Study links polar vortex chills to melting sea ice

Sep 02, 2014 by Seth Borenstein
This Jan. 10, 2014 file photo shows the US side of Niagara Falls in New York beginning to thaw after the recent "polar vortex" that affected millions in the US and Canada. Remember the polar vortex, the huge mass of Arctic air that can plunge much of the U.S. into the deep freeze? You might have to get used to it. we should see more of these in the future because a study partially links these polar vortex related cold outbreaks to loss of sea ice off Russia as the world gets warmer. But we have to note that last year's polar vortex chill was slightly different and not connected to sea ice loss, researchers say. (AP Photo/Nick LoVerde, File)

A new study says that as the world gets warmer, parts of North America, Europe and Asia could see more frequent and stronger visits of cold air as the world gets warmer.

Researchers say that's because of shrinking ice in the seas off Russia. Less iced would let more energy go from the ocean into the air, and that would weaken the atmospheric forces that usually keep cold air trapped in the Arctic.

But at times it escapes and wanders south, bringing with it a bit of Arctic super chill.

That can happen for several reasons, and the new study suggests that one of them occurs when ice in northern seas shrinks, leaving more water uncovered.

Normally, sea ice keeps heat energy from escaping the ocean and entering the atmosphere. When there's less ice, more energy gets into the atmosphere and weakens the jet stream, the high-altitude river of air that usually keeps Arctic air from wandering south, said study co-author Jin-Ho Yoon of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. So the escapes instead.

That happened relatively infrequently in the 1990s, but since 2000 it has happened nearly every year, according to a study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications. A team of scientists from South Korea and United States found that many such cold outbreaks happened a few months after unusually low sea ice levels in the Barents and Kara seas, off Russia.

The study observed historical data and then conducted computer simulations. Both approaches showed the same strong link between shrinking sea ice and cold outbreaks, according to lead author Baek-Min Kim, a research scientist at the Korea Polar Research Institute. A large portion of sea ice melting is driven by man-made climate change from the burning of fossil fuels, Kim wrote in an email.

Sea ice in the Arctic usually hits its low mark in September and that's the crucial time point in terms of this study, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. Levels reached a record low in 2012 and are slightly up this year, but only temporarily, with minimum ice extent still about 40 percent below 1970s levels, he said.

Yoon said that although his study focused on shrinking sea ice, something else was evidently responsible for last year's chilly visit from the polar vortex.

In the past several years, many studies have looked at the accelerated warming in the Arctic and whether it is connected to extreme weather farther south, from heatwaves to Superstorm Sandy. This Arctic-extremes connection is "cutting edge" science that is hotly debated by mainstream climate scientists, Serreze said. Scientists are meeting this week in Seattle to look at the issue even more closely.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, is skeptical about such connections and said he doesn't agree with Yoon's study. His research points more to the Pacific than the Arctic for changes in the jet stream and behavior, and he said Yoon's study puts too much stock in an unusual 2012.

But the study was praised by several other scientists who said it does more than show that melt affects worldwide weather, but demonstrates how it happens, with a specific mechanism.

Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech climate scientist in Lubbock, said the study "provides important insight into the cascading nature of the effects human activities are having on the planet."

Explore further: NASA scientists watching, studying Arctic changes this summer

More information: National Snow and Ice Data Center: nsidc.org/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Large sea ice changes North of Swalbard

Jun 12, 2014

During the last decades warmer Atlantic water has caused a retreat of the ice edge north of Svalbard. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the largest ice loss north of Svalbard occurred during ...

Jet stream shift 'could prompt harsher winters'

Feb 16, 2014

A warmer Arctic could permanently affect the pattern of the high-altitude polar jet stream, resulting in longer and colder winters over North America and northern Europe, US scientists say.

Recommended for you

Tropical Depression 9 forms in Gulf of Mexico

9 hours ago

Tropical Depression Nine formed over the western Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico and is forecast to make a quick landfall on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. NOAA's GOES-East Satellite captured the birth of the ...

$58 million effort to study potential new energy source

14 hours ago

A research team led by The University of Texas at Austin has been awarded approximately $58 million to analyze deposits of frozen methane under the Gulf of Mexico that hold enormous potential to increase ...

And now, the volcano forecast

15 hours ago

Scientists are using volcanic gases to understand how volcanoes work, and as the basis of a hazard-warning forecast system.

User comments : 87

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
2 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
Love it!!!! Yet another proof that cold weather is caused by global warming. Here is a quick question. Exactly what weather phenomenon is not caused by AGW????
realfactchecker
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2014
Facts...such stubborn things.

http://www.dailym...now.html
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2014
Amazing how these scientists indicate the secondary effects, and fail to note a vortex is a very efficient heat transport mechanism.
So, if we take the Arctic as it is: A body of cold with wind circling it, it is pretty obvious what we'd expect. Global WARMING does not cause cooling, but addition of heat does, in what I hope is an obvious way. Ice melts, lowering water temperature, winds efficiently transfer heat to the poles and "cold" away from it.
This is predicted by the third level of my intuitive model, very smartly. @MikeM-you want error bars, give me winds speeds, front size and pressure gradients. It is THAT easy.

@realfact-it's pretty obvious, by inspection, that that sight in not credible, in what I hope is also obvious, it doesn't play well with physics.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (26) Sep 02, 2014
Love it!!!! Yet another proof that cold weather is caused by global warming. Here is a quick question. Exactly what weather phenomenon is not caused by AGW????


Probably very few MR, as AGW engenders instability in the atmosphere.
If you warm the Arctic more than the Mid-latitudes than necessarily the Polar jet-stream weakens/distorts and if the are large holes in Arctic sea-ice going into Autumn then other feed-backs re early snows in Eurasia setting up an early/stronger Siberian high are known to have high correlation with -AO (HP dominated Arctic) winters.
It's about the disruption of balance and extreme between north and south.
BTW: This study merely confirms several over the last few years and also my posts on here.
It's not surprising to those that know Meteorology - just basic dynamics re heat/LH sources/sinks.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
It is all so clear now Runrig. Thanks! So the only thing that proves that there is no AGW is climate stability. Oh wait, world temperatures have been stable for the last 18 years or so. Does that prove that there is no AGW??? You will have to excuse me, it is all so confusing.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (19) Sep 02, 2014
Facts...such stubborn things.

http://www.dailym...now.html


You must a Faux News fan.

http://mediamatte...e/199255
runrig
4.3 / 5 (22) Sep 02, 2014
.... a vortex is a very efficient heat transport mechanism. So, if we take the Arctic as it is: A body of cold with wind circling it, it is pretty obvious what we'd expect.


No it's not what we would expect, as a Polar Vortex is the opposite of an efficient transport system - it is a locked in cold pool of air insulated from warmth further south by it's shear coldness.
Ie it has a very strong Polar-jet and as such it takes a great deal to disrupt it and let that cold air "transport" south and warm air conversely "transport" north to allow mixing in the atmosphere. It is precisely the opposite of a strong PV (weak PJS) that mixes/transports it ... hence cold plunges/warm incursions north and *stuck* weather patterns bringing lengthy extremes of weather. This, of course, a +ve feed-back in AGW in sea-ice melt.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (19) Sep 02, 2014
It is all so clear now Runrig. Thanks! So the only thing that proves that there is no AGW is climate stability. Oh wait, world temperatures have been stable for the last 18 years or so. Does that prove that there is no AGW??? You will have to excuse me, it is all so confusing.


If you it say to yourself long enough my friend then your wish may come true.
To those that understand the science it is not confusing. That is why you should not worry your little head. Leave it to the experts, you know, like in every other scientific aspect of human endeavour, whether medicine, or quantum physics. It is not in our purview, as laymen to know *better* than those that study said endeavour.
Those of us who are not inflicted with a certain DK thingy and/or are not maddened uncomprehendingly by political ideology know it is not possible to know better than the expert (not as a general/overwhelming rule anyway).
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2014
If you it say to yourself long enough my friend then your wish may come true.

Is that how your AGW Cult has brainwashed you runrig.
Well, let's hope you snap out of it before that final batch of Kool-Aid.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2014
"........Those of us who are not inflicted with a certain DK thingy and/or are not maddened uncomprehendingly by political ideology know it is not possible to know better than the expert (not as a general/overwhelming rule anyway)."

It's good to see that you have not lost your sense of humor Runrig.

runrig
4 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2014
Facts...such stubborn things.

http://www.dailym...now.html


That's the last thing you will get from the Daily Wail.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
If you it say to yourself long enough my friend then your wish may come true.

Is that how your AGW Cult has brainwashed you runrig.
Well, let's hope you snap out of it before that final batch of Kool-Aid.


You don't become "brainwashed" by science my friend, especially not by the empirical stuff.
It's as near the truth as mankind has got/will get to answers about how the Universe works. Spouting stuff to emulate your peer-group certain wont do it.

BTW: We don't have "Kool-Aid" in the UK - not that I've come across anyway.
Does it boost brain-power?
MR166
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2014
http://www.dailym...now.html

You see Runrig that is where your superior education and intelligence pays off. I see more summertime polar ice and I think that there could be some NH cooling. Whereas you are able to understand that the polar ice really represents AGW.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2014
Yet, "the polar bears will be fine" - Freeman Dyson
runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Sep 02, 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

You see Runrig that is where your superior education and intelligence pays off. I see more summertime polar ice and I think that there could be some NH cooling. Whereas you are able to understand that the polar ice really represents AGW.

Not really - you see Arctic ice has just gone back to the falling trend line. In response to weather. It was never going to fall to 3sd's below that trend every summer, now was it?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2014
http://sunshineho...-normal/

Runrig you are so intelligent, perhaps you could point out exactly where last years "melting" occurred that was responsible for the "Polar Vortex".

Thanks in advance.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2014
@runrig-
In what way is a vortex not efficient?
Hurricanes, tornadoes, and now this polar vortex like a vulture circling the pole.

I think we must be talking past each other, a vortex is like a natural (if conical) "straw," it is by nature very efficient.
What are you describing?
MR166
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2014
Oh look who wrote the article Seth Borenstein. As an AP science writer he has an almost direct line to the Minister of Propaganda. Ah, I finally understand the reasoning behind the article.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
@runrig-
In what way is a vortex not efficient?
Hurricanes, tornadoes, and now this polar vortex like a vulture circling the pole.

I think we must be talking past each other, a vortex is like a natural (if conical) "straw," it is by nature very efficient.
What are you describing?

Interestingly enough, a Geier (German for vulture-my name) does exactly that...
I'd like to think I am pretty efficient....
freethinking
2 / 5 (19) Sep 02, 2014
Global Warming is a proven fact, and Al Gore said just a few years ago that the polar ice caps will be gone around the year 2015.

Even though the earth hasn't warmed in the last 19 years or so, and even though the ice caps are larger than they have been for decades, even though massives storms havent happened like Global Warming Believists has said would happen..... Global Warming is such a proven fact, and the science absolutely completely and utterly settled, that all evidence contrary to this fact, all observations contrary to this Belief need new theories and explanations other than Global Warming isn't happening.

If Global Warming isn't happening the world will end... Al Gore and other Profits of Global Warming will need to find other scams and fools to believe them. Progressives will have to come up with other reasons to control and tax people..... Unfortunately stupid people listen to Progressives and Democrats.
Grallen
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2014
@runrig: Thank you for remaining a guiding light of reason, and intelligence, in a storm of ignorance, and paid propaganda.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
I'm probably like many of the other people that study climate, but when this polar vortex weather pattern took a run through the US, I was very suspicious there was a link between the weather pattern and some effect of global warming. This article justifies that suspicion. When you have competing energy bands like cold of the Arctic verses the warming bands of the mid-latitudes on a spinning body, vortex formation is the result!

We'll see, but as the Arctic melts and becomes ice-less these vortex's might disappear. At that point, weather will have permanently changed from global warming. However, for at least the next 10 years, I suspect, we'll have man more of these polar vortixes.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2014
I'm probably like many of the other people that study climate, but when this polar vortex weather pattern took a run through the US, I was very suspicious there was a link between the weather pattern and some effect of global warming. This article justifies that suspicion. When you have competing energy bands like cold of the Arctic verses the warming bands of the mid-latitudes on a spinning body, vortex formation is the result!

We'll see, but as the Arctic melts and becomes ice-less these vortex's might disappear. At that point, weather will have permanently changed from global warming. However, for at least the next 10 years, I suspect, we'll have man more of these polar vortixes.

Like the oceans, the northern (and southern) poles are heat sinks...
Yes, it's going to get warmer... And after that it will get cooler...
Like we always have, we will deal with it...
runrig
4.4 / 5 (19) Sep 03, 2014
Even though the earth hasn't warmed in the last 19 years or so, and even though the ice caps are larger than they have been for decades....


Free....
19? 2014-1998 = 16?
You see this is why we train and employ experts to do stuff for us. Because we cant think our way around the subject. 1D thinking just wont do I'm afraid.

You say the Earth hasn't warmed, yes? try the 2 and 3 dimensions and realise the "Earth" *you* talk of is the ~7% of the bit that receives and temporarily stores solar energy. Try looking up the other ~93% and see how that's warmed (NB convert temp to heat).
The Icecaps are not larger and I really do fail to understand how you can say that. Look at NSIDC and this graph (yes the Arctic really is the canary in the mine-shaft).http://www.esa.in...e_losses

Oh, and look up some meteorology to realise that tropical storms need to have air taken out at the top ans well as being injected at the bottom.
Rustybolts
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
I think my old age is caused by global warming. I got wrinkles everywhere. I did have a good laugh at someone saying the increase of methane being release on the east coast of the US was caused by global warming. We just had the coolest summer here on the east coast in a long time of course they have to say this.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (15) Sep 03, 2014
@runrig-
In what way is a vortex not efficient?
Hurricanes, tornadoes, and now this polar vortex like a vulture circling the pole.

I think we must be talking past each other, a vortex is like a natural (if conical) "straw," it is by nature very efficient.
What are you describing?


Good grief. Alche/WaterDupe you lack of background in the thermal sciences is astounding. This might take more than on post to even answer. Let me start with your question about "why id a vortex not efficient?" What is a vortex? It is a swirling mass of fluid (gas or liquid - and other exotic things like quantum fluids). What happens in the swirling gases in a system produce entropy through non-reversible interactions. The production of entropy reduces the system's ability do work by TS (the product of the temperature of production of entropy and the temperature at which the entropy is lost). Because of the inherent entropy production a vortex cannot be efficient.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2014
I think we must be talking past each other, a vortex is like a natural (if conical) "straw," it is by nature very efficient.
What are you describing?


Alche/WaterDupe, WHAT? Really, "a naturally conical straw?" I guess this is right up there with your brass bowl of water with ice in it being heated from below with a candle and "perfectly" models the behavior of the earth's climate and weather. You are a charlatan right up there with Rossi, (except Rossi is rich and you spend your time banging heads with me - and that is a losing approach for you). You really don't stand much of a chance in a discussion of science.

Just how do you consider a "conical straw" to be "efficient?"

You seem to be good at asking questions, can you answer some of these question so we can get your perspective on the present situation.
RobPaulG
1.8 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
But satellite imagery is showing MASSIVE GROWTH of the polar ice cap...
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Sep 03, 2014
But satellite imagery is showing MASSIVE GROWTH of the polar ice cap...

If you mean Antarctica - well it would, it's winter down there.
Point is it's not forming coz it's colder ... and it all melts back again in summer.

It's Arctic that, as I say, is the caged canary in the mine. And I've posted a graph showing it's continued decline over decades.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 03, 2014
"It's Arctic that, as I say, is the caged canary in the mine. And I've posted a graph showing it's continued decline over decades.

Runrig the Arctic ice levels have been recovering since the big fall in 2008. It is now at about the 2007 level. Thus the statement that there has been ice cap growth is correct in a shorter term.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 03, 2014
Here is great chart showing how the Arctic ice has recovered.

http://sunshineho...2010.png

It looks to be 7 years in a row of recovery.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 03, 2014
BTW last years "Polar Vortex" occurred in the Winter when the ice mass was increasing ie. adding heat to the atmosphere. How could "melting" ice have contributed to the record breaking cold weather last year in the US????
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 03, 2014
Here is great chart showing how the Arctic ice has recovered.

http://sunshineho...2010.png

It looks to be 7 years in a row of recovery.


Get back to us when you learn how to read a graph.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
MR166 still doesn't understand combinatorial complexity with
Thus the statement that there has been ice cap growth is correct in a shorter term.
Are you claiming this is mass or volume & if so at what average density & in what relationship with decreased salinity from record Greenland ice melting ?

MR166 picking sporadically as usual with
How could "melting" ice have contributed to the record breaking cold weather last year in the US?
Who says thats the only influence ?
Anyway, what makes you be so simple & imagine the vast regions of ice are completely homogeneous AND what makes you imagine there is Zero effect from other influences in the northern hemisphere such as large cold regions around Canada for example which are not so easily moderated by contact with the oceans ?

The wordpress.com site you linked to by the way, doesnt indicate:-
1. Mass or volume
2. Source of data
3. Error bars

Tis a blog site - like the vast bulk of the blurts of all AGW deniers... :-(
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2014
"It's Arctic that, as I say, is the caged canary in the mine. And I've posted a graph showing it's continued decline over decades.

Runrig the Arctic ice levels have been recovering since the big fall in 2008. It is now at about the 2007 level. Thus the statement that there has been ice cap growth is correct in a shorter term.


Please look at the graph i posted and tell me how it's recovering from the decades long decline. You talk of weather ... and the big fall was the summer before last. An outlier and always (3 sd's below the mean... which equates to 0.3% chance of occurring) going to be so for a few years.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2014
@runrig: Thank you for remaining a guiding light of reason, and intelligence, in a storm of ignorance, and paid propaganda.

Thank you Grallen, it's appreciated.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2014
Here is great chart showing how the Arctic ice has recovered.

http://sunshineho...2010.png

It looks to be 7 years in a row of recovery.


How does that work when 2012 was the lowest Arctic ice on record??
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
BTW last years "Polar Vortex" occurred in the Winter when the ice mass was increasing ie. adding heat to the atmosphere. How could "melting" ice have contributed to the record breaking cold weather last year in the US????


MR: The PV is a winter phenomenon - it's when the Strat is in darkness and cools and the deltaT to the equator is greatest. It is the fact that there is warm, open Arctic waters on entering Autumn that sets a chain-reaction into early winter of extra moisture being available to deposit earlier/greater snows over Eurasia... this then leading to an earlier/stronger Siberian high cell. This then (in some, not all years) goes on to lock a jet-stream pattern into the NH that allows a shift in the Arctic PV later in the winter. All is intimately linked.

BTW: in low solar years there is less UV acting on the Equatorial Strat which causes less warming there in O3 destruction ... so a lesser deltaT to the pole, a weaker PV, and more likely cold Arctic plunges.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
Here is great chart showing how the Arctic ice has recovered.

http://sunshineho...2010.png

It looks to be 7 years in a row of recovery.


How does that work when 2012 was the lowest Arctic ice on record??
It seems there's at least one other denier on here that cant read a graph. FFS
MR166
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2014
I stand corrected Rig.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
I stand corrected Rig.

Thank you for that honest admission MR.
robertgrutza2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
Quote:

Last year they blamed the cold on missing Barents Sea ice. This year, Barents Sea ice is above normal – so they moved their BS to a different region. Climate experts make Bernie Madoff seem like a saint.
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
Quote:

Last year they blamed the cold on missing Barents Sea ice. This year, Barents Sea ice is above normal – so they moved their BS to a different region. Climate experts make Bernie Madoff seem like a saint.


Excuse me...
Here is a map of the Barents sea...
http://www.worlda...ssea.htm

And here is ice extent......
http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

The Barents is overwhelmingly ice free, what ice there is lies between Svalbard and Franz Joseph Land.

Oh, and thanks for giving me a 1 for thanking MR for his honesty. Speaks volumes does that act.
And no *they* (?) didn't blame last years cold (was only central/E'ern US) on an ice-free Barents. It may have been mentioned as a link before hand but the reason the Arctic PV migrated south was likely the La Nina conditions in the W Pacific and a push of warm air northwards there. Jet stream configuration my friend.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2014
robertgrutza2 said:
Quote:

Last year they blamed the cold on missing Barents Sea ice. This year, Barents Sea ice is above normal – so they moved their BS to a different region. Climate experts make Bernie Madoff seem like a saint.


Run gave you a good explanation for your blather. I just want to expand a bit. I know this is a difficult topic, but there can be more than one reason for a similar outcome in a climate system that covers the planet. That is the reason that scientists are trying to figure out the impacts of each change and it is also the reason that they can figure out a new mechanism for a similar impact.

We would not need scientists to figure these things out if they were simple. The fact that different changes in different locations on the planet can have similar effects just seems to be beyond your grasp. However, similar situations might also have complex impacts that are not similar. Take a science course and let us know if you pass.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2014
I'm surprised no one in the AGW Cult has blamed the Polar Vortex for cooling the US during the last 80 years, despite emitting the most CO2 during this time.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
Vietvet
5 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2014
I'm surprised no one in the AGW Cult has blamed the Polar Vortex for cooling the US during the last 80 years, despite emitting the most CO2 during this time.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


I'll point out again that your link is from 1999, the U.S. is only 2% of the world, and the link shows the world warming.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2014
AntiEm says:
I'm surprised no one in the AGW Cult has blamed the Polar Vortex for cooling the US during the last 80 years, despite emitting the most CO2 during this time.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


Once again showing the limited education he must have had. He/She/It is implying that because there are greater CO2 emissions in the US the climate should change faster. Of course CO2 is distributed throughout the globe and is not local. Anti must think that everyone is as dumb as he is to think we would miss this point.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2014
I'm surprised no one in the AGW Cult has blamed the Polar Vortex for cooling the US during the last 80 years, despite emitting the most CO2 during this time.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


I've posted this on another current thread ... shows you are talking bollocks (whats new?)
I expect you'll go off on one about the data being *cooked* even if you accept that data.
http://www.noaane...size.jpg

Oh, you again allude to a casual (opposite) link with temps.
Also you do realise that winds disperse CO2 throughout the atmosphere and the CO2 in the atmosphere above the US is no more than anywhere else on the planet.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2014
Yet the US has cooled since the 1930's despite seeing perhaps the most heat trapping constructions than any other country.
BTW runrig, I believe the term for that graph is not cooked but homogenized.
I'm looking at the comments from these morons in the US, and it's no surprise that by their own admission, they don't realize they have warmed the rest of the world.
howhot2
5 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2014
You know what @antigoracle, if the US has cooled since 1930, then why are ocean temperatures at the highest values ever recorded across the globe? They cover 2/3's the surface area of the globe. How can that happen and the lower 48 gets cooled? Yet temperature record after record keeps getting broken. Is it because weather is becoming more erratic as average temperatures rise?

Regardless this was all predicted by Al Gore and so far he is 10 out of 10.


Yet the US has cooled since the 1930's despite seeing perhaps the most heat trapping constructions than any other country.
BTW runrig, I believe the term for that graph is not cooked but homogenized.
I'm looking at the comments from these morons in the US, and it's no surprise that by their own admission, they don't realize they have warmed the rest of the world.

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2014
antigoracle seems to be suffering from a serious schizophrenic episode with
Yet the US has cooled since the 1930's..
By imagining (sigh) US is very well insulated from the rest of the world with this blurt
..these morons in the US, ..they don't realize they have warmed the rest of the world
Clarifying an unfortunate linguistic construction, are you antigoracle claiming;

1. US has cooled since 1930 ?
AND
2. Rest of the world has warmed ?

Then by what possible mechanism has rest of the world's warming NOT affected US ?

Is it some global insulating conspiracy to try to make the US believe its the only country ;-)

Is it some strange property of (long term since 1930s) weather not seen by any meteorologists & not ever observed by IPCC etc, that ONLY YOU know of ?

Is it the timing of your meds perhaps or those of your 'intimate cousins'; MR166, Water_Prophet & ryggesogn2 who show equal lacking in any base education of heat, so you guys continue to make dumb mistakes (sigh) ?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2014
MM: Just to continue with what you started, I am going to ask WaterProphet/Alche to predict what we will see for this coming winter. Please let us know what the Pacific Northwest will have happen. Please let us know what will happen in the UK so Runrig will know what to expect. How about the Atlantic coast?

Surely, the 100 % perfect model of yours can tell us what will happen. Inquiring minds need to know. Thank you in advance for your predictions.
peter09
1 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
Sigh
Do you know that when I look out of my window the world really does appear to be flat.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2014
To the morons of the AGW Cult, perhaps you can ask NASA why the US has cooled, despite emitting the most GHGs, while the rest of the world has warmed.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2014
To the morons of the AGW Cult, perhaps you can ask NASA why the US has cooled, despite emitting the most GHGs, while the rest of the world has warmed.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


Err the article/graph is from 1999 - 15 years ago.
And the US is 2% of the Globe ( as you've been told several times recently. There are regional changes that are counter to the whole (when averaged).
Biggest indicator by far is the warming of the Arctic.
This Goddard's up to date graph...

stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/fig-d-1.gif
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2014
Try again with the link...

www.stevengoddard...-d-1.gif

BTW Goddard is Tony Heller....

http://www.desmog...-goddard
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2014
@forum, it is important to realize that thermodynamics and Captain Stumpy are the same person, I caught them answering each others posts here: http://phys.org/n...ans.html on June 11, just search for "Whoops" and see if you can convince yourself of a better explanation. No matter what argument I try, I come to the same conclusion. Now if then he had just claimed to gotten mixed up on who I addressed, I wouldn't have believed him either, but he'd have a whittle more credibility.
Since then he has failed to understand MHD references, does not seem to be able to answer non-googleable MHD q.'s and still doesn't know how Einstein coefficients apply to his job. BTW he claims to be a plasma aka MHD engineer.
But you go on, believe him.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
My prediction is this, assuming the vortex continues, a really cold winter for the N. Hemisphere.
My hope is this will increase the albedo enough to cause some major cooling, but I am not optimistic about all of this.
As you know my other pet hypothesis is that wind, ethanol, other non-fossil fuels and ess consumption and are reducing the heat, which should also be cooling things off, but in different ways.

They have recently (this is the first I've looked and found ready data) started posting how much green energy we're using, vice fossil fuels, I shall quantify it and see what it means. It is a worthy google or two, "increase in solar/wind power."
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2014
Alche/WaterDud said:
@forum, it is important to realize that thermodynamics and Captain Stumpy are the same person, I caught them answering each others posts here: http://phys.org/n...ans.html on June 11, just search for "Whoops" and see if you can convince yourself of a better explanation. No matter what argument I try, I come to the same conclusion. Now if then he had just claimed to gotten mixed up on who I addressed, I wouldn't have believed him either, but he'd have a whittle more credibility.
Since then he has failed to understand MHD references, does not seem to be able to answer non-googleable MHD q.'s and still doesn't know how Einstein coefficients apply to his job. BTW he claims to be a plasma aka MHD engineer.
But you go on, believe him.


I'm just curious as to who really believes this? Captain-Stumpy and I have very different approaches to blogging. As to knowledge, just go to the thread he referenced and compare.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
I'm just curious as to who really believes this? Captain-Stumpy and I have very different approaches to blogging. As to knowledge, just go to the thread he referenced and compare.
@Thermodynamics
it is a troll post
just report it... he is trying to distract from his lack of scientific acumen and ability by denigrating and slandering those who are competent. His ruse is akin to saying that Runrig and I are the same... after all, I have answered posts offered to Runrig in the past as well...

Distraction and redirection are common troll posts
given his inability to convince others of his farcical Sanskrit style Om bowl hypothesis, he is left only with trolling

proof that he is trolling can be found by comparing him with the following chart: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

or simply by requiring empirical data supporting his conclusions
he has YET to prove anything
RobPaulG
1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
Algore predicted that the Arctic Ice Cap was going to disappear by summer 2014. Here is the satellite ice image for Sept 5, 2014. FRAUD has been perpetrated.
http://www.natice...snow.gif
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
Algore predicted that the Arctic Ice Cap was going to disappear by summer 2014. Here is the satellite ice image for Sept 5, 2014. FRAUD has been perpetrated
@RobPaulG
gore is not a scientist either
he is an idiot

The current models have been pretty accurate given the error bars contained within them

Perhaps you may not like AGW
that is your right... to a belief
but the scientific evidence is overwhelming for agw.
which is different than a supposition or faith. disregard gore. i do

instead, read the science
see for yourself
start here: http://climate.na...vidence/

when you come upon some scientific evidence that refutes agw (not a blog, or some conjecture... a peer reviewed study published in a reputable source with an impact in climate physics etc) then post it here and we can discuss it

otherwise you are simply adding a troll remark to an already over-trolled comment section (see antiG etc)
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
thermodynamics
4.9 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2014
RobPaulG said:
Algore predicted that the Arctic Ice Cap was going to disappear by summer 2014. Here is the satellite ice image for Sept 5, 2014. FRAUD has been perpetrated.
http://www.natice...snow.gif


So, let me know if I have this wrong. I would not want to misquote you.

You are saying that a Politician might have made a statement that was wrong. Stop the presses. Politicians never make any statements that are wrong. You might really have something here.

Second, you mention that Gore made a prediction. Looking at those statements from Gore, he said that it "could" be gone. Not that it "would" be gone. And, Gore has no qualifications to make any prediction. Can you please point out to me the multitude of technical papers that must say the same thing. Just point me toward the papers so I can know where this claim of your came from.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
"The current models have been pretty accurate given the error bars contained within them"

Capt. the error bars are huge in comparison with the change in temperature they are trying to predict. Even with the humongous error bars the temperatures are still lower than predicted.

How can you call that pretty accurate?
freethinking
1 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2014
Are there Paid Progressive Government Trolls (PPGT) sure looks like it.

If you want more information about these trolls, just do a google search on Paid Government Trolls.....

Here are some quick links for you
http://21stcentur...re-real/

https://www.youtu...o_CEgWM0

http://www.wnd.co...covered/

But then again, many of the articles on Physorg and the Main Stream media is also provided courtesy of the Democratic National Committee...

gkam
5 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2014
Having earned a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, it seems as though the anti-AGW extremists operate from political prejudice rather than science.

Conservatives and those not in science often project the ethics of their own fields onto science, which has very different standards than finance or business, religion, or any of the other fields we invented. In Science we must obey the Laws of Nature, and do not get to re-define them to suit us as we do in business and religion and finance.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2014
Are there Paid Progressive Government Trolls (PPGT) sure looks like it ... Paid Government Trolls.....
But then again, many of the articles on Physorg and the Main Stream media is also provided courtesy of the Democratic National Committee
@freefromthought
You provide youtube and fanatic sites for proof
Our site was officially launched in December 2009 at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen, initially as a vehicle to expose the collectivist mythology behind global warming and climate change
when I can give you a scientific study with empirical data for proof showing that big oil, Koch and others pay sites like yours to promote falllacies (AKA LIES) http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

you must be on their payroll... it is the only reason you would ignore the OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and link to fanatical PARANOID extremist sites
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2014
How can you call that pretty accurate?
@mr166
1- it is a highly complex system
2- the studies/models are learning more and becoming more accurate as they progress (which are great signs that we are on the right track)
3- They are considerably more accurate than the listed evidence to date from certain deniers who like to post things like: the almanac is more accurate
or the Sanskrit Om water bowl with ice
4- It is a step in the right direction rather than sitting with thumbs up our butt

For some good information: http://www.skepti...dels.htm

You may not like the reference, however, if you will take a quick look, the information provided is backed up with studies and science with links for reference and checking facts, and not like the last links posted from freefromthought

I choose SCIENCE before faith based extremist views founded in paranoia like free
Follow that link and read more
check the facts with the studies

or not
your choice
SCIENCE
or
?
NOM
5 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2014
Are there Paid Progressive Government Trolls (PPGT) sure looks like it.


Paid - get paid fairly well thanks.

Progressive - the petty politics of your country don't mean much to many of us, so the intended insult falls as flat as the earth your ilk think you live on.

Government - you got that one right with me.

Troll - you might not be aware that this is a science site. Your complete lack of any science knowledge suggests this. But here you are the troll. On some pseudo-science or fundy site the roles would be reversed.

Run along now.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
Try again with the link...

http://www.steven...-d-1.gif

Hey runrig, isn't it funny that while the rest of the world was warming, the US was cooling.
But, here is the real kicker, now that the rest of the world is cooling, lo and behold, the US is warming.
Well, actually in AGW Cult "science" anything to propagate the dogma can happen. All you need is a little manipulation of the weather stations and then the data.
I hope Hansen's underlings are prepared to go to prison for him.
gkam
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.
gkam
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
I have a Master of Science in this field, and want to debate the Deniers. no cutting and pasting of the words of others, we will have a debate, . . if they dare.

We can start with the ten hottest years in history, and segue into other considerations such as the loss of shells in copepods, and their effect on the Marine Food Chain.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
gkam sounds hopeful
I have a Master of Science in this field, and want to debate the Deniers. no cutting and pasting of the words of others, we will have a debate, . . if they dare.
Have 3 uni quals myself; 1982, 2008, 2010 etc But hey, it won't mean a damn to deniers, vast bulk > 97% have no uni study & likely no high school either, they are fundamentally determinists & zero understanding or interest in probabilistic issues where any sort of combinatorial complexity is involved ie

They refuse to acknowledge irrefutable facts Eg;

1.Oceans; ~1000x heat capacity of atmosphere
2.Melting ice; ~160x heat capacity of ice
3.More melting ice removes more heat reducing local temps
4.Greenland rising ~3cm each year
5.Receding glaciers
6.Increased ice volume is not equal to increase in ice mass
7.Many GHG's re-radiate IR
8.Adding a GHG with known thermal properties increases heat flow resistivity
9.Bulk of empirical data is not madeup
10.Change not natural

Some deniers act as if paid !
gkam
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Mike, it is due to the politization of science by Big Money, who count on the gullibility of those without a decent education in science. By making it a political issue, they make it emotional and dominated by prejudice.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Try again with the link...

http://www.steven...-d-1.gif

Hey runrig, isn't it funny that while the rest of the world was warming, the US was cooling.
But, here is the real kicker, now that the rest of the world is cooling, lo and behold, the US is warming.
Well, actually in AGW Cult "science" anything to propagate the dogma can happen. All you need is a little manipulation of the weather stations and then the data.
I hope Hansen's underlings are prepared to go to prison for him.


Hey Anti ... isn't it funny how you can't read a graph, or read one without the last 2 decades on it.
This from a post of mine on another current thread.

http://data.giss....ig.D.gif

You know, it matters not a jot how much/often you post this bollocks... doesn't make it true my friend.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
I have a Master of Science in this field, and want to debate the Deniers. no cutting and pasting of the words of others, we will have a debate, . . if they dare.

gkam:

I wish you luck with your "debate" but you will not get one with our resident deniers. They know nothing of the science except what they read in denialist Blogs and right-wing media. They excel in quote-mining from supposed *experts* or famous people - as though an opinion has more value than the science ...Oh, and some will even argue empirical science - which definitely is not up for debate.
BTW: I know what I'm talking about as well - a retired meteorologist with the UKMO.

Welcome anyway and the trick is to be authoritative (they hate that) - "appeal to authority", you see, and do not take their stupidity personally.
I just come on here to deny ignorance. That is all you can hope for.
Mind there are neutrals viewing and I keep them in mind when I post.
MikPetter
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Really?? The USA has cooled since 1930's??? koff koff...not quite
http://www.ncdc.n...;month=7
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
MM: I like your list. However, I did catch one typo. You said "6.Increased ice volume is not equal to increase in ice mass" and I think you wanted to use the word "extent" instead of "volume."
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Snow in the forecast.
Fracking polar vortex...er..global warming...er..AGW morons.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
Really?? The USA has cooled since 1930's??? koff koff...not quite
http://www.ncdc.n...;month=7

https://www.googl...ate+data
cough...cough..
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
@Mike-interesting list indeed,
I am a little put out that when I say this stuff I have to fight with you about it.

With 2. you are just saying 333x that of water, right? (4.18 vs 2.03?)
After 6 you get a little tenuous, I think you mean area. Increased ice area does not mean increased ice mass... volume is reasonably identical to mass. Increased area is easily the result of polar melting.

What is interesting is that the same amount of energy to heat the Earth Atm the .85C is the uncannily the same as the energy required to melt the same amount of ice we've lost/ocean levels have risen. 6cm x Ocean area x heat capacity.
I think it's because the change occurred near equilibrium over a long time, any other takers on this "coincidence?"
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
thermodynamics exercising his eagle eye
.. I did catch one typo. You said "6.Increased ice volume is not equal to increase in ice mass" and I think you wanted to use the word "extent" instead of "volume."
Yes indeed, correct. I think I wanted to say 'perceived ice volume .ne. ice mass' & unlike some deniers trying to stay within the 1000 char limit, extent is a much better word of course, tah :-)

@Water_Profane
2. Its maths SH of ice ~2, SH of melting ice ~333 ratio ~160
6. thermodynamics covered that nicely

Your 0.85C is NOT energy its temperature !!!, this seems to be the core of why you
delude yourself your model is perfect but cannot predict what changed circa 1998.

There is no evidence of a coincidence plainly because AFAIK there is no net estimate of all actual ice loss to fit your speculation, in any case you have to factor in coefficient of linear expansion - how does your 'analogy' do that pray tell, is the bowl big enough, do you have a laser micrometer ?
gkam
5 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
I want the deniers to promise the Decent Folk they will admit to their children and grandchildren their part in trying to keep us from saving the Earth.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2014
@Mike, nice, try calculation how much energy it takes to raise the Earth's Atm by the alleged .85C, then criticize. Gosh you're just plain obstinate.

Hey, I bet you can't, it's pretty simple this side of sophomore science or engineering, but that's probably why you resort to being so tiny. Let's see?

At least I have the satisfaction of "Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery." I don't think you've mouthed my BS before, have you?
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2014
Good old @antigoracle. He's all mad that Al Gore was right all along and now he's just wearing the spaghetti of lies and non-facts that he so eagerly swallowed from the BS artists wattsup, the rightwing clones, and denier minions coughed up.

So @antigoracle, do you finally admit you were stupid as a rock and Al Gore was right after all?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
Water_Prophet muttered
@Mike, nice, try calculation how much energy it takes to raise the Earth's Atm by the alleged .85C, then criticize.
As you claim to be a "P. chemist" knowing integration & properties of GHG's then its 'right up your alley', do it, how will U handle; homogeneity, chaotic distribution & why 0.85C over what period ?

Water_Prophet mumbled
Gosh you're just plain obstinate.
Other than you being easily distracted by irrelevancies with NO interest in convergence to address ANY of your detail re your ARBITRARY claim your model is "Perfect" - LOL !

Water_Prophet speaks irrational rubbish with
I don't think you've mouthed my BS before, have you?
Not only would it be pointless but plain stupid to ever have 'mouthed' anything you utter, especially your faith in your perfect model which still hasn't shown how it can delineate atmospheric warming 1986-1998 with so called pause thereafter till now ?

In other words Water_Prophet Get Real or go away, Puh-lease !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
Well Mike, as to your first comment, where you spout out terms you obviously have no understanding of, you'd know that in using energy, you don't have to worry about those things at all. Homogeneity is your friend, chaos has nothing to do with averages, and why .85C, because that's what the agreed temp raise is. Boy Osmium and Iridium have nothing on you.
You always use those big words to intimidate, but I did Chaos as an undergraduate project, what would a chaotic distribution even be? that is, this side of non-sense? Chaos is used for weather, not global averages. How can you pack so much ignorance into such a small place when google is at your fingertips? And how can you not be embarrassed about it? You can't even use chaos' concepts correctly... sheesh.