Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice
Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age
In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.
In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.
The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.
Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.
Stein et al., 2017
The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.
The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia. The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.
The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.
The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.
Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.” Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium. These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length. Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.
Lessen and Thejll, 2005
[W]e find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.
“may have”, “could be” … a lot of uncertainties.
And then there is this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-031.jpg
Looks totally natural to me.
P.S.: Your citation mentions a possible decrease in solar radiation? How does that fit to your statement that solar radiation actually increased (decrease of cloud cover)?
Ah, the Scientific American, a magazine where CO2 is called “The Worst Climate Pollution”…
https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/20/20-new-papers-higher-co2-global-warming-increase-crop-yields-green-the-earth-reduce-weather-extremes-extend-human-life/
There is no incentive to explain (again) the difference between surface solar radiation (albedo) and changes in the Sun’s output.
Ah, notrickzone.com, a blog where authors and commenters call the greenhouse effect a hoax and can’t do proper math …
Ah,Sebastian has no counterpoint to offer……..
And where insignificant little AGW trolls can’t even produce a single paper to support the very basis of their cult type religion.
You have FAILED to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
So far, you have nothing… just empty baseless, unsupportable rhetoric.
STILL WAITING !!!
So, I am the one that gets blamed for offering no counterpoint when using this kind of reply and Kenneth isn’t. Interesting.
@AndyG55: you have yet to explain the energy budget in a convective atmosphere without greenhouse gases or the greenhouse effect respectively, that matches observations. Or is your argument just a selective one? Greenhouse gases exist, except CO2 which is not one of them?
“You have FAILED to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
So far, you have nothing… just empty baseless, unsupportable rhetoric.
STILL WAITING !!!
The physics of how the radiative gas CO2 works in a convective atmosphere has been explained to you several times.
It is up to you to drop your brain-washed anti-knowledge and start accepting facts instead of unprovable propaganda anti-science.
You cannot expect to learn anything when you have so much to unlearn first.
Sebastian whines,
“So, I am the one that gets blamed for offering no counterpoint when using this kind of reply and Kenneth isn’t. Interesting.”
You tried, ineptly with your first comment,but fail to address the linked published science papers,Kenneth posted. That means you failed to make a counterpoint.
You need to lift your game here,as the resident warmist troll,to help the rest learn what you are really saying,which is often nothing of substance.
We had that conversation, you ignore everything I write … I wont fall for that trap again. Waste of time.
That’s because what you write is a load of anti-science unsupported, unsupportable propaganda pap.
STILL WAITING for that paper, you brainless little troll.
AndyG55 … what is wrong with you?
Sunsettommy, I had this conversation before … no need to (again) go down this rabbit hole.
Nothing wrong with me..
Just getting very bored of WAITING for you to support your baseless AGW religion with something other than fantasy and make-believe.
All you ever put forward is a load of anti-science unsupported, unsupportable propaganda pap…
… Because that is ALL YOU HAVE.
Stop taking those magic mushrooms and get back to REALITY !!
Ah,Sebastian is demonstrating the well known confusion common to all young people…
No it is you that has failed to prove why, according to your high priest Al Gore, the apartments along the lower east side are not under water due to SLR. It is you who has failed to sail your boat through the north west passage…silly rabbit, tricks are for kids
Not really … my point was just that the change of the ice extent doesn’t look natural. Does it look natural to you? Did Kenneth make a “counterpoint” to that observation?
“just that the change of the ice extent doesn’t look natural”
Oh dear.. seb stoops to the very base-level of his AGW religion.
“doesn’t look natural”…… roflmao !!!!
The sum total of his argument !!!
“Oh dear.. seb stoops to the very base-level of his AGW religion.”
global sea ice area hit a record low in the satellite data in January and does not look natural. fact.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c8c7f9f4970b-pi
Wow.. it “doesn’t look natural” to sob either
sob meets seb in the very depths of anti-science.
and citing Neven.. Shirley, you must be joking !!!
roflmao
AGW apostle and ice worrier extraordinaire!!!
ZERO historical perspective, just like all the low-end Arctic worriers.
Just like you , just like seb.
Climate Change Deniers, every one of you.
Sebastian,
I used to have a subscription to S.A. but gave it up when political propaganda showed up,making absurd claims. I see that Kenneth already pointed out one example.
You didn’t post a link for your chart,which is misleading anyway.
DR. Meier himself cited papers that states there were a lot less Summer ice in the Arctic,in the early Holocene. I have seen other published papers that also say similar.
It is a growing recognition of the Arctic region,having little to no Summer ice,in the early part of the inter glacial,that you warmist bigots try hard to ignore.
At another blog,Jim Hunt and Griff have been repeatedly shown published science papers,showing evidence of low to zero Summer ice,early in the inter glacial period,they ignore it or try hard to trivialize it. They are like you being a climate bigot,deliberately ignoring evidence that do not fit with your sick leftist enviromental climate views.
Here are a few examples:
Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y
and,
Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean.
—–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379114001000
Several studies suggest that the Early Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) experienced less summer-sea ice than at present. …. [S]ea ice during the Early Holocene potentially could have moved over to a seasonal regime with sea ice-free summers due to the insolation maxima the Earth experienced at that time.
—–
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.full
Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was less than half of the record low 2007 level. … Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.
Sunsettommy and Kenneth,
I know you like the argument “but it changed in the past, so the current change must be for the same reason” and that’s fine. But is it really the case?
Here is a link to the website that contains the graph: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/
Here is a paper of a reconstruction over the past 1450 years:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
It doesn’t look natural … also the acidification of the oceans doesn’t look natural. There was another acidification event 252 million years ago, that killed a lot of species. It’s speed was slower than it is today …
SebastianH,
So what year, or what concentration threshold (350 ppm? 370 ppm?) did CO2 take over from natural factors in causing the Arctic sea ice to decline? Why did the Arctic cool for ~40 years (1940s to 1980s) relative to the 1920s to 1940s period just as CO2 concentrations were simultaneously rising? Why did it take so long for CO2 to “kick in” and start melting sea ice and warming the Arctic? Why did natural factors stop influencing the Arctic climate in the 1990s, and how does that work from a physics standpoint?
Regarding ocean “acidification”, it looks as though you hadn’t graced us with your presence and substantive “rebuttals” as of late December when this article (below link) was published here. (I don’t see your name among the commenters). I challenge you to read the entire article and all the dozens of paper summaries regarding ocean acidification. Reading the comments could be informative too.
You have said you are here to learn. Read up on ocean “acidification” and then get back to us regarding your claims.
https://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/the-ocean-acidification-narrative-collapses-under-the-weight-of-new-scientific-evidence
Here is what happens if you have some “natural” period fluctuations and add an exponential curve: http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh
There is no “take over”, it’s a continuous process. Natural events are dominant, but the change from the exponential curve is there too. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Here is the current graph from HOT-DOGS (http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/hot-dogs/bseries.html) regarding pH: http://imgur.com/a/dYIFC
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5134/trouble-at-sea-what-fossil-fuels-are-doing-to-our-oceans
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia
Of course this is all a AGW-scam to steal your money …
“Do you understand what I am trying to say?”
Yep, your usual load of fantasy BS.
So if natural events are dominant, and the change from anthropogenic forcing is “there” too, would this not imply that you believe that, on a percentage basis, a higher percentage of climate changes are due to natural causes than to anthropogenic factors? If not, how can natural influences or events be “dominant”?
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt believes that 110% (yes, more than 100%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans. Is he wrong? If he is wrong, what is the right percentage? And on what scientific evidence is the percentage you believe in based upon? Can you cite that scientific evidence?
Is there any uncertainty in this percentage (that you’ve identified…hopefully), or is the attribution percentage settled?
If its 100%, then that means that our emissions are 100% responsible for GREENING the planet’s biosphere by some 15-20%.. (whatever the value is now)
That is ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL. 🙂 🙂 🙂
All environmentalists should be REJOICING. 🙂
https://s19.postimg.org/acl8ewfqr/CO2_green_p_LANET.jpg
HA! Et Tu Brute. May have, could, might, exactly the same language as used in so many AGW scare papers!!
Can you imagine a scientific paper on climate EVER making definitive pronouncements. I haven’t seen one – that I can recall – that didn’t contain many “could” statements.
BUT ……the most common thing mentioned in papers is “more research is needed” …….
Here’s a paper from the mid-’70s that also points out that the Arctic was “largely ice-free” during the Medieval Warm Period, with annual temperatures up to 4°C warmer than now.
Williamson, 1975
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00063657509476459
Between 1000 and 1300 average summer temperatures were about 1°C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4°C in a largely ice-free Arctic. Eric the Red, a renowned world citizen of that time, has been much maligned as the first progressive publicity man for giving Greenland a false image in order to attract settlers; but in truth, the southwest of that vast country was warmer and greener by far than at any time until the Fieldfares Turdus pilaris arrived there in the mid-1930s. The sea-temperature of the Atlantic was higher than it has been since, and there appears to have been none or very little ice to hinder the Vikings’ communications between Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and Labrador (Mowat 1965). Indeed Brooks (1926) considers that the polar ice-cap may have disappeared entirely during the summer months, to build anew each winter.
poor seb, understanding of actual science will always be a big stumbling point for you.
Your whole knowledge is what could be more appropriately called ANTI-knowledge.. Based on anti-facts.
You have so much to unlearn before any truth can hope to get past the brain-washed emptymess that exists as your feeble thought processes.
Sebastian,
Dr, Meier states over at WUWT, he even criminally cite yet another published science paper,that you will probably ignore:
“Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?
It has been suggested that the Arctic really can’t lose all its sea ice during summer because there isn’t enough energy to melt all of the ice in the short summer. There are a couple of reasons why this thinking is faulty.
First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-part-2/
Sebastian,
Dr, Meier states over at WUWT, he even criminally cite yet another published science paper,that you will probably ignore:
“Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?
It has been suggested that the Arctic really can’t lose all its sea ice during summer because there isn’t enough energy to melt all of the ice in the short summer. There are a couple of reasons why this thinking is faulty.
First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-part-2/
““Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?”
And if it did, would it be a bad thing?
The economic benefits for commercial transport would be undeniable.
The benefits for the people living up there would be huge as well. Fishing, transport, reduced heating costs, etc etc
Sure the people might have to change their life style for the better (can’t have that now, can we).
I see only benefits..
Which now the AMO is starting to turn, will probably never be realised in many our life times.
Try again in another 60 or so years, hey !!
Sebastian “looks totally natural to me” Ah! My thoughts when I look at unadulterated graphs showing temperature and sea level rise.
SebastianH should read this:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
I’ve read it. Thank you for a great example of fantasy physics.
1) “water vapor is lighter than air and contains more energy in latent form which heats the air around it when condensation occurs during uplift.” – Condensation cools the air, that’s why clouds exist at a certain height and that’s why the wet adiabatic lapse-rate stops at a certain height
2) backradiation is ignored, yet it is measurable.
3) it’s implied that one can just define a Tropopause at some height and temperatures increase going downwards, even with an inert atmosphere. That’s confusing cause with effect.
4) “hence that ‘additional’ energy must be held at the surface over and above that which is required” … yeah, right and how would that work? The surface is radiating continuously, you’d have an unexplainable energy build up.
Should I go on?
Can you quantive the amount of energy that convection is transporting away from the surface? How does that number compare to radiation from the surface?
A quick exercise for your fantasy physics: imagine that you could give the Moon an atmosphere consisting of inert gases. Would the average surface temperature change? Remember: only the surface can radiate energy back into space in such a scenario.
Sebastian, do you know what a COGENT response is?
I should be more polity, thank you for reminding me.
polite
Instead of the moon or inert gases, why not deal with a planet and CO2…since that’s much more relevant to the subject at hand.
Mars’ atmosphere is made up of 960,000 ppm CO2, which is a concentration that is 2,400 times higher than the Earth’s CO2 concentration.
So why is Mars so much colder than Earth?
Stephen Wilde’s assumption is that greenhouse gases don’t change surface temperature and some magical energy reservoir is capturing all the radiation only releasing some of it to space. It’s relevant.
Mars:
– distance to sun
– CO2 only absorbs a pretty narrow band of radiation
– rest escapes to space
This results in lower surface temperatures to start from (if there were no GHGs) and a smaller greenhouse effect.
Nothing magical about conduction and convection creating an energy reservoir in the atmosphere that is constantly being cycled up and down in a permanent energy loop.
Convection converts surface energy conducted to the air at the surface to potential energy within the atmosphere during ascent and the reverse in descent.
Since that energy cannot radiate out it is locked into that reserrvoir being constsntly recycled for as long as the atmosphere remains hydrostatically suspended against the force of gravity.
Mars has a smaller greenhouse effect (mass induced) because atmospheric mass is less. The temperature of Mars is much the same as that of the Earth at the same atmospheric pressure after adjustnug for distance from the sun. The same is true of Venus.
GHGs irrelevant.
There are GHGs in all of those atmospheres and their effect is known and can be measured. I’d really appreciate if you would apply your magic theory to the moon with a hypothetical inert atmosphere. How would the average surface temperature change? How can it even change?
And you can’t just hold energy in a reservoir that has a far bigger intake than what “little” energy is emitted into space. It would get bigger and bigger or in case of the atmosphere warmer and warmer … that’s not stable at all.
Yep…. and measurements show that CO2 has not caused any warming in Earth’s convective atmosphere..
Unless, of course you can provide a paper that proves it has.
So far you have drawn a GREAT BIG BLANK!!!
A great huge EMPTY NOTHINGNESS. !!
The measurements show that energy is radiated downwards in the IR spectrum by differen GHGs. Show me a paper that proves that this energy just magically vanishes having no effect at all …
STILL this NONSENSE.
What happens has been explained to you many time.. you just choose NOT to comprehend.
You are the one who we are all waiting for some basic proof from.
Stop Running and Squirming.. little worm.
Produce that one paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere…. or grovel back into your troll sewer.
So far you are nothing but an EMPTY, meaningless, waste of space.
And why this continued imagination about “magic”
WOW.. fairy tale stuff is all you seem to have.
There is NOTHING magical about the gravity/thermal/pressure controlled movement of energy.
Its called basic PHYSICS.. a subject you seem to be sadly unaware of.
Yes, it has been explained many times and it’s nonsense. Therefor I call your view of the world a magical view with fantasy physics.
And since you challenge the “consensus” it is upon you to provide proof or find just one example where the currently known laws of physics are failing and your fantasy physics takes over.
CO2 causes warming because you can measure its radiation. You would not be able to do that if it would cause no warming.
I don’t give a stuff what you call my view.
Did you know that a study based on 800,000 observations, found there has been a significant DECREASE in down-welling, long-wave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased about 7% over this period and according to AGW theory, down-welling long-wave infra-red radiation should have increased over this period with buildup of carbon dioxide.
Sill waiting for you to find some tiny little bit of paper supporting you AGW fantasies.
You have yet to produce a paper that shows that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
Rant and rave all you like…
… but so far you have been a MASSIVE FAILURE on such a simple task.
I see you are now digging deep and calling on the FAKE consensus.
so funny !!
SO PATHETIC!
If downwelling radiation is decreasing by an amount then this could very well be the decreasing cloud cover’s “fault”: http://www.globalenergybudget.com/CERES_SYN1deg-Month_Terra-Aqua-MODIS_Ed3A_Cloud_Area_Fraction-Total_clouds_March-2000toAugust-2016.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lw-ned.png
There is no “just one” phenomen having an effect …
The influence of CO2 regardings these fluxes is measured with a spectrometer.
1) Latent heat is released when condensation occurs. No getting around that.
2) All that is measured is the temperature of the air at the height along the lapse rate slope where the IR sensor is triggered by optical depth (atmospheric opacity). That is not a representation of any net thermal flow, it is a measurement at a single location.
3) If there is no thermal inversion within the atmosphere then the top of the atmosphere can be treated in exactly the same way since that would then be the location of an equally irregular contact point with space.
4) conduction and convection draw thermal energy from the surface so that radiation to space is reduced. You cannot have the same parcel of surface energy involved in two processes simultaneously. Surface energy can be either radiated to space OR conducted and convected up and down within the atmosphere – not both.
1) Condensation usually heats the surface that the water vapor condenses to and not the air around it, doesn’t it? Otherwise that would stop condensation because the surrounding air could contain more humidity then and kind of “self warm”.
2) Spectrometers do not measure temperature. They measure actual radiation that is received. The net thermal flow is the difference between upwelling and downwelling radiation, and the direction is usually from the surface to the atmosphere.
3) If there is a gradient all the way to the top, then the atmosphere ends where it reaches temperatures too low for gases to exist. It doesn’t “begin” at a magical boundary where it is warm enough for gases to exist in gasform and becomes warmer going downwards.
4) “You cannot have the same parcel of surface energy involved in two processes simultaneously” – Indeed! The surface has a certain average temperature and the resulting amount of radiation is emitted by the surface. Additionally conduction and evaportation happen and convection transports air parcels through the atmosphere to maintain the lapse rate. Without the non-radiative energy transfers the surface would be even warmer.
And since not everything of that released energy is radiated to space and since the surface does not receive enough energy from the sun to maintain the temperature and because you can actually measure the backradiation, the greenhouse effect is as real as it gets.
Once again: imagine a hypothetical atomsphere around the moon. How would its average surface temperature change if the atmosphere were totally transparent to any kind of radiation?
“Once again: imagine a hypothetical atomsphere ”
Ahhh… there you go again.
REALITY is never part of your pseudo-science , is it.
Brain addled imaginings and fairy tales, its all you have.
There is NO ATMOSPHERE AROUND THE MOON
Capeeeeesh !!!
Why must you always PRETEND !!!
So funny.. 🙂
You are getting more and more INCOHERENT day by day.
Time for you to take a psychiatric break.
Who is your AGW “minder” ???
I hope they have a good medical plan for your treatment.
Childish replies …
Well at least you didn’t come back with yet another incoherent, anti-science, make-believe rant.
Well done, little trollette.!!
“Can you quantive the amount of energy that convection is transporting away from the surface? How does that number compare to radiation from the surface?
33K in conduction and convection
255K in radiation to space.
Total-288K surface temperature so that the 33K is the energy required to hold the mass of the atymosphere off the surface against gravity in hydrostatic equilibrium.
GHGs not needed 🙂
That’s temperatures or temperature differentials. It’s not the amount of energy. Temperature and energy is only “equal” when radiating into nothing (0K).
So in your world the surface radiates 370 W/m² (it’s average temperature) and ca. 100 W/m² by conduction and evaporation. Convection is transporting this in a relatively slow motion up to a certain height where only ~240 W/m² radiate into space. The rest is conserved in a magical energy reservoir that will never overflow. Right?
Sorry seb , no magical reservoir.
You are hallucinating from those mushrooms, yet again.
Seriously.. what are you taking that makes you dream up this monumental CRAP you go on and on and on with ???
“So in your world the surface radiates 370 W/m² (it’s average temperature)”
No, that is the Trenberthian world, which your gullible, pitiful mind inhabits !!
AndyG55, so what is the correct amount then?
OMG.. still playing the ignorant fool, is that really all you have.
Why don’t you learn something yourself.
You have proven you have zero intention of learning from others.
Go ask your mentors.. they will tell you all the crap you WANT to hear.
Tell me the average amount of radiation that you think is emitted by the surface. No hard numbers means you are just talking bullshit and just “feel” reality is something it might not be.
Oh dear, you poor little child…. still the TOTALLY INABILITY to produce a single paper.
Huff and puff all you like, but you haven’t produced a single relevant item yet.
Why does someone who seems to think they know everything, need my help ???
Waiting for that paper.. waiting .. waiting… waiting !!!
Bla bla … it’s pointless to debate with you, you are not about facts. You are just playing the clown here in the comments.
STILL waiting for your proof of CO2 warming.
It is you that is continuing to be totally DEVOID of facts.
Facts.. you don’t have any facts.. just baseless, unproven suppositions.
No CO2 warming in either satellite temperature data set.
No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise
OLR increasing when your religion says it should be decreasing.
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg?w=1860&h=1110
OLR has R² = 0.96 relationship with temperature over NH….. No room for ANY CO2 warming… no sign of any CO2 warming
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NH-by-Olr-Temp.png
Heck.. there is No CO2 warming signal anywhere except in the fevered imaginations of the most gullible AGW cultists..
Remind us all what has been happening to global humidity, seb
Isn’t CO2 meant to heat the oceans, that would lead to more evaporation ??
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/global-humidity.jpg?w=620
Seems that FACTS are very much against you, little trollette.
You do know how relative humidity and temperature are connected, do you?
And of course OLR is decreasing in the relevant wavelengths: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif (direct link to chart in that paper that compares 1970 levels to 1996 levels)
“However, a more recent paper by Brindley and Harries in the Journal of climate in 2003 (here) raises some doubts about these results, saying that “the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K”. They also make the cautionary statement that “Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes”.
This more recent paper, by the same authors, saying that the errors were much larger than previously thought and urging caution in the interpretation
Brindley and Harries, 2003 investigates these issues which were not properly investigated in Harries 2001.
The measurement period for the Harries 2001 paper included all three months of April, May and June. But the April-only clear-sky measurements tell a very different story from Harries 2001.
It shows that between 1970 IRIS and 1997 IMG, despite atmospheric CO2 rising 37ppm during that time, CO2 has basically had no heat-trapping effect:”
I’ll repeat that last sentence, because I know you have trouble with basic comprehension
“CO2 has basically had no heat-trapping effect”
The earlier Harries paper was effectively DUMP.. by Harries himself.
Get up to date seb.
You puny AGW religion is being left behind.
from B & H 2003. April 1997 spectrum minus April 1970 spectrum, as measured by two different satellites over a patch of Pacific Ocean (roughly 150W to 180W by 10S to 10N). Dotted lines are error bars from sampling (0.3K)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oBuqiiyjE8U/VlgXqsbb2iI/AAAAAAAAC2o/XvRDX4-fvps/s1600/peashooter.png
There’s supposed to be a much deeper absorption (a more negative value) near wavenumber 700 right at the left of the graph. But it’s hardly below the line at all.
If anything B &H have disproven the CO2 heat-trapping theory.
OOPS !! poor seb.. still floundering in the dark
WAITING, Waiting…… yaaaaaawn !!!
Well, thank you for the correction then. Except for the last sentence it was almost civil.
I still can’t see too much change in the TOA longwave flux https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_longwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png
According to thermodynamics the outgoing energy should be the same as the incoming energy over longer periods of time, shouldn’t they?
WAITING, Waiting…… yaaaaaawn !!!
“outgoing energy should be the same as the incoming energy over longer periods of time, shouldn’t they”
Only if you think there is no work done by that energy on the planet’s surface
And what kind of work is done on this planet’s surface?
Seb also DENIES that energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalised to other the rest of the lower atmospheric gases.
Also DENIES that the gravity thermal gradient exists and controls the atmosphere by convection an other air movements.
Also DENIES that CO2 does not emit much below 11km.
https://s19.postimg.org/s6jyed10z/stratospheric_cooling.jpg
What he does believe is that a 0.00001 increase in atmospheric CO2 can warm the ocean…
His whole “belief” in AGW is based on DENIAL !!
You have Buckley’s chance of getting him to comprehend or accept anything that is contrary to his baseless belief in the AGW cult religion
No I’m not.
Let’s just call it lapse rate. And no I am not denying that it exists.
You keep bringing up this image and still don’t get what it is displaying: cooling in Kelvin per day per wavelength. You can measure the radiation from CO2 (and all other gases) with a spectrometer on the ground looking up: https://i2.wp.com/www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg or https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-fig-8-1.jpg
It does warm the oceans like it causes warming of any other surface. That’s the law of thermodynamics. The surface is emitting to and through a warm (compared to absolute zero) atmosphere and therefor will get warmer to get rid of all the incoming energy. Simple physics, not fantasy deniosphere physics.
This statement fits you like a glove. It’s weird how we view each other, isn’t it. But like in Highlander, there can be only one. Guess who is correct? The one who thinks the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and magic is the cause of the warm temperatures on the surface? Really?
ZERO evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere. You have NEVER produced any, because it doesn’t exist.
Sorry that your comprehension of basic physics is so woefully bad.
CO2 DOES NOT warm oceans either. That is a myth just like everything else you “believe”
There is No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record.
There is No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise
There is No CO2 warming signal anywhere…… because it isn’t happening.
You anti-science fantasyland AGW religion is a FAILURE.
Yes, the mythical unicorn CO2 … has no effect that AndyG55 doesn’t want it to have …
When you can provide a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere, THEN it might become more than a fantasy, a myth, a fairy-tale.. a LIE
You have FAILED monumentally so far.
All you have is your unsupportable, anti-science, religiously gullible “belief”
There is No CO2 warming signal in either satellite record.
There is No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise
There is No CO2 warming signal anywhere……
“Let’s just call it lapse rate”
Ok, a lapse rate define purely by gravity and specific energy of the air. Interrupted only by H2O.
CO2 has zero effect on lapse rate.
Well done seb…… tiny, tiny steps. !!!
“and magic is the cause of the warm temperatures on the surface ”
Poor seb.. there you go drifting off into your fantasy AGW religion yet again.
If you don’t know what causes warm surfaces on this planet.. you are basically BEYOND HELP !!!
Take the Moon, slab on an atmosphere and tell me by how many degrees the average surface temperature will change! Lets see if you fantasy physics come to the correct conclusion …
An inert atmosphere without greenhouse gases.
Your brainless little hyPATHETICal nonsense again.
Venus has 97% CO2, and its surface temperature is pretty much exactly as you expect from the gravito/thermal effect alone.
All major atmospheric planets have the same gravity thermal effect, irrespective of atmospheric composition.
Sorry if you don’t know these basic facts.
But we are very used to your abject brain-washed ignorance.
No.. its worse than ignorance.. it seems that everything you think you know about climate is basically WRONG !!
A true brain-washed AGW cult devotee, that’s for sure.
see, you STILL want to fantasise.
What is it with you and actually producing proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere..
You have been nothing but a massive FAIL, so far.
Why do you change subject? By how many degrees would the average surface temperature of the moon change if you would give it an atmosphere consisting of inert gases?
You are confused regarding the lapse-rate. It’s not the cause, it’s the effect. On Venus the cloud cover is essentially the surface which absorbs (and mainly reflects) solar radiation. It warms up enough to emit the incoming energy back to space, but also emits the same amount towards the surface. It’s the same greenhouse effect as on Earth. The surface receives very little radiation from the sun, but it can’t emit to space until it reaches a pretty high temperature.
Now back to the moon …
“Why do you change subject? By how many degrees would the average surface temperature of the moon change if you would give it an atmosphere consisting of inert gases?”
Um, I changed the subject from a moon to a planet and inert gases to CO2 because we are here talking about planetary (not moon) heating and cooling and how raising or lowering CO2 in particular causes planetary (not moon) heating or cooling.
The answer to your above question is: I have no idea how to answer such a hypothetical question.
So what’s the answer to my question? Why is Mars so much colder than Earth when its CO2 concentration is 960,000 ppm?
It’s rather interesting that you are here accusing me of changing the subject when I asked you for the physical measurements of how much water body cooling is caused by lowering CO2 by 0.000001 and you answered by talking about balls, cars, and walls.
“Why do you change subject?”
You are the one trying to bring up yet another fantasy, unprovable imaginary piece of meaningless nonsense.
Why are you doing that ?
Is fantasy and stupid analogies all your life is built on.. certainly seems to be.
“Seb also DENIES that energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalised to other the rest of the lower atmospheric gases.
No I’m not.”
Are so you finally admit that CO2 does thermalise to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, Happens in the lower atmosphere, y’know.. below about 11km.
Now all you have to do is figure out what happens after that, and you’ll be getting somewhere near basic comprehension of why CO2 does not cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
tiny steps for you, seb…. tiny steps..
Try to keep making progress…. although I totally expect you to fall on your arse, or do another massive face-plant again, almost immediately.
You seem to think of this like it’s a linear effect. First the radiation leaves to surface, then it’s absorbed and then immediately thermalizes. At last the energy stays there and gets transported by convection to a higher level and then escapes to space via radiation. Correct?
Well, surprise … it’s not one after the other, it happens simultanously. You can measure the IR radiation from CO2 and other gases on the surface looking up. Would that be possible if the world would behave like you imagine it?
Would a world as you “IMAGINE” it be able to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere?
Seems not. !!
So if CO2 does warm or cool the oceans when increased or decreased by 0.000001, and this is a physical law, provide an example from an actual scientific experiment that shows how much cooling a reduction of CO2 by -0.000001 causes in a body of water. Cite the actual physical measurements gleaned from such an experiment.
Since this is the “law of thermodynamics” that reducing CO2 by 0.000001 causes a volume of water to cool by ____ (identify the amount), surely you can provide the physical evidence for this from an actual experiment. So let’s see the physical experiment results from an actual scientific paper, SebastianH.
Or is it possible you don’t really have access to these physical measurements from an actual scientific experiment, and instead you are relying on theoretical modeling to reach your conclusions? If so, you do realize that theoretical modeling conceptualizations aren’t actual physical laws, right?
Science is measurable, falsifiable, and reproducible.
Beliefs are not.
And all seb has is baseless belief.
Kenneth, once again: if you have measured that a car hitting a wall exerts a certain force on the wall then you can infer that a lighter object exerts a proportional force. You can be skeptical of that assumption being true, but then you couldn’t generalize anything. If you’d throw a ball behind a wall, did it really hit the ground on the other side? You would need proof of that too, wouldn’t you?
So why do you think that water behaves differently than any other surface? That backradiation (measurable) has zero effect on water?
We’re not talking about cars hitting a wall here, SebastianH. We’re not talking about throwing a ball behind a wall. We’re talking about the physical measurements that show reducing CO2 by 0.000001 cools down water by ____ (identify the amount). Please stop trying to evade this fundamental question. It should be easy to answer this question directly. After all, you called it a physical law. Physical laws are measurable. What are the physical measurements, SebastianH. We’ve been waiting for you to answer this question for weeks. So far, all we get are balls and walls.
Again the silly analogy. DOHHH !!!
Sorry seb , but your attempts at hiding you ignorance aren’t working.. they are in fact highlighting it.
Kenneth, I provided you calculations for this problem twice now. You ignored it and always get to your “it’s about magnitudes” argument.
I will not fall into this trap again. The calculation for water is the same as with any other surface. The incoming energy (backradiation) causes additional warming of the surface. It doesn’t just vanish …
The change in temperature was measured for variation in backradiation due to cloud cover. It doesn’t make sense to assume a different cause for backradiation changes might result in no temperature changes at all.
No, I didn’t ignore your modeling calculations. I pointed out to you that they didn’t come close to answering the question. I was asking for real world measurements specifying the extent to which water temperatures are actually affected by raising or lowering CO2 in volumes of 0.000001. You have never provided an answer to this question. That’s because you can’t. So you cite models and hypotheticals instead.
No, air and water take very different amounts of energy to heat. They are not the same. It takes 1,100 more energy to heat water than air.
Honest question: Do you think you are helping or hurting your cause by continuing to write the things you do?
It goes on and on.
When the sun is shinning CO2 absorbs energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands. This will warm the air slightly, you do the math, but warm air rises and cools. That energy did not reach the ground. A cooling effect.
When the sun is not shinning CO2 radiates, via conduction from the air, over the 13 to 17 micron band only. Please go and do the math, less than half that ‘back radiation’ can reach the ground and it can’t warm anything.
Let’s do the math then …
You have a perfect black body that emits 1000 W/m² into vacuum/space. What is its surface temperature?
Now you surround it with a hull consisting of the same perfect black body material. How does the surface temperature of the original change?
The same math applies to planets and atmospheres.
Hmm…1000 W/m² is near as dammit 91.3c but how far away is the ‘hull’ and how thick is it?
Be aware the ‘hull’ will radiate back slightly less than it will radiate out. This ‘back radiation’ will delay the cooling of the central blackbody but cool down it will. No external energy source (like a sun).
Distance and thickness is not important and doesn’t change the surface temperature of the central body.
The 1000 W/m^2 are to be seen as constant and caused by some type of internal energy source. The central body has to emit this amount of energy … Always
“The central body has to emit this amount of energy … Always”
So just another fantasy object.. is that what you are trying to tell us.
Totally unrelated to any planetary reality.
Yes, seb… we already know you live in a fantasy world.
The ‘hull’ doesn’t convect up and down internally so the analogy fails.
Nor does it observe the Gas Laws.
It doesn’t matter what is happening inside the hull. Do the math … And that’s why the surface of Earth is warmer than it would be without a hull.
Please point us to the mythical “hull”
No aircraft has ever flown into it….
No-one I know has ever seen it…
It must be a figment of some drug-addled inner -city AGW loonie’s hallucinogenic imagination.
No blanket, no hull, just a convective atmosphere controlled by the pressure gradient.
Wouldn’t you agree, seb . !!
The atmosphere is a form of hull around our planet.
“The atmosphere is a form of hull around our planet”
roflmao !!!
The hallucinogenic are strong with this one..
“”The atmosphere is a form of hull around our planet.””
Really, someone with a LOT more time than I have, really ought to start a list of “STUPID THING AGW CULTIST SAY”
This would be one of them, for sure.
Mind you.. it would nearly be a full time job, just with seb and sob…
and
believe it or not…
…there are many more out that that would be competing hard for the “dumbest AGW thing ever said”. !!
Ahh……. the mythical “black body”
How about we get back to REALITY, seb !!
Are you any more capable of that, than you are producing a paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere?
How about demonstrating you can do the math for this theoretical case first? If you can’t then talking about reality is pointless.
How about you stop toking on those mushrooms or ‘erbs, or whatever it is you are FANTASISING with, and actually find some sort of REALITY.
You know, the REALITY that CO2 does not cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
Off you trot and find some other “hyPATHETICal”
Don’t forget to take an extra sniff of that hallucinogenic stuff you are so, so fond of.
REALITY.. that is what is real..
Until you can face REALITY.. you are nothing but a dried, brainless prune.
Is that what you are, seb ?????
“talking about reality is pointless.”
Talking about REALITY to you will ALWAYS be pointless. !!
Sorry your brain has had to put up with the abuse you have given it.
There is help you can get..
…. but first you have to admit that you have a problem.
Thought so … you can’t do the math or wont do the math because it would disagree with your view of the world.
Yaw…. stick to your imaginary, fantasy make-believe world, little boy. Its all you have.
so the Earth is now a boat with a hull.
WTF weird weed have you been smoking, .. or was it an injection of DRAINO. ??
The Earth is NOT surrounded by a hull or a blanket, but a gaseous atmosphere.. didn’t you learn anything in kindy ???
…… you are in fantasy realm yet again.
The Early Earth’s atmosphere consisted mainly of hydrogen sulphide, methane and some 200 times (if not more) CO2 than we see today. It was extremely rich in so called GHG’s
Against this background, how did the atmosphere cool?
Why was there not runaway global warming?
What do you think? Why did the hot Earth cool down?
Because so called GHGs (which made up more than 95% of the atmosphere) were not sufficient to prevent the atmosphere from cooling; they did not act effectively so as to trap the heat, or to delay the heat loss.
The CO2 in the atmosphere was able to get sequestered into rocks, which is a very slow process involving geological time scales, at a rate faster than the CO2 and water vapour could trap heat, delay cooling.
The planet had running water some 4 billion years ago, but notwithstanding the very rich GHG composition of the atmosphere, there was no runaway positive water vapour feedback loop.
This gives an insight into the efficacy of the so called GHGs and the argued positive feedbacks.
richard verney says
“Because so called GHGs (which made up more than 95% of the atmosphere) were not sufficient to prevent the atmosphere from cooling; they did not act effectively so as to trap the heat, or to delay the heat loss. The CO2 in the atmosphere was able to get sequestered into rocks, which is a very slow process involving geological time scales, at a rate faster than the CO2 and water vapour could trap heat, delay cooling. The planet had running water some 4 billion years ago, but notwithstanding the very rich GHG composition of the atmosphere, there was no runaway positive water vapour feedback loop”
Richard, might I suggest this is all speculation, as to the original state of the earth.
No one was here to observe it. Just speculation based on various assumptions.
Actually, not a whole lot different to the AGW nonsense.
[…] Full post […]
[…] New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years. By Kenneth Richard on 2. March 2017 Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity. In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice. The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago. […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nea… […]
[…] NotaLotOfPeopleKnowThat has an interesting graph which they post from NoTricksZone: […]
IP25 is a sea ice proxy, a direct proxy for sea ice coverage. PIP25 is the phytoplankton-IP25 index. It is the further development of the IP25 index, based on the coupling of the environmental information carried by IP25 (sea ice) and the brassicasterol (open-water phytoplankton productivitiy).
[…] – See more at: notrickszone.com […]
Can you post a link to the original article please?
Andy
Can you post a link to the original article please
Andy
The embedded link was provided by clicking on the words Stein et al., 2017, which is located below the graph and above the text in the body of the article. It is behind a paywall, unfortunately, but if you click on the “pdf” button you can see the first page clearly, and if you scroll down the obfuscated pages about half-way, you can see the graph of “sea ice cover” for the Holocene. Renting the paper costs $6. Here is the link again:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/abstract
Thanks Kenneth,
Because you had chopped the scale out of another table, turned it 90 degrees, compressed it in the X axis and then added your own lables I did not spot it immediately. Can you blame me?
For a website called NotricksZone you need to better post links to proper scientific work, better links to items inside those works and NOT start putting your own bits on top as you see fit, therefore misrepresenting what the scientist was saying in the first place.
Or you can change your website name to LOTSofTRICKSzone and do all of the above with no problem.
Andy
good argument.
There is absolutely nothing that has been done that has change any data.
Just a minor change in presentation and removal of non-relevant data.
If sob and this other Andy are so, so dopey that they can’t see that, there really is little help for them.
I have no idea why it couldn’t be recognized in the first place since its colors and description were visibly clear in the paper. It’s not as if there are dozens of tri-hue blue graphs with “sea ice cover” on them from the paper, and one had to wade through them all to find it.
For the record, I “chopped” it from the table because the other elements from the same table were not going to be recognizable to the casual viewer as having anything to do with sea ice. The more convoluted and complicated a graph is, the less likely people will understand it or try to decipher it. There is nothing “tricky” about specifically selecting a sea ice graph from a table that includes depictions of brassicasterol, as few people would find any relevance to sea ice.
And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. The only reason it was sideways in the paper is because the authors were trying to squeeze in as many images as they could into the existing space.
As for your very odd contention that this graph created by the authors “misrepresents” what the authors themselves were “saying in the first place”, perhaps you didn’t read the abstract of the paper itself:
The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.
What the abstract says is exactly what this graph actually depicts. In other words, it is probably the most cogent graph from the entire paper. If you think otherwise, please illuminate us with what graph you think should be used as representative from the paper.
It is my suspicion that the only reason you are daftly attempting to criticize what has been done here is that you don’t like what you see. You don’t like to think that Arctic sea ice is more extensive now than it has been for nearly the entire Holocene. You don’t like to think that scientists attribute sea ice trend variations to solar forcing, as these conclusions undermine the narrative that humans cause sea ice to rise up and down. So, instead of offering something substantive, you whine that the graph’s X axis has been compressed and been re-positioned horizontally for easier viewing. You whine about the “lables” [sic] for the 20C, MWP, and LIA.
I would also surmise that you were being dishonest when you wrote that you “can’t find” the graph in the paper you claimed to have downloaded, as you were disingenuously trying to suggest that this graph wasn’t even in the paper when it is very prominent and easy to see with even a cursory skimming.
It does not appear that your tactic has worked here, Andy1. Perhaps you can offer criticism that is a little more substantive than “you had chopped the scale out of another table” next time.
Thanks Richard,
I’d already downloaded the PDF but as I saw nothing in it that looked like
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17-768×496.jpg
I wondered if we were talking about the same thing.
Where did that graph come from when it is not in the actual paper?
Andy
The graph is indeed in the actual paper. It’s on the 9th page, right hand side, in a vertical position (that was re-positioned to horizontal for easier viewing). The “20th century”, “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” annotations were added, corresponding with their accepted dating from the last millennium. The timing of the sea ice cover changes for the Arctic areas during the last millennium studied correspond quite well to the records for Iceland, as shown in the subsequent graph.
“I saw nothing in it that looked like”
Was that because of wilful Blindness.. or wilful ignorance.
“The “20th century”, “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” annotations were added, corresponding with their accepted dating from the last millennium.”
yeah. and in your scientific way of doing things, the ““Medieval Warm Period” ” does not need a time period, it simply always is the high/low point in the graph.
so in your first graph, you conveniently place the MWP somewhere more than 1000 years ago,
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg
while in your second graph the same MWP is only about 800 years ago.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Iceland-Koch-Since-1200.jpg
Science at its best!
OMG, sob thinks the MWP lasted 10 years or something.
The display of IGNORANCE from him just continues and continues.
sod, the generally accepted dates for the MWP are about 900 to 1200 AD (which is mentioned in the body of the article). In the Iceland graph, the arrow is pointing to the period before 1200, when there was no sea ice. The record doesn’t extend any earlier than that, which is why the entirety of the 900-1200 AD period could not be represented. Understand now?
Explanations will always be a lost cause when it comes to sob.
I think he could have probably figured out when the LIA was from the Iceland graph, even without the words to help him.
Oh and then look at the mid-late 1970’s. Right up there with the LIA. !!
“sod, the generally accepted dates for the MWP are about 900 to 1200 AD (which is mentioned in the body of the article)”
i know this meme. It is still anti science, to put an arrow to the peak/low point of a graph.
In the real world, you will have to average those graphs to get a global picture (like modern global temperature is an average of cool and warm temperatures) and then your “MWP” peak is reduced to a bump on the road.
In the real world you NEVER average graphs, whatever you think that means.
You really are a low level, low intelligence, AGW operative, aren’t you, sob
“In the real world you NEVER average graphs, whatever you think that means.”
you have never been to school then? got an average grade at the end? (most data can be put into a graph)
we do average data for the modern times, like it or not.
and basically all proxies are giving an average over a time and region.
your position does not make any sense.
Seems little sob has no idea when you should use averages and when you shouldn’t.
Anything beyond a very basic, simplistic, education is sadly lacking. !
dispatch from the real world, the pause most likely is gone:
“Next month’s anomaly would have to be lower than 0.2C to reduce the trend slightly.
To get a flat or negative trend since 1998, the March anomaly would have to be -3.8C.
The decimal point is in the correct place!
For the 1998 trend to return to flat or negative values by the end of this year, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.16C.
We have 2 months data already, at around 0.5C warmer than that, so what would the average temperature anomaly for the rest of 2017 have to be to get a flat/negative trend since 1998?
-0.26C (Mar-Dec)
The most recent year the annual average anomaly was that cool was in 1985. The annual average then was -0.35C.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2017-0-35-deg-c/#comment-239198
YAWN,
Thanks for highlighting that transients events disrupt linear trend calculations.
Got anything else you would like to copy/paste without comprehending or understanding ??
UAH has Feb 2017 as 4th warmest February,
RSS has it as 5th warmest.
There is still absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.
El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2 warming, because CO2 does not warm oceans and El Ninos are an ocean cooling event.
“UAH has Feb 2017 as 4th warmest February,
RSS has it as 5th warmest.”
there was to be a la nina. it did not show up. Temperature was supposed to drop. it did not happen. “4th warmest on record” nearly made to an olympic medal!
“There is still absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.”
there is. you missed the message: the pause is GONE.
No there isn’t. You are WRONG as usual.
The ONLY warming has come from El Nino events, which are totally unrelated to CO2
The very FACT that you have to use those events to show any warming proves this point.
In the periods apart from the two main EL Ninos, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING
No warming from 1980 to 1997.5
http://s19.postimg.org/y6om3sbjn/RSS_Before_El_Nino.jpg
No warming from 2001 to 2015
http://s19.postimg.org/im6e8dgxf/RSS_pre_2015.png
Capeeeesh !! Comprehend????
No, I don’t expect that you CAN comprehend.
Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/climate-science-on-trial-how-does-ice-melt-in-sub-zero-temperatures/
[…] – New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years: […]
the church of global catastrophic warming will never turn their ideology, will never accept any studies, showing less catastrophic agw so they are the so called deniers, not the skeptical scientists!
One of my pet peeves is the lack of consistency of the time line in graphs. Why do some show time flowing from right to left while most others show it the other way round?