In The Arctic, AMO/NAO ‘Predominantly Force Ocean Temperatures’ And ‘Cause Major Melting Events’

6 New Papers Link Arctic/North Atlantic

Climate Changes To Natural Factors

1. Natural variability/NAO/AMO “predominantly force ocean temperatures” and Greenland ice sheet melt 

Hahn et al., 2018
“North Atlantic Natural Variability Modulates Emergence of Widespread Greenland Melt in a Warming Climate … Using reanalysis data and a large ensemble of climate model simulations, we find that a negative North Atlantic Oscillation and positive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation consistently promote heightened summer melt under various forcing conditions. Moreover, timing of widespread 21st century Greenland melt varies considerably between ensemble members due to different phasing of these modes of natural variability. These results indicate the importance of natural modes of variability across a range of external forcing conditions for interannual melt variability and the emergence of widespread Greenland melt. … North Atlantic warming in high melt years is driven by the negative NAO rather than the AMO (Hurrell & Deser, 2010). Downward (upward) turbulent heat flux anomalies over warmer (colder) ocean regions during high melt seasons further suggest that NAO-related wind and heat fluxes predominantly force ocean temperatures.”

(press release)
“The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, found that when the NAO stays in its negative phase (meaning that air pressure is high over Greenland) it can trigger extreme ice melt in Greenland during the summer seasonLikewise, the AMO, which alters sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic, can cause major melting events when it is in its warm phase, raising the temperature of the region as a whole.”

2. Arctic sea ice and surface cooling/warming attributed to variations in the AMO

Li et al., 2018

The Arctic sea ice cover has been rapidly declining in the last two decades, concurrent with a shift in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) to its warm phase around 1996/97. … We suggest that the cold AMO phase is important to regulate the atmospheric response to AASIC [Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea ice cover] decline and our study provides insight to the ongoing debate on the connection between the Arctic sea ice and the AO.”

Drinkwater et al., 2018

Following rapid cooling in the 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean was characterized by a cold period during the 1970s and 1980s. This cold period was part of the multidecadal variability in sea surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO, which has a period of ∼60–80 years. During this cold period, below average air and sea temperatures predominated, increased ice cover was observed in those northern regions with seasonal sea ice, and evidence was found of reduced Atlantic inflow into the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. The ecological responses included a reduction in primary production and geographic shifts in zooplankton species. Also, there was a general southward expansion of arctic and boreal fish species and a retreat of the temperate species. Major fish stocks such as Atlantic cod off Greenland and Labrador/northern Newfoundland, as well as the Norwegian spring-spawning herring, collapsed commercially. These collapses were partly driven by climate-induced declines in growth rates and recruitment survival, as well as fishing. In contrast, in the more southern range of Atlantic cod, such as the North Sea, the opposite response occurred as the cool conditions led to improved growth rates and higher abundance. Long-term measurements in the English Channel documented the replacement of several warm-water species with more northern cold-water species. Benthic and nearshore species also underwent distributional shifts and changing abundances. Comparisons with the responses to the warm periods suggest that following the cold period of the 1970s and 1980s, the ecosystem in the 1990s and 2000s returned to conditions akin to what they were in the previous warm period of the 1930s–1950s. However, there were some notable exceptions, such as the continued low abundance of Atlantic cod off West Greenland and Labrador/northern Newfoundland.”

3. Arctic radiation budget “governed” by cloud cover changes

Perovich, 2018

The surface radiation budget of the Arctic Ocean plays a central role in summer ice melt and is governed by clouds and surface albedo. … Longwave and shortwave radiation are primary drivers in the surface heat budget during summer melt (Persson et al., 2002). The surface radiative balance consists of contributions from incoming shortwave radiation, reflected shortwave radiation, incoming longwave radiation, and outgoing longwave radiation. Clouds have a major impact on both incoming longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes. … Future impacts on net radiative balances will depend on both ice and cloud conditions. As the sea ice cover evolves towards more first year ice, greater melt pond coverage, and more open water, the area-averaged albedo will be less than the break-even albedo for much of the summer. This implies less melting under cloudy conditions than sunny. However, the net radiative balance will still likely be less under sunny skies at the beginning of the melt season in May and early June.”

4. Surface wind speeds “closely associated” with Arctic sea ice reduction during 1979-2009

Zhang et al., 2018

“[W]e conducted a statistical analysis to examine overall relationships between surface winds, SST [sea surface temperature], and sea ice in the CBS [Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Arctic Ocean], using the newly developed CBHAR data set. The result shows a significant negative correlation between the surface winds and SIC [sea ice concentration], further confirming that increased wind speeds are closely associated with the reduction in SIC [sea ice concentration] (Stegall and Zhang 2012) […] during September and October from 1979−2009. …  A scatter plot of mean SIC [sea ice concentration] and wind speed anomalies, as well as the variation in wind speed anomalies […] demonstrat[e] a clear inverse linear relationship between surface wind speed and SIC [sea ice concentration] anomalies, with a correlation coefficient of −0.94 at a 99% level of significance using the t-test (Snedecor and Cochran 1989). This statistically suggests that surface wind speeds generally increase as SIC [sea ice concentration] decreases. … Taken together, the negative correlation between winds and SST [sea surface temperatures] over the OW and LIC areas can be attributed to reduced shortwave radiation due to increased cloudiness, increased upward sensible and latent heat fluxes, and strong cold advection from sea ice towards the north when strong winds are present, or vice versa when weak winds occur.”  

[Neither CO2 concentration or anthropogenic forcing is mentioned anywhere in the paper as radiative factors affecting sea surface temperatures or sea ice concentrations during 1979-2009.]

5. Volcanic activity “appear to underpin” sea surface temperature variations in the North Atlantic

Birkel et al., 2018

We find that cool intervals across the North Atlantic coincide with two distinct episodes of explosive volcanic activity (1880s–1920s and 1960s–1990s), where key eruptions include 1883 Krakatau, 1902 Santa María, 1912 Novarupta, 1963 Agung, 1982 El Chichón, and 1991 Pinatubo. Cool SST patterns develop in association with an increased prevalence of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)+ atmospheric patterns caused by stratospheric aerosol loading and a steepened poleward temperature gradient. NAO+ patterns promote wind-driven advection, evaporative cooling, and increased albedo from enhanced Saharan dust transport and anthropogenic aerosols. SSTs across the subpolar gyre are regulated by strength of low pressure near Iceland and the associated wind-driven advection of cold surface water from the Labrador Sea. This is contrary to an interpretation that subpolar SSTs are driven by changes in ocean overturning circulation. We also find that North Pacific and global mean SST declines can be readily associated with the same volcanic triggers that affect the North Atlantic. Thus, external forcing from volcanic aerosols appears to underpin multi-decade SST variability observed in the historical record.”

75 responses to “In The Arctic, AMO/NAO ‘Predominantly Force Ocean Temperatures’ And ‘Cause Major Melting Events’”

  1. Brian G Valentine

    What about Witchcraft (Hexerei)?

    People tend to dismiss the power of Witchcraft, but people associated with this were murdered for causing unpleasant weather in Massachusetts and Würzburg, and the weather did indeed seem to improve the following years!

    I don’t think anyone can seriously doubt the scientifically founded consensus of Harvard and Cologne educated scholars.

    1. Yonason

      Have you watched the link Pierre has to “Baliunas on Weather Cooking?” It’s a hoot. Can’t tell the AGW avocating climate “scientists” from the villagers with torches and pitchforks.

      Here. This’ll save you the trouble of looking for it.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M

      Enjoy

      PS – Harvard is nuts, jack.
      https://roadtrippers.com/stories/so-harvard-is-hosting-a-satanic-black-mass-on-monday-night

    2. Yonason

      Update – sort of. Not witchcraft related, but not too off road, either.

      THE CRAZY IS STRONG WITH HARVARD

      1. Brian G Valentine

        Sallie is no darling of the left, is she. She retired early – possibly the result of unrelenting Leftist criticism. I am from New York and and I can tell from Sallie’s accent exactly where she lived in New York.

        The older people get, the more reasoned they seem to become. Notable exceptions include complete and insufferable fools such as Al Gore, Schellnhuber, and Bill Nye. But despite their interest in doing so, I don’t think they are producing a generation of them.

        1. SebastianH

          The older people get, the more reasoned they seem to become.

          Generally true, however there seems to be a threshold right around retirement that does something to the mind and crazy people flock to those wild claims of retired professors and scientists 🙂

          1. John Brown

            SebH is afraid? The truth does come out in the end!
            SebH confirms my presumption that he has never been inside a university, has never studied or ever worked in a scientific institute, has never experienced the politics going on in these institutions or been affected by slander or scientific defamation.
            Easy talk, show us that you actually been there and done this or stop your wild accusations.
            I still do not understand that one without credits deems himself capable to distinguish scientific arguments to decide closer to reality or not.
            You are a software programmer? Yes?

            What degree is that?

          2. SebastianH

            You are a software programmer? Yes?

            What degree is that?

            Is that a serious question?

            And yes, I am afraid. The internet was a good thing before retired people discovered it and began spreading their wild ideas and people started to believe them because they imagine retirees are somehow and finally more free to express the “real truth” 😉

            The truth does come out in the end!

            The truth has been known for many decades now. Even the big fossil fuel companies found out what there product is capable of doing a long time ago.

            I still do not understand that one without credits deems himself capable to distinguish scientific arguments to decide closer to reality or not.

            What credits do you think are necessary to understand what scientists are saying? Do you believe all those pseudoskeptic bloggers have the required qualification to decide what is real and what is junk science?

            This is an interesting but pretty shitty attempt to attack someone in this manner to exclude this person from a discussion. What are your qualifications? And may I ask how old you are?

          3. spike55

            “right around retirement does something to the mind and crazy people “

            Wadhams, Shellhummer etc come to mind..

            There are certainly some LOONY AGW priests out there…

            .. and yes, you are one of the crazies that actually believe them, despite the total lack of any evidence.

            Zero science education, right seb.

            Prove me wrong about that TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE, seb

            Where is your chance.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            It shows in your every post.

          4. John Brown

            SebH,

            do you understand your arguments or not?

            First it was ” retired professors and scientists ”

            Now it is just” retired people”.

            Have you answered on of my questions? Oh I think you have.
            So you are a software programmer! Self thought? No school?

            Fine! And you claim you do understand, without quoting more credits, that you understand the science behind most of the climate papers, while you have shown a very deficient knowledge of basic physics. Have you studied any science at all?

            I believe not, more important is the fact how you try to turn my question against others, which you call” pseudoskeptic bloggers”.

            Would you call MR. Cook the same? He seems to be not at all skeptic, he is pseudoskeptic?, about the role of humans in climate.

            I am skeptic about that role. The word “Pseudoskeptic” would define rather well people that have no skepticism at all, people like MR. Cook. So I agree, these people would not understand climate science papers very well. Lets lay it out in straight terms: skepticism is a main driver in scientific work!

            I do not want to exclude you from the discussion, most post from you exclude themselves, no I unlike other would like you to join in with some real skepticism.

            Name calling, or outright accusing authors being pseudo something, is not helping your cause. There is no “junk science”, there is only junk theories!

            I am an engineer, I also worked in a science institute if that gives me some credit.

            Have you enrolled in an university yet?

          5. SebastianH

            John Brown,

            do you understand your arguments or not?

            I understand what I write. I think you do have difficulties understanding what I write at some times.

            First it was ” retired professors and scientists ”

            Now it is just” retired people”.

            This wasn’t an argument. I’d call that an observation.

            Have you answered on of my questions? Oh I think you have.
            So you are a software programmer! Self thought? No school?

            I answered you that I am afraid and I replied to your others questions with a counter question if you seriously don’t know what software experts might have studied (computer science being the answer that you are looking for).

            Fine! And you claim you do understand, without quoting more credits, that you understand the science behind most of the climate papers, while you have shown a very deficient knowledge of basic physics. Have you studied any science at all?

            I don’t know what else you replied the last time we discussed the difference between energy and force, but I remember you having difficulties understanding what I wrote and while you tried to make a case that I would be mixing those terms with each other.

            Anyway, computer science includes math, but to understand most of the stuff presented here you don’t need university level math and physics at all. And since all models are basically algorithms – the stuff we software guys breath – I don’t see why “more credits” are needed to be able to judge wether some paper is basically junk or could have a valid point.

            I am skeptic about that role. The word “Pseudoskeptic” would define rather well people that have no skepticism at all, people like MR. Cook.

            Pseudoskeptics is a term that describes people who claim to be skeptics, but really aren’t. Partly because they don’t really understand what they are arguing against or for and sometimes because they do it on purpose.

            Note: we (those outside your bubble) are all skeptics … and we are especially skeptic about anything that comes from the pseudoskeptics bubble. I have yet to meet a real skeptic who has the same view of the state of climate science as you guys.

            Lets lay it out in straight terms: skepticism is a main driver in scientific work!

            Indeed.

            I unlike other would like you to join in with some real skepticism.

            My very “real skepticism” is towards anything you guys come up with. This might appear one sided to you guys, but then again the content of this blog is very one sided also.

            Name calling, or outright accusing authors being pseudo something, is not helping your cause. There is no “junk science”, there is only junk theories!

            Probably not, but when one constantly gets called words I don’t like to repeat here, you need to endure if that someone replies in kind.

            And yes, there is junk science. That happens when someone just makes up something and manages to publish it in a paper. And Kenneth has the eerie ability to find those papers and list them as an argument against anything 😉

            I am an engineer, I also worked in a science institute if that gives me some credit.

            It does. So you should be able to recognize that what so called skeptics on this blog are claiming has no connection to reality and is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of physics and math in general.

          6. John Brown

            SebH you are saying mostly everyone else here on this blog have (I quote): “no connection to reality and” are “rooted in a deep misunderstanding of physics and math in general”

            Now this is interesting. Can I remain skeptical about this theory of yours? You would not have noticed how offensive this is?

            It still stands a Pseudoskeptic is not skeptic or feigns skepticism but has none.
            Here is another description from this link:
            http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

            “Genuine skepticism is a virtue in science. Unfortunately, some self-proclaimed guardians of science are committed to conventional taboos against psychic phenomena, despite many promising lines of evidence. Although they call themselves skeptics, they are in truth fundamentalists who attack any challenge to their beliefs, even if it means contradicting the core scientific principles of paying attention to evidence and keeping an open mind. They assume psychic phenomena cannot exist, and remain ignorant of the relevant research. They are pseudoskeptics. …”

            You agreed with me that skepticism is a virtue in real science, should it not follow that it is part of the scientific process of bringing up controversial arguments?
            If you agree with me that this blog, which you deem is one sided, is in fact just an open minded discussion forum quoting mostly from science papers and opens up the discussion, why would you accuse everyone and in particular the authors of this side to be Pseudosceptics? I has been laid out to you more than once that the authors remain skeptical of the role that humans have in climate.

            The only one that accepts that role fully is you. Would that not make you the Pseudoskeptic in the sense of the above definition?

            I am still thinking that this from you says it all:
            “My very “real skepticism” is towards anything you guys come up with”
            That directional skepticism makes you to the self-proclaimed guardian that you really are!

            Well done!

          7. spike55

            ” Do you believe all those pseudoskeptic bloggers have the required qualification to decide what is real and what is junk science”

            You most certainly do not.

            You have been shown to be totally ignorant about many facets of science, physics, maths, biology, engineering .. basically EVERYTHING.

            You wouldn’t have the faintest clue what real science is.

            Prove me wrong by answering simple questions

            or just keep running around regurgitating scientifically unsupportable garbage, as is your meme.

            Show us you “science”, little seb-troll

            except that… you DON’T HAVE ANY !!!
            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          8. spike55

            “I understand what I write. “

            Science fantasy writers usually do.. but most of it is a load of mindless bollocks.

            You are NEVER able to back up your baseless fantasies with any sort of real science, because YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS.

            And yes, you have shown that EVERYTHING you think you know is rooted in a deep lack of understanding of physics and maths and science and chemistry and biology and engineering….

            All your little troll rants are based PURELY on a load of unsupportable science FANTASY.

            Prove me wrong by providing some science to back up the very basis of your idiotic anti-science ramblings.. or continue to prove that you are NOTHING but a headless chook.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          9. spike55

            ” they are in truth fundamentalists who attack any challenge to their beliefs, even if it means contradicting the core scientific principles “

            WOW, seb is in his hall of mirrors again.

            We are STILL WAITING for you to back up any of your rantings with “core scientific principles”

            You know that you CANNOT DO THAT so you desperately avoid any possibility of having to.

            Manic distraction, deliberate lies and misinformation, trolling in mindless attempt to avoid having to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

            The only evidence you have presented has shown that you are basically a SCIENTIFICALLY CLUELESS TROLL.

          10. SebastianH

            Now this is interesting. Can I remain skeptical about this theory of yours? You would not have noticed how offensive this is?

            You can be skeptical of anything, just try not to misinterpret me by doing things like quoting out of context, building up straw men, etc …

            [large snip – ironically, seb proceeds to quote out of context, build up straw men for the rest of his post … please repost using actual quoted arguments/positions rather than smears and mischaracterizations]

          11. SebastianH

            [large snip – ironically, seb proceeds to quote out of context, build up straw men for the rest of his post … please repost using actual quoted arguments/positions rather than smears and mischaracterizations]

            I am guessing it was Kenneth who wrote this? And now everyone thinks that was really the case. I have a copy of my reply. If you really think I build up straw men in there, then everything seems to be good. You guys don’t really believe those things I mentioned then, right?

            I don’t know why you deleted that definition of a pseudoskeptic though:

            Let’s turn around that definition. There are many promising lines of evidence that human CO2 is causing the current global warming. Yet there are fundamentalists (you guys) who attack those findings because they challenge their beliefs, even if it means contradicting core scientific principles and displaying anything but an open mind. They assume the greenhouse effect cannot exist, and remain ignorant of the relevant research. They are pseudoskeptics.

            And I also find the last part important:

            I am still thinking that this from you says it all:
            “My very “real skepticism” is towards anything you guys come up with”
            That directional skepticism makes you to the self-proclaimed guardian that you really are!

            Another misunderstanding of what I actually wrote. I am here … on your turf. There is nothing to be skeptical of here other than what you guys come up with. That’s the meaning behind what I wrote. The directional skepticism is what you guys do … one direction only and every paper that seems to support the cause gets posted without any hint of skepticism towards it.

            To what length “skeptics” go to censor opposition.

          12. ME

            Older people invented the internet. Read some history. Try a book perhaps.

          13. SebastianH

            Older people invented the internet. Read some history. Try a book perhaps.

            Please identify who “invented” the internet and when they did this. Then try again at calling them old 😉

          14. John Brown

            SebH what is there to understand.

            You write it yourself: “There is nothing to be skeptical of here other than what you guys come up with. ”

            You are essentially saying that you are not skeptical about the content of the papers that are presented here.

            I might misunderstand what you are saying, but essentially I observe that you have little to nothing to counter on the actual papers. You are hung up in your exchange with Andy.

            You should put your words where your mouth is and stop disgracing yourself on the wrong side of the debate.

            Get back to the science, explain the mechanisms and principles you are talking about and claim are the answers to climate science.

            If I do not understand you, and I haven’t, then maybe try again, but please stop the endless debate.

            In regards to the book, try to think of it suspended in air to come up with your comparison. The book is just another but larger molecule in the atmosphere. What is keeping it there is your answer not when it is laying on a table.

        2. Yonason

          @Brian Valentine

          SebH takes pleasure in insulting “old” scientists, …unless they say what he wants them to, as I pointed out a while back, here.
          http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/12/world-leading-alarmist-climate-scientist-100-fossil-fuel-flights-50-tonnes-of-co2-annually/comment-page-1/#comment-1270938

          2. SebH doesn’t like Ed Berry, because he’s “some old guy,” not like E.O.Wilson, who was born in 1929, and who’s ideas aren’t all exactly mainstream.
          http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challenge-e-o-wilson-over-evolutionary-theory

          PS – Dr. Ed Berry was born in 1963. So, if Ed [at 55 years old] is “some old guy” but EO Wlson [at 89 years old] isn’t, then I guess SebH isn’t even as good at arithmetic as I once gave him credit for.

          My point? Smart people aren’t always correct, but those of the intellectual acumen of SebH are virtually always wrong.

          As spike55 points out, “…idiotic anti-science ramblings…” are all SebH has to offer. I.e., everything he knows, or at least wants us to think he knows, is as wrong as wrong can be.

          1. SebastianH

            SebH takes pleasure in insulting “old” scientists, …unless they say what he wants them to, as I pointed out a while back, here.

            Not really, I am saying it is suspicious that many pseudoskeptics or people pseudoskeptics turn to are retirees. Are you not seeing this pattern?

          2. SebastianH

            bigotry (countable and uncountable, plural bigotries)

            Characteristic qualities of a bigot: (especially religious or racial) intolerant prejudice, opinionatedness, or fanaticism; fanatic intolerance.
            (dated) obstinate prejudice or opinionatedness

            Then please tell your fellow comment author friends here, that they should display less intolerant prejudice, opinionated nonsense and fanatic science denial.

            Do you think there is a difference between you guys saying that retirees are finally free to express the “real truth” ™ and me sharing the observation that most of the pseudoskeptic nonsense and the followers of those “controversial arguments” come from the age bracket that is usually retired?

          3. spike55

            I think we can all say that basically anyone over the age of 15 has more life experience with REALITY than seb is capable of.

            He has the typical “teenage “I know it all” anti-knowledge.

            But inside, he knows he has reaches his limitations and is now incapable of actually further learning and understanding.

            He is stuck in his abyss of anti-knowledge, and cannot escape, because he cannot let go of his self-centred arrogance.

            It is JEALOUSY that leads him to hate people some much knowledgeable than he can ever be.

          4. spike55

            “His comments are also deleted or edited for this reason”

            Yep, quite often 😉

            But you don’t see me complaining and sulking like a jilted school-girl.

            There is only one self-appointed VICTIM and TROLL here, and its not me, its YOU seb.

            “that they should display less intolerant prejudice, opinionated nonsense and fanatic science denial.”

            With all your mirrors, one day your arrogance may just let you see the UGLY truth about yourself reflected back at you.

            You certainly have the first one down pat, “intolerant prejudice”

            Basically EVERYTHING you write is “opinionated nonsense”, un-backed by anything remotely resembling science.

            And you certainly show a bizarre mix of scientific ignorance and “scientific denial”.

            You say we DENY science.. then let’s see some actual real science to back up the conjecture of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            So far you have presented NO SCIENCE to deny.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          5. Yonason

            “…I am saying it is suspicious that many pseudoskeptics or people pseudoskeptics turn to are retirees. Are you not seeing this pattern?”SebH

            He knows full well there’s nothing in the least bit “suspicious” about Scientists speaking out from the safety of retirement. It’s perfectly obvious to anyone who isn’t completely oblivious that…

            “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
            https://defyccc.com/richard-lindzen-on-climate-of-fear-2006/

            One case in point is Bill Gray.
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/the-price-of-telling-the-truth-in-al-gores-world/

            And it’s not like the activist propagandist troll doesn’t know this. It’s more like, he doesn’t want YOU to know this. So he pretends that the only reason people speak out is that they are old, unless as I pointed out above they confess belief in his religion of warmism dogma – then it’s OK to be old.

            The “pseudoskeptic” here is the troll, SebH, whose only purpose here is to annoy any poster who disagrees with him. The more disagreement, the more annoyance. He never posts proof for anything he writes, expecting you to accept him as the final authority. If you don’t, he distorts what you write, indulges in gratuitous insults and mockery ans he drones on making nonsense assertions that have been debunked ad nauseum.

            Finally, just to point out one of the lies in the above quote, I do NOT turn to scientists who are old. I turn to scientists who tell the truth. I do not turn to them because they say what I want to hear, but because they make clear and convincing arguments based on real world data, not vague platitudes, “adjusted” data or faulty models.

            In short, he’s nothing more than a pest.

            See also here.
            https://youtu.be/OS-cLp1PEGQ

  2. spike55
    1. spike55

      Equal 14th warmest September (with 3 other years) in the full UAH temperature series.

      The 2015/16 El Nino seems to have been just a transient, rather than a step upward like the 1998 and late 1970s El Ninos gave.

  3. spike55

    Down here in Australia, September 2018 is 21st warmest (out of 40) in the UAH temperature series

  4. SebastianH

    Crazy thing is, even the CO2 concentration is linked to natural factors. Detrended it correlates with the seasons and whatnot …

    But nobody would say natural factors are causing the overall increase. I suppose you guys don’t know the difference?

    1. spike55

      OMG, seb doesn’t understand why readings of atmospheric CO2 at one place on Earth are seasonal.

      Natural factors ARE causing some 80%+ of the highly beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2.

      Do you really think natural sources are not growing as the Earth warms from solar influence. WOW.. talk about DENIAL. !!!

      And as we all know, the only effect of this MOSTLY NATURAL rise in atmospheric CO2 is enhanced plant growth.

      There is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence of any warming effect from enhanced atmospheric CO2.

      Let’s see if you have ANY EVIDENCE at all, seb.

      Try answering the questions, just for a change, instead of ranting off on some puerile, petty distraction.

      Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      1. SebastianH

        OMG, seb doesn’t understand why readings of atmospheric CO2 at one place on Earth are seasonal.

        CO2 is measured in many places around the globe. It’s seasonal because the hemispheres differ …

        Natural factors ARE causing some 80%+ of the highly beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2.

        No, they aren’t.

        Do you really think natural sources are not growing as the Earth warms from solar influence. WOW.. talk about DENIAL. !!!

        Yes they are growing, and yes it is known how much of an CO2 concentration increase that causes.

        And as we all know, the only effect of this MOSTLY NATURAL rise in atmospheric CO2 is enhanced plant growth.

        No, not mostly natural. And no, doesn’t only cause enhanced plant growth.

        There is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence of any warming effect from enhanced atmospheric CO2.

        Oh dear …

        Let’s see if you have ANY EVIDENCE at all, seb.

        You presented no evidence yourself. Also, I won’t be your science nanny … ever! You’ve already shown nothing will convince you as everything contradicting is fake anyways in your version of reality.

        Try answering the questions, just for a change, instead of ranting off on some puerile, petty distraction.

        How about you finally answering the question whether or not it takes more energy for a table to hold up a book for 1h vs. 2h. Didn’t follow your replies over the long weekend. Have you come up with a reply that is consistent with how energy usage (transformation, sorry John Brown) works in your version of reality? 😉

        1. spike55

          ROFLMAO

          Seb runs around like a headless chook yet again in an HILARIOUS attempt to avoid simple questions.

          Poor poppet can’t accept that real science shows only about 15-20% of human contribution to the mostly natural rise is atmospheric CO2.

          His mindless ZERO-EVIDENCE analogies and GROSS lack of basic understanding is quite funny to watch.

          Then follows with a question that shows his basic lack of comprehension any sort of engineering principles. BIZARRE !

          How much energy would it take you to hold a 50kg weight above your head, seb, could you do it for 5 minutes, 10 minutes maybe 2 hours..

          afterall, it doesn’t take any energy, does it. 😉

          Do you really think that the 50kg weight changes the downwards force it applies once you put it on the table? Do you really think the table doesn’t have to counter that continual downwards force.

          Do you really think that countering a continual downwards force doesn’t require energy ?

          Do you really think that the atmosphere is not under CONTINUAL compressive force??

          WOW. seb’s fantasy fizzics land is here again.

          No wonder the little headless chook has to run around in mindless circles whenever presented with two simple questions.

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          1. SebastianH

            Seb runs around like a headless chook yet again in an HILARIOUS attempt to avoid simple questions.

            Trying to avoid you, yes.

            Poor poppet can’t accept that real science shows only about 15-20% of human contribution to the mostly natural rise is atmospheric CO2.

            Nope, that is not what the science says.

            His mindless ZERO-EVIDENCE analogies and GROSS lack of basic understanding is quite funny to watch.

            It’s funny how you try to imitate me and before that accuse me of something you are guilty of yourself.

            Then follows with a question that shows his basic lack of comprehension any sort of engineering principles. BIZARRE !

            Just answer the question already. Waiting for the moment you realize that you are wrong.

            How much energy would it take you to hold a 50kg weight above your head, seb, could you do it for 5 minutes, 10 minutes maybe 2 hours..

            You still don’t know the difference. It should become clearer to you once you answered if your table needs more energy to hold up a book for 2h vs. 1h.

            afterall, it doesn’t take any energy, does it. 😉

            You’ll get there eventually. Maybe answering a different question will help: how much energy is required to hold something up in an orbit around Earth? Boundary conditions: high enough so there is no friction from the atmosphere and obviously within the gravitational field of the planet. Let’s say a geostationary orbit.

            Do you really think that the 50kg weight changes the downwards force it applies once you put it on the table? Do you really think the table doesn’t have to counter that continual downwards force.

            No and no. Please consider answering the two questions in this comment of mine. Also try to sum up the mass of air the pushed down on you and ask yourself if you have trouble keeping that air column above your head up.

            Do you really think that countering a continual downwards force doesn’t require energy ?

            Stuff falling down eventually settles. At some point the weak force of gravity balances out and matter/gases don’t further compress. No energy is required to counter the force of gravity at this point and there is also no warming effect present.

            Do you really think that the atmosphere is not under CONTINUAL compressive force??

            It isn’t. Earth’s atmosphere is not like Jupiter’s atmosphere which is still compressing. It’s also not remotely as massive as a star where the force of gravity is able to even cause nuclear fusion.

            You are confusing the compression of air parcels on their way down in an atmosphere with convection with a general ongoing compression of the atmosphere.

          2. spike55

            WOW what a totally BIZARRE load of anti-science BS from seb.

            DENIAL, or is it IGNORANCE, of the most basic laws of real physics.

            Sorry seb, ANYTHING under the effect of gravity requires an equal and opposite force to hold it stationary

            Be it above your head, on a table, wherever.

            That force required IS STILL THE SAME.

            The need for that force does NOT magically disappear when you put the 50kg weight on the table.

            And a geocentric satellites, is called centripetal force, bozo.

            Seems you are ignorant of that, as well.

            Gravity is ALWAYS acting on the atmosphere, therefore the atmosphere is ALWAYS exerting a downward force.

            What counteracts that CONTINUAL GRAVITY-BASED force, seb?

            It does not just magically disappear .

            This is NOT seb fantasy-fizzics la-la-land.

          3. spike55

            And seb STILL thinks he could hold a 50kg weight above his head for 2 hours without using any energy to exerting a force on it to counter the gravitational force

            BIZZARE, other-worldly anti-physics to say the least !!

            “How much energy would it take you to hold a 50kg weight above your head, seb, could you do it for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, maybe 2 hours..

            Seb yaps You still don’t know the difference.

            Come on seb, tell us the difference in force required to hold the 50kg mass above your head as against the force required by the table to hold it off the floor.

            Do you DENY that it would take energy for you to hold that 50kg above your head for 1hr, 2 hours ?

            Do you DENY that it has a weight force that MUST be countered????

            REALLY ???? WOW, just bizarre.

            So sorry you don’t know ANYTHING about pressure in gases and fluids. Ignorance and wilful DENIAL of physics, seems to be the ONLY thing you have going for you.

            Just keep showing it in every post, seb 😉

            Its HILARIOUS to watch you digging deeper and deeper, without even knowing you are doing it. 🙂

          4. spike55

            “Do you really think that the 50kg weight changes the downwards force it applies once you put it on the table? Do you really think the table doesn’t have to counter that continual downwards force.

            seb: No and no.

            Let’s get this straight

            You are saying the downward force doesn’t change. That is correct.. Well Done !

            Are you saying the table does or does not have to counter that downwards force?

            “Does” or Does not” answer so there can be no confusion.?

        2. spike55

          Manic seb EVASION and distraction, yet again

          So funny.

          And he STILL thinks the book doesn’t have a continual downward force, (that must be continually resisted by an equal and opposite force), just because it on a table.

          So bizarrely anti-physics. !!

          Where does that continual equal and opposite force come from, seb 😉 See if you can answer this time.

          And he STILL DENIES that the atmosphere is under CONTINUAL compression by gravity, therefore requires a continual equal and opposite force.

          Where does that force come from, seb 😉

          Seb fantasy fizzics la-la-land????

        3. spike55

          I reiterate

          There is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence of any warming effect from enhanced atmospheric CO2.

          “Oh dear” is NOT evidence, seb

          Its a wimp-out.

          Its seb.

          Headless chook EVASION down to an art.. HILARIOUS.

          Now he wants me to find evidence to back up his fantasies.. ROFLMAO

          I have PLENTY of evidence that there is NO EVIDENCE

          Your total INABILITY to produce any provides that evidence.

          You could of course prove me incorrect..

          STILL WAITING !!!!

          —-

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        4. spike55

          “And no, doesn’t only cause enhanced plant growth.”

          Really ?? What else does it cause that you can actually PRESENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for, seb?

          Certainly NOT atmospheric warming.

          Come on, give us a list 😉

          You can do it. 😉

        5. spike55

          “Nope, that is not what the science says.”

          Yep, that is what the science tells us.

          MANY papers worth.

          “and ask yourself if you have trouble keeping that air column above your head up.”

          No the atmospheric energy in the lowest 2m or so does that,

          Weren’t you aware of that fact??? REALLY ??

          WOW.. there’s that chronic lack of awareness of basically EVERYTHING in the real world. Poor seb. !!

          takes more energy for a table to hold up a book for 1h vs. 2h

          Does it take more energy to hold a 50kg weight above your head for 1 hour, or 2 hours.?

        6. SebastianH

          It took you 7 replies of ranting to say essentially nothing? That is a new record, spike55.

          Just answer the question whether or not the table takes more energy to hold up a book for 1h vs. 2h!

          What you write about forces is generally true. Where you get confused is about the need of energy to counter a force. You still don’t get the difference between a book on a table and the same book hold at the same height by a drone.

          And he STILL DENIES that the atmosphere is under CONTINUAL compression by gravity, therefore requires a continual equal and opposite force.

          There is no continual compression by gravity. The atmosphere is not collapsing on itself, just like the oceans aren’t collapsing on themselves. The force that prevents the atmosphere from collapsing doesn’t require energy, this should become evident when you finally answer the question if it requires more energy to do that for 1h than for 2h.

          And a geocentric satellites, is called centripetal force, bozo.

          How much energy is needed to keep the centripetal force high enough to counter gravity in such an orbit? Come on, you should be able to answer this with ease.

          Its HILARIOUS to watch you digging deeper and deeper, without even knowing you are doing it. 🙂

          It is indeed hilarious to watch you doing that. Can I expect another series of rants without you finally answering my simple question and thus forcing you to admit your error? 😉

          1. spike55

            You said at least 7 moronically ignorant things is one post.

            Far easier to separate them out

            How long can you hold a 50kg weight above your head seb.

            1 hour ?

            2 hours?

            No energy required at all, right seb

            You really are showing yourself to be TOTALLY CLUELESS.

            … and what’s even funnier is that you are CLUELESS that you are CLUELESS. 🙂

            Hilarious that you are saying gravity stops once the air is compressed.

            Just like you think gravity stops once the book is sitting o the table

            BIZARRE !!!

            it really is a seb fantasy la-la-land in that nil-educated little mind of your, isn’t it.

          2. SebastianH

            Really, how difficult can it be to just answer that question, spike55? Can I assume you will never answer because you already know the answer and figured out why you are wrong? To cover this up we can see your usual clown act again?

            Yes or no?

            How long can you hold a 50kg weight above your head seb.

            How long can a table hold up that 50 kg weight. Does it take more energy to leave that weight on the table for 2 hours than for 1 hour? Answer!

            Hilarious that you are saying gravity stops once the air is compressed.

            I am not saying this at all. You seem to be utterly confused about what people say.

            Just like you think gravity stops once the book is sitting o the table

            Nope, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t require energy to keep that book in its settled state. You asked where the force that is working against gravity in this case is coming from … I’d like you to answer this please. Where does it come from? Why do you think this requires energy?

          3. spike55

            “It just doesn’t require energy to keep that book in its settled state. You asked where the force that is working against gravity in this case is coming from “

            ROFLMAO..

            So YOU counteracting the gravity force of the 50kg takes energy, but when the table counteracts the gravity force of the 50kg weight, it doesn’t take energy

            WOW. !!!

            Your mind really is living in seb’s fantasy la-la-land of ignorance, aren’t you. 🙂

            Where does the table get the force from to counteract the weight force of the 50kg weight?

            “magical fantasy land” seems to be your only answer.

          4. spike55

            “Can I assume you will never answer because you already know the answer “

            ROFLMAO

            slap-stick faceplant yet again from seb

            One can always assume he is mirroring himself…

            We now KNOW why you never answer these questions.

            You KNOW that you have no answer..

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

  5. Neogene Geo

    The Perovich paper is interesting. Not only negative albedos, but albedos greater than one! It’s because his net radiation budget ignored laterally transported heat, as well as non-radiative surface heat transfer, of course. Back to the drawing board, I would suggest!

    1. spike55

      “Not only negative albedos, but albedos greater than one!”

      Methinks thou shouldst try to comprehend their definition of αₒ before commenting further.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close