Read Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116


You make the mistake of thinking that the CO2 warming signal cannot be temporarily overridden by other climate cycles like ENSO when in the cool phase, and that regional temperature anomalies cannot occur without it (weather). The AGW effect continues beneath.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (19) Jul 31, 2013
Taken en masse, Jim Steele's statements amount to little more than argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Jim Steele
1 / 5 (17) Jul 31, 2013
If you'd read the story, it isn't so much sea level rise, it's the removal of sea ice that allows storms to erode a coastline that also has permafrost to melt. Nice red herring maneuver though.


I did read the story and they said "Retreating ice, slowly rising sea levels and increased coastal erosion have left three Inuit settlements facing imminent destruction."

More on sea ice. In 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported "ice extent in the Bering Sea was much greater than average, reaching the second-highest levels for January in the satellite record." NASA's Earth Observatory wrote, "For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice… NSIDC data indicate that ice extent in the Bering Sea for most of this winter has been between 20 to 30 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average. February 2012 had the highest ice extent for the area since satellite records started." And in 2013 Bering Sea ice was again above normal.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2013


I did read the story and they said "Retreating ice, slowly rising sea levels and increased coastal erosion have left three Inuit settlements facing imminent destruction."

More on sea ice. In 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported "ice extent in the Bering Sea was much greater than average, reaching the second-highest levels for January in the satellite record." NASA's Earth Observatory wrote, "For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice… NSIDC data indicate that ice extent in the Bering Sea for most of this winter has been between 20 to 30 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average. February 2012 had the highest ice extent for the area since satellite records started." And in 2013 Bering Sea ice was again above normal.

Cherry-picked stats from deep winter that reference extent and not thickness or solidity of the winter ice. You avoid summer and the early fall storms also mentioned as a threat.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2013
Taken en masse, Jim Steele's statements amount to little more than argumentum ad ignorantiam.


The surest sign that you lack the scientific ammunition to respectfully rebut the evidence, is your feeble attempt at character assassination. Try some science!

it isn't so much sea level rise
Being an ignorantiam who uses red herrings, I was easily duped by the title "The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade" Silly me to mention sea level.
runrig
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2013

The surest sign that you lack the scientific ammunition to respectfully rebut the evidence, is your feeble attempt at character assassination. Try some science!


Jim: The science is there in abundance - this site has a constant stream of it. Read IPCC AR4.

The science "you" may prefer has been found wanting. If you come at the subject as neutral, fair enough, but many on here base their "skepticism" from the standpoint of their ideology and work from the basis that CO2 driven AGW MUST be wrong and resort to regurgitating the usual myths, ad nauseum - along the way, with such breathtaking comments as "it's basic high school science" and ( the classic ) "violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics"

From that revered "science Blog" .... http://hockeyscht...law.html

As though the world's climate scientists aren't perfectly aware of basic science/Laws of thermodynamics.

You see why we find it so annoying? and some show it?
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013

More on sea ice. In 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported "ice extent in the Bering Sea was much greater than average, reaching the second-highest levels for January in the satellite record." NASA's Earth Observatory wrote, "For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice… NSIDC data indicate that ice extent in the Bering Sea for most of this winter has been between 20 to 30 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average. February 2012 had the highest ice extent for the area since satellite records started." And in 2013 Bering Sea ice was again above normal.


You refer to the effect of regional weather on Arctic ice. The long term trend for the whole Polar ice-cap is what shows up what is happening. Also Ice extent does not tell the correct story. At the end of each NH winter ave ice extent will be pretty much the same (at the moment) but it is the amount of single year, thin ice that makes it vulnerable to quick melt the next summer.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2013
@runrig There is a wide spectrum of global warming skeptics and advocates. We can both find the stupidest comments from either camp, but such tactics does nothing to discuss the real science. You refute what I say by arguing someone else said something stupid. Please. Understanding how wildlife has been affected by climate change versus landscape changes led me to restore habitats and be skeptical of climate change claims. My views on Arctic sea ice vs Antarctic sea ice are supported by well documented science, read here
http://wattsupwit...dicator/
Neinsense99
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2013
@runrig There is a wide spectrum of global warming skeptics and advocates. We can both find the stupidest comments from either camp, but such tactics does nothing to discuss the real science. You refute what I say by arguing someone else said something stupid. Please. Understanding how wildlife has been affected by climate change versus landscape changes led me to restore habitats and be skeptical of climate change claims. My views on Arctic sea ice vs Antarctic sea ice are supported by well documented science, read here
http://wattsupwit...dicator/

The balance fallacy, also known as false balance,[2] occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal value regardless of their respective merits.
http://rationalwi..._fallacy
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
@runrig .... My views on Arctic sea ice vs Antarctic sea ice are supported by well documented science, read here
http://wattsupwit...dicator/


Sorry, I don't consider WUWT a reliable source of balanced climate science. As I mentioned in my post - it is merely a blog that comes at things from the basis that CO2 driven AGW is wrong and works from there.
http://en.wikiped...blogger)

Arctic:
Land-locked
At ~ sea-level.
Low salinity ( river outflow and locked in nature ).
In NH where anthroprogenic efects prodominate.
Antarctic:
Far from surrounding land-masses.
Thick ice-sheets at an ave of 12000ft.
High salinity ( made less so by melting ice at periphery and causing recent larger sea-ice amounts in winter re-freeze ). Off-shore winds serving to blow ice to greater radius.
Ozone hole - cooling the Strat and strengthening the Polar vortex

Cont
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
thereby further isolating the continent by encircling winds and inhibiting meridional advection of warmer air inland. - anyway at that altitude any "warm" air would only produce greater snowfall ( air at 0C holds twice the moisture of air at -10C ) and air at 15C at sea level on the coast would arrive at at land level in the interior sub-zero.

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

The Antrctic is a proper Pole of cold - way more extreme than the Arctic ...so

It's apples and pears and Mr watts should know that - to equate ice with latitude solely is laughable.

The statement WUWT makes that "In contrast, most of the Arctic sea ice exists inside the Arctic Circle and should be last to melt." beggars belief from a so called meteorologist (broadcast - any quals? - not listed on Wiki - but says paid by Heartland). I am a Meteorologist BTW - see profile. The meteorology of both poles are vastly different and cannot be equated.

Cont
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
EDIT ......ahhh
Just come across this post of yours in comments from said WUWT article ..

""richard telford says: Antarctic sea ice formation is not only controlled by temperature, but also salinity, decoupling any simple temperature-ice extent relationship."
The paper you link to is laughable and one of the many attempts to suggest growing sea ice is caused by warming. The argument is warming causes melting, causes more fresh water that freezes more readily. If realistic it should hold true in the Arctic. Such failed logic is also possible only when they use an obscuring global average. Studies that break down the local dynamics find where the temperatures are colder there is more ice.""

So you think salinity is equatable in both environments and not a factor in Antarctic sea-ice growth, neither the fact that winds can drive ice away from the continent but only have narrow staits in the NH.
Laughable is it?

OK - I've done my bit to deny ignorance for others.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2013
@ runrig The essay is mine not Watts'. Your reply is confusing but to be clear the argument by CO2 advocates is "warming causes melting, causes more fresh water that freezes more readily." If so why is there not more ice in the Arctic?

Arctic water is much fresher. See NASA's salinity map

http://www.nasa.g...786.html

And how come you can post multiple times in a matter of minutes and I get blocked for an hour? Are you the "moderator"?
SaulAlinsky
1.4 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2013
Jim, you've been reported as a global warming denier and have been punished by moderation. This is a science website, so we must adhere to science. Please don't do it again.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
@ runrig The essay is mine not Watts'. Your reply is confusing but to be clear the argument by CO2 advocates is "warming causes melting, causes more fresh water that freezes more readily." If so why is there not more ice in the Arctic?

Arctic water is much fresher. See NASA's salinity map

http://www.nasa.g...786.html

And how come you can post multiple times in a matter of minutes and I get blocked for an hour? Are you the "moderator"?


Jim: The Arctic has limited space within which to expand - it is land-locked.
The Antarctic has a changed profile as recent melting of land-ice ( in particular the antarctic peninsular ) has reduced the salinity of the peripheral seas and has free space within to expand its ice.

You are allowed to post after 3mins before which you get a "flood control" message.
No I am not a moderator. I have never encountered one one here. Don't think they exist.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
Arctic water is much fresher. See NASA's salinity map


Jim: It's not a matter of relative salinity between the two seas ( whatever - I haven't checked ) - it's a matter of decreasing salinity in the peripheral Antarctic seas. It's decreasing so that sea-ice will form more easily THAN IT DID as a result.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2013
Precisely because of the geographical differences the Arctic undergoes cycles of ice formation and melt that are independent of air temperatures. Those confounding factors do not affect Antarctic Sea ice which is more sensitive to air temperatures.

The consensus among climate scientists regards the initial loss of Arctic Ice can be read in Rigor, I.G. and J.M. Wallace (2004), Variations in the Age of Sea Ice and Summer Sea Ice Extent, Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 31

"On seasonal time scales, Rigor et al. [2002] showed that most of the variability in sea-ice motion is related to variations in the wind, and that the Arctic Oscillation (AO) [Thompson and Wallace, 1998] explains most of the variance in wind (sea level pressure) and sea-ice motion. The winter wind anomalies associated with the high-index AO conditions increases the advection of ice away from the Eurasian and Alaskan coasts. This advection increases the
production of thin ice in the flaw leads along the coast."
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2013
@ runrig You said "The Arctic has limited space within which to expand - it is land-locked." I fully understand and that is why it goes through cycles of compressed mulityear ice and when winds change to blow the ice out it has thin first year ice just like the Antarctic.

You said "The Antarctic has a changed profile as recent melting of land-ice ( in particular the antarctic peninsular ) has reduced the salinity of the peripheral seas and has free space within to expand its ice." Your arguments have confused results suggested by a model to explain the contradiction of growing ice Antarctic sea ice with real observations. The winds have compressed the ice along the west coast of the peninsula creating more open water and there we see higher temperatures. Along the coast of eastern Antarctica there is no rise in temperature and ice is expanding. Antarctica's regions of growing ice reflect the cooler temperatures

runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
Jim: I take it you are suggesting that Antarctic sea-ice is increasing because of a decrease of temperature and that must mean that AGW does not exist.
Are you saying that there is no GW ? ( beyond the obvious, explainable current slow-down).

Given the complex/severe nature of the Antarctic environment and it's contorted coastline sea-ice movements/compression will also necessarily be complex. Studies show ice melt from coastal fringes and in particular the peninsula - and peninsulas cause havoc with wind profiles. Compression along the west penin. coastline would be an obvious effect of prevailing westerlies and the east more likely to dispersal. The key must be though, given no recorded reduction in SST's and air temps, that the salinity of coastal seas is reduced from what it was and with similar winter temps and general free area for that dispersal, then greater sea-ice will form. "Antarctica's regions of growing ice reflect the cooler temperatures". No they don't -

Cont
runrig
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2013
there is no complete correlation of temp with ice in any environment, let alone sea-ice.
showed that most of the variability in sea-ice motion is related to variations in the wind, and that the Arctic Oscillation (AO)

Yes agreed - but that is motion, not dispersal into a larger area.
The AO, when -ve does mean a general outflow of winds away from the Arctic, but where's the ice to go? The main outlet is the Greenland and Norwegian Seas - slapbang where the NAD flows to and prolonged northerlies there are rare. I know of no occasion when ice moved significantly towards Iceland or down the Norwegian coast - prevailing winds/sea currents will not allow it.
http://nsidc.org/...nce.html
A -ve AO in winter means a warmer Arctic. A situation that would never occur over Antarctica given it's topography and upper atmosphere/stratospheric conditions.
BTW: You are aware that Arctic ice is twice as thick as Antarctic ice on average?
Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2013
@ringrig "slapbang"??? no occasion??

Read Semdsrud (2011) Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline
"
Apart from melting, the southward drift through Fram Strait is the main loss. We use geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960's. The 10 increase in ice export occurred mostly during winter and is directly connected to higher southward ice drift velocities, due to stronger geostrophic winds. ..Annual sea ice export likely has a significant influence on 15 the summer sea ice variability and we find low values in the 60's, the late 80's and 90's, and particularly high values during 2005–2008. The study highlight the possible role of variability in ice export as an explanatory factor for understanding the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades
runrig
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2013
Jim: So you're saying ice exit through the Fram Strait is an equivalence for the complete openness of the Antarctic sea-ice environment, and we can because of that say that increased Antarctic sea-ice trumps Arctic sea-ice loss regardless of all the differences in the two environments I have pointed out. ie that Arctic ice loss is down to unusual ice movement though a relatively narrow strait and not to the documented temp increase ( which fits AGW theory ), and follows a clear 30+ year trend....
http://www.thearc...ume.html
BTW: that region just east of Greenland is sheltered from the NAD which reaches reaches it's north-most extent at Iceland.
http://www.nasa.g...ice.html

Jim Steele
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2013
@runrug You asked "So you're saying ice exit through the Fram Strait is an equivalence for the complete openness of the Antarctic sea-ice environment"

No! I am saying that the Arctic has cycles that affect summer ice melt. One cycle is the amount of ice export. After the thick multiyear ice has been exported, the thinner first year replacement ice acts just the like the first year ice in Antarctica. Each season Antarctica's sea ice melts very rapidly, but that does not create alarm. The rapid melting of first year Arctic ice should not be a cause for alarm either.

The Arctic also undergoes cycles of more intruding warm water. There is a warm Atlantic layer just 100 meters beneath the colder surface water. After insulating sea ice is removed the winds can stir the water and bring that heat to the surface. (Read Shimada 2006) This warming from below creates a lag the inhibits the formation of more multiyear ice even after the winds shift to favor the trapping of the ice.
runrig
2.5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2013
Jim: I do not disagree with you that there are variations/cycles that affect Arctic ice ( the AMO current warm mode "may" be one such ).The rapid melting of first year ice in the Arctic causes alarm because there is so much more of it than there was ( at least in the satellite era ) and it's melt (areal+volume) is increasing as one of my links shows.
What you describe is a feedback effect of the ice-melt - and this is all part of the AGW problem - you cannot divorce the primary effect from what follows. Vis the depression over the Arctic last summer that accelerated the melt. If the ice were more robust then it would have resisted. Export of ice from the Arctic is not a significant factor in it's thinning as the trend graph shows - something is acting long term.
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2013
@runrig "What you describe is a feedback effect of the ice-melt - and this is all part of the AGW problem - you cannot divorce the primary effect from what follows."

I would argue that that we can not uncritically marry those feedbacks to AGW any more than we can to any other factor that initiates ice export. However because there was a similar warming in the 1930s, and because cold winter winds (not CO2 warmed air) initiated the loss of thick Arctic ice, I suspect natural oscillation were the driver. Buoy data shows less warm water is now being pumped into the Arctic and scientists who trace those pulses suggest the warm water takes about 15 years to make a full circuit. I argue the next 10 years will provide the evidence needed to reliably determine the cause. The natural oscillation theory suggests the Arctic sea ice should be recovering by then.

Also I want to apologize for mistyping your name in the above posts. It was accidental and no disrespect was intended.
runrig
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2013
Jim:

I disagree with your statement "However because there was a similar warming in the 1930s........."

That may or may not be true as ice data from that period is controversial and consists mainly of data from the Atlantic/Russian sector where an increased NAO and consequent stronger W-SWlies would have the effect of driving the NAD into the Barents sea to give warming. This current warming would appear to be much more general than that.

As I said in my last post I am prepared to believe that the warm AMO phase "may" be a factor. As with other natural cycles the AGW effect will be present beneath.

What do you mean by "cold winter winds"?
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2013
@runrig says "What do you mean by "cold winter winds"?"

in Rigor's 2002 paper "Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation" he wrote

"One could ask, did the warming act to thin and decrease the area of sea ice, or did the thinner and less expansive area of sea ice allow more heat to flux from the ocean to warm the atmosphere? .... if the thickness and area of sea ice were reduced due to a trend toward warmer SAT, then one would expect to observe an increase in the advection of heat over the Arctic Ocean during this period."

Instead he found the ice was removed by the coldest sub freezing winter winds "...However, over the ocean, their pattern shows cold advection, consistent with the strengthening of the surface winds from the interior of Eurasia, the coldest region of the Northern Hemisphere, toward the Arctic Ocean." SImilarly Kahl, J., et al., (1993) Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years" found a cooling trend in air temperature
Jim Steele
1 / 5 (14) Aug 02, 2013
@runrig "I disagree with your statement "However because there was a similar warming in the 1930s.........""

You may disagree with the cause, but the warming period is well documented in numerous studies and modelers struggle to recreate it. My question to you is what do you mean by current warming is much more general? Indeed loss of sea ice in the Atlantic sector has been driven by warm Atlantic water being pumped into the Barents Sea and beyond. The record loss of sea ice in 2007 was driven mostly by the loss of ice in Pacific sector of the Arctic (ie Chukchi sea) and was similarly correlated with influxes of warm Pacific water driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. As the PDO goes negative the Bering Sea ice has expanded to record extent and the Chukchi Sea ice is now recovering.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2013
Jim: I note that the paper you reference is dated 2002:

"The data show a 3-hPa decrease in decadal mean SLP overthe central Arctic Ocean between 1979–88 and 1989–98. This decrease in SLP drives a cyclonic trend in SIM, which resembles the structure of the Arctic Oscillation (AO)."
Since around 2008 winter AO has seen a bias to the -ve
http://www1.ncdc....f-pg.gif

The trend referenced in this paper has been reversed. So how does one explain the recent, continuing sea-ice reduction? The theory is plausible but for this change in pattern.

The +ve phase of the AO does indeed cause convergence - and in the enclosed environment of the Arctic then there will be movement away from the coasts. Inflowing winds (on average) during a +ve AO ( cyclonic ). The problem is that since around 2008 we have had a succession of predominately -ve AO winters, which would, via divergence cause onshore winds, and via this theory less thin ice at the margins.

Cont
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2013
"if the thickness and area of sea ice were reduced due to a trend toward warmer SAT, then one would expect to observe an increase in the advection of heat over the Arctic Ocean during this period."

I wouldn't - as increasing temps over the arctic is -ve AO inducing and hence divergence of cold air further south. Not advection of warmer air northwards. Arctic air would be less cold yes, but not due to advection. it would be due to export of cold. If this means a flux of heat through the ice into the lower atmosphere this is not advection, It is sensible heating. This is indisputable. Thinner ice would provide a lower "insulating" effect of the nearer 0C water beneath. However where does the chicken start and where the egg.

There was a record -ve AO bias in the winter 09/10 yet the ice index continued to fall
http://nsidc.org/...mpr.html

Cont
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2013
"The winter (DJF) AO of 2009–2010 was the lowest
observed since at least 1950, accelerating the downward trend
in the winter AO observed over the past two decades [Cohen
et al., 2009]."
http://web.mit.ed...RL10.pdf

but the warming period is well documented in numerous studies and modelers struggle to recreate it.


Really? How does that explain this then....
http://www.arctic...tent.gif

As I said, I disagree about the assertion of lower ice in the 1930's.