This summer may see first ice-free North Pole

[Tonington]

You don,t know either. I,m not surprised. You have trouble with up.

I've explained it to you before. Have you forgotten already? Try explaining cloud height with your electric universe hypothesis. I can do math, I'd like to see yours for theoretical limits on cloud height using first principles of your electric hypothesis.

 

[beaker]

How much did sea levels rise this year? Has St Johns been submerged under sea water? You,re just a freshly recruited carbon tax payer eager to fix the unproblem with cash, or maybe you,ll adopt a polar bear.The cbc is full of **** regardless of the particular story.

I'm almost certain that this isn't new information, but the sea ice loss doesn't raise sea levels. The problem arises from the fact that the water that covers the ocean rather than ice absorbs heat better than the ice which reflects the light, and therefore the darker water increases the heat retention of the planet. Which will cause increased loss of land based ice, leading to rising seas.

 

[Tonington]

I'm almost certain that this isn't new information, but the sea ice loss doesn't raise sea levels. The problem arises from the fact that the water that covers the ocean rather than ice absorbs heat better than the ice which reflects the light, and therefore the darker water increases the heat retention of the planet. Which will cause increased loss of land based ice, leading to rising seas.

Warmer water expands too. Part of sea level rise is the thermal expansion of the oceans due simply to the oceans holding more heat.

 

[beaker]

Warmer water expands too. Part of sea level rise is the thermal expansion of the oceans due simply to the oceans holding more heat.

Yeah, I thought I had heard that, and then because of the rotation of the Earth, the centrifugal forces push that already higher sea level out in the lower latitudes more than elsewhere, causing worse flooding there. On our conscience.

 

[skookumchuck]

Yeah, I thought I had heard that, and then because of the rotation of the Earth, the centrifugal forces push that already higher sea level out in the lower latitudes more than elsewhere, causing worse flooding there. On our conscience.

"On our conscience"? Are you teaching a class in remedial religion? Save it for impressionable kids, why would a ordinary lifelong productive worker at 67 years of age like me feel guilty? If you cannot fathom that it would be worthless for me to explain it.
Either admit that you are aiming at the young or consult your handlers.

 

[beaker]

"On our conscience"? Are you teaching a class in remedial religion? Save it for impressionable kids, why would a ordinary lifelong productive worker at 67 years of age like me feel guilty? If you cannot fathom that it would be worthless for me to explain it.
Either admit that you are aiming at the young or consult your handlers.

As it becomes clear to you, that our actions over the last seven or eight decades have caused what is happening, and as the low lands, some of the most productive, and habitable are lost to flooding, and other impacts caused by AGW hit home, I expect all of us 60 somethings will feel the old conscience kick in. Not necessarily going to affect everyone though. If we wait til then to do something though, it will be too late.

 

[darkbeaver]

Mr beaker thinks the last seven or eight decades of " human excess" has maladjusted the sun. He,s not heard of the twenty two year cycle.

 

[beaker]

Mr beaker thinks the last seven or eight decades of " human excess" has maladjusted the sun. He,s not heard of the twenty two year cycle.

I have heard mentioned a variety of cycles, and no, I don't think we have maladjusted the sun. What would make you think that? We have maladjusted the planet. And yes, I do think that our consumerist excess is responsible.

So even if the disappearing Arctic ice weren't the problem that has been pointed out here, it is still a symptom of the warming we have caused with our excess.

 

[darkbeaver]

Thursday, August 30, 2012

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming


An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

 

[beaker]

This is really interesting, can you provide a link to this study in Global and Planetary Change, or anywhere?

 

[darkbeaver]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

 

[beaker]

For example there is this one, Lower bounds to future sea-level riseOriginal Research Article
Pages 1-5
Antonio Zecca, Luca Chiari
Highlights
► Sea level is projected to rise by at least 80 cm in the 21st century. ► The ongoing depletion of fossil fuels will not avoid a significant sea-level rise. ► Sea level is expected to continue rising for several centuries. ► Prompt and significant emission cuts are needed to slow down future sea-level rise"

or

Current and future irrigation water requirements in pan-Europe: An integrated analysis of socio-economic and climate scenariosOriginal Research Article
Pages 33-45
Rüdiger Schaldach, Jennifer Koch, Tim Aus der Beek, Ellen Kynast, Martina Flörke

Show preview | Related articles | Related reference work articles Purchase $39.95

Highlights
► A land-use model is linked to a hydrology and water use model in pan-European study. ► Impacts of socio-economy and climate on irrigation water requirements are analyzed. ► Changing socio-economy is expected to feature the larger impact. ► The combination with climate change can increase future water requirements. ► Adaptation of agricultural management can help to mitigate negative impacts."

or

Too wet for oaks? Inter-tree competition and recent persistent wetness predispose oaks to rainfall-induced dieback in Atlantic rainy forestOriginal Research Article
Pages 62-71
Vicente Rozas, Ignacio García-González

Show preview | Supplementary content | Related articles | Related reference work articles Purchase $39.95

Highlights
► We investigate the influence of competition, regional water availability, and ENSO variation on oak decline and death. ► Our study shows a strong detrimental effect of recent water excess on tree growth and vitality. ► Trees suffering from competition and persistent wetness were the most likely to be killed by a rainfall extreme in 2001. ► Regional water availability in recent decades was linked to changes in ENSO dynamics. ► Forest dieback episodes associated to wetter conditions may become more common under a context of climate warming."

or

Erosion-induced CO2 flux of small watershedsOriginal Research Article
Pages 101-110
Jinren Ni, Yao Yue, Alistair G.L. Borthwick, Tianhong Li, Chiyuan Miao, Xiaojia He

Show preview | Related articles | Related reference work articles Purchase $39.95

Highlights
► We propose a discriminant equation for the direction of CO2 flux in small watersheds. ► The world's watersheds can be classified into source, sink, or transition watersheds. ► We model how natural and anthropogenic factors affect a watershed's type of CO2 flux.


But none of these seem to agree with the article you put forward, I really would like to see the link to that breakthrough.

 

[Tonington]

Someone,

doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics. Survival blankets, those thin sheets keep your body warm by reducing the radiation of heat away from your body. The greenhouse effect does the same thing. As does a kiln. Or the heat jacket placed around a hot water tank. It reduces the loss of heat, it doesn't add heat.

Durp. Science fail.

 

[beaker]

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Thanks, but your schtick doesn't refer to the Global and Planetary Change article that you said was a breakthrough.... That was the main part of your earlier thread, and what it was I was looking for when I asked for the link.

 

[darkbeaver]

Someone,

doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics. Survival blankets, those thin sheets keep your body warm by reducing the radiation of heat away from your body. The greenhouse effect does the same thing. As does a kiln. Or the heat jacket placed around a hot water tank. It reduces the loss of heat, it doesn't add heat.

Durp. Science fail.

The earth is not swathed in an emergency blanket of CO2. Nothing down here effects solar output, there,s no such thing as a functioning greenhouse gas effect.

 

[beaker]

The earth is not swathed in an emergency blanket of CO2. Nothing down here effects solar output, there,s no such thing as a functioning greenhouse gas effect.

Yah? Does that come from that same article in Global and Planetary Change, Did you find a link to that?

 

[CDNBear]

​

 

[darkbeaver]

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

• Ole Humluma, b,
• Kjell Stordahlc,
• Jan-Erik Solheimd

• a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
• b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
• c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
• d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

• http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

• Permissions & Reprints

View full textPurchase $39.95

Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Highlights

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

 

[Tonington]

The earth is not swathed in an emergency blanket of CO2.

Yes, it is.

Nothing down here effects solar output, there,s no such thing as a functioning greenhouse gas effect.

Of course nothing down here affects solar. Nobody suggested likewise. So let's dispense with that strawman. As for no functioning greenhouse gas effect, that's simple denial of reality on your part.
CO2 experiment - YouTube

And for those interested in the methods of the paper linked to by the dark rodent, an easy validation of those methods is found here:
Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” « Troy's Scratchpad

Spoiler alert, their results fail validation.

 

[beaker]

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Thanks for finding that.

Yes, it is.

Of course nothing down here affects solar. Nobody suggested likewise. So let's dispense with that strawman. As for no functioning greenhouse gas effect, that's simple denial of reality on your part.
CO2 experiment - YouTube

And for those interested in the methods of the paper linked to by the dark rodent, an easy validation of those methods is found here:
Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” « Troy's Scratchpad

Spoiler alert, their results fail validation.

And thanks for that. I'm going to have to spend a little time with both of them. It would be nice to see the full report.