Thanks, did not realized that. I also did not realized the GRACE satellite measured mass by gravity variations, pretty cool.I am not sure if you understand what you are looking at.
The upper charts in Sir Charles' post are LAND ice, measured by mass.
The lower one is GLOBAL SEA ICE, the sum of Arctic and Antarctic ice, measure by area.
I only have observations:I asked this before, but what is the physical theory linking sunspots to global weather or climate?
The only way the sun can influence the earth is by electromagnetic radiation, right? So what is the connection between sun-spots, EM-radiation and the earth? We know the sun has been in a quiet period radiation-wise, but what has sun-spots got to do with it? A few months ago there was a paper linking solar output of UV-light with weather but that was not related to sunspots.
What is the physics behind this assumption that sun-spots are related to the earth's weather or climate? Any references to papers, sites or books? Only asking.
Thanks for pointing that out, rash. And I bet you haven't understood a word. Else you wouldn't have posted that citation. :lol:Well CS it looks like the IPCC may have finally got something right when they made this statement last November.
The IPCC report says:
"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain"
What I take from that abstract is this: interannual variability may cause accelerations and slowdowns of the ice mass lost from Greenland, but there is no disguising the long-term trend - downward.Thanks, did not realized that. I also did not realized the GRACE satellite measured mass by gravity variations, pretty cool.
Trying to find info about it, came across another assessment:
Interannual variability of Greenland ice losses from satellite gravimetry | CU Sea Level Research Group
Things are not so clear cut, but if there is ice mass loss, then there is loss. Now is that a continuation of the heating in prior years due to thermal inertia, etc? I don't know, it is a data point.
Of course, submarines have surfaced at the North Poles. Note the date - August, just before the September minimum where we have pools of open water frequently captured on video.. But then again, submarines were surfacing at the ice pole in the winter in the 1950's on clear water, or only 2 ft thick ice, so it would not be a catastrophe, just history repeating itself.
The Top of the World
USS Skate (SSN-578) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Northpole, August 1958:
Thanks for responding to this after so long ... your buddies seemed incapable of explanation.I only have observations:
David Archibald - Global Warming & Sunspots explained - YouTube
The the lack of 'physics' does not negate an observation, in fact that is how science advances, observations are made, and a later time ideas hypothesys and rules are provided that if proven true become 'laws'. For example why in the world gravity is unipolar (no antigravity) no one knows, mass is attracted to mass nonetheless.
Some people are trying to find some physical limks, like Svensmark:
Henrik Svensmark: The Cosmic-Ray/Cloud Seeding Hypothesis Is Converging With Reality
There maybe something to be said about variation of UV versus visible light, even though the total solar irradiance might be more or less constant.
Who knows. It doesnt stand to reason that the earth climate is open loop. If tt was, a little more Co2 would cause higher temps that evaporate more water, which absorbs more IR increasing temps, that heat the oceans, the release more CO2 that increase temps that ... around and around until the oceans boil; simply because even though earth temperatures have been much higher than current, and Co2 concentrations have been much higher than current, that has never happened. So there has to be some sort of negative feedback, some thermostat action. What is amazing is not how much earth temps vary, but how little and why.
The Last Great Global Warming: Scientific AmericanResearch had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down.
There are more of those floating around [pun intended]. It put a lie to all the fear mongering about "open water in the Arctic is/will be a sign of catastrophic AGW.
Of course in the end this massive failure of the model to predict the reality is simply brushed under the carpet to make way for the next prediction.Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Tombo is right about the predictions being wrong.T
Of course in the end this massive failure of the model to predict the reality is simply brushed under the carpet to make way for the next prediction.
Wasn't the alleged correlation between lengths of the solar cycle and the earth's temperature used in that piece of denialist fakery The Great Warming Swindle?
What a swindle that swindle film.Wasn't the alleged correlation between lengths of the solar cycle and the earth's temperature used in that piece of denialist fakery The Great Warming Swindle?
Except they cut the graph off in 1979, when the spurious "correlation" breaks down!
Watch after 7:00 in the video for the solar-cycle: earth's temperature lie.
This picture gets hawked around regularly as "proof" that there was open water at the North Pole when the USS Skate surfaced there in August, 1958.