Solar Minimum 2009, Global Cooling and the Record Breaking Winter



andrejsv

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
234
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.
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.

Thank for the Gompertz curve info, I did not know about it, pretty slick how it was fitted to an asymptote of zero artic ice extent (I'm sure it could have been fitted to other asymptotes), to do this one must know at priori that the final value will be zero. I don't happen to know that. 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:
 

andrejsv

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
234
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.
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.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
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.
 

SirCharles

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
15,652
Well CS it looks like the IPCC may have finally got something right when they made this statement last November.


IPCC

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" :p
Thanks for pointing that out, rash. And I bet you haven't understood a word. Else you wouldn't have posted that citation. :lol:
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,471
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.
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.

Again, it is a persistent contrarian error is suppose that just because there is natural variability (day to day, month to month, year to year) there is no long term trend.

Climate (and ice mass loss) = long-term trend + natural variability + random noise.

. 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:
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.

Here is the first through-ice surfacing at the North Pole by USS Skate in March, 1958, when the ice was somewhat thicker.



Here are two submarines at the North Pole in 1991 (no month given).



Here is another on USS Salt Lake City somewhere north of the Arctic Circle.



Photographs are anecdotal evidence ... I would not pin my evidence on them, against the GRACE satellites.

More images here: Submarines Under Ice
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,471
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.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
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.
Thanks for responding to this after so long ... your buddies seemed incapable of explanation.

I found videos like this one very useful to gain a basic understanding, seeing as I was only looking for basic ideas.

[video=youtube;uHdJ1lAHejw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHdJ1lAHejw[/video]

You are right about how little the earth's temperature varies. Earth is Goldilocks' Planet - just like her porridge, it is not too hot and not too cold. Trouble is, that has only been true for 10,000 years or so. Some of the earlier earth;s climates would not have suited us at all.

Earth does have a feedback mechanism - it is called the carbon cycle, where carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed by the sea and biosphere. Unfortunately, our additional CO2 emission have thrown it out of balance, as it cannot absorb natural CO2 AND our contribution as well fast enough. One we stop adding to it, the earth will absorb the extra CO2 in a thousand years or so.

Consider the Paleocene-Eocene Therman Maximum, some 56 million years ago.

Research 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.
The Last Great Global Warming: Scientific American

 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,471
Not trying to scare you or anything, but the Permian Extinction 250 millions years ago was not for the faint hearted.

[video=youtube;hDbz2dpebhQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDbz2dpebhQ[/video]
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
Northpole, August 1958:
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.

More twaddle and nonsense.

I''m still hanging on some of the wierd and wonderful predictions that were paraded on this site that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

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."
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.

The Alarmist model of climate has failed. It is a testimony to the advocacy and ideology of the media that this stuff is tolerated. Weher ei the BBC looking back at this garbage to provide some proper introspection on the now proven nonsense??? This was full blown alarmism pushed and pushed by the "scientist" concerned.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,471
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.
Tombo is right about the predictions being wrong.

Arctic Ice is disappearing FASTER than the the predictions said it would.

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,471
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! :D

[video=youtube;boj9ccV9htk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=61&feature=plpp_video[/video]

Watch after 7:00 in the video for the solar-cycle: earth's temperature lie.
 

SirCharles

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
15,652
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! :D

[video=youtube;boj9ccV9htk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=61&feature=plpp_video[/video]

Watch after 7:00 in the video for the solar-cycle: earth's temperature lie.
What a swindle that swindle film.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,471
Northpole, August 1958:
Northpole, August 1958:
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.

WRONG!

The USS Skate made the first through-ice surfacing by a submarine at the North Pole on St Patrick's Day, 1959.

In August, 1958, USS Skate did pass under the North Pole (Aug 11th), the second submarine ever to do so, and arrived in Bergen, Norway on August 23rd. So the picture could have been taken anywhere in the ice pack.

There was hardly open water at the North Pole in March, 1959, because the pack ice is at maximum extent and thickness in March. But maybe climate science deniers are claiming that?

USS Skate (SSN-578) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The picture shows Skate "somewhere in the Arctic" in March, 1959.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top