LOL. I've done it before when I was even more wrong than in this case. If you have a scientific bent like I do it's more important to me to get the science right than to be personally right all the time.
And while I'm at it another correction, I should have said the Western Antarctic coast is further south than most of the Antarctic coast, not the continent itself.
Yes, they pretty much jump on any piece of data that appears to support their position usually ignoring the context of it. They don't have much else to hang their hats on.
The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly regulated by the atmosphere itself. It is a function of temperature and the availability of water to evaporate into it. Because of that water vapor can never force climate change but is strictly a feedback. If there is 1% more water vapor (really it's more like 4%) it's because the atmosphere is warmer.
Well, interestingly enough I just did go look at actual data as mentioned in the reply to myself just above your reply. Based on the data I downloaded (monthly mean sea ice extent from November 1978 to November 2013) I don't think it's accurate to say the Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing over the past 3 decades. Maybe there is a bit of a trend but the maximum monthly extend varied mostly between around 18.5 million mi^2 to around 19.25 M mi^2 over most of that time although it's been exceptionally high the past two years. Just eyeballing it maybe there's been about a 200,000 mi^2 increase over 3+ decades. That's ignoring the past two years because it's too soon to tell if that's a change in trend or just an anomaly.
I don't think "displaces" is the right word to use here since the added CO2 is in addition to the already existing gases. It doesn't directly force anything out of the atmosphere. As for water vapor some places are very humid and some places are very dry. Since the absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor overlap somewhat the less humidity in the air the more significant the CO2 becomes as a greenhouse gas.
Yes, I recall having gone into it with you before. I still don't think the specific heat of CO2 has anything to do with it. You'll have to enlighten me about what the IR+RAMAM spectrum has to do with it. I spent 15 minutes looking around and didn't find much. I guess the vibrational state of CO2 molecules must be what you're getting at but I don't make the connection. A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere doesn't hold on to the energy from an absorbed photon for long. As I understand it it either re-radiates it in a random direction or passes it along in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.
Well, I do change my conclusion because I just read something that indicates the ozone hole may not have as much to do with it as I thought. Now I'm sitting on the fence on that pending further information. As for the main conclusion that global warming is happening and increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere primarily caused by human emissions are the main cause, there's so much evidence for it and so little against it that it would take something revolutionary to change my mind. But if someone comes up with a magic bullet I'm still willing to change my mind. Just waiting for solid scientific evidence.
First of all you need to get your terminology right. The article is talking about sea ice (ice that forms on the surface of the sea) not the Antarctic ice sheet (ice on land that's the result of over a million years of snowfall). The other term you should know is ice shelf (ice that's floated on to the ocean at the tongue of a glacier/ice sheet).
Second, the article explains that about 80% of the increase can be explained by the strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole. It doesn't appear to have much to do with colder temperatures. In fact in spite of the record sea ice this year Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole set record highs for each month from June to September (winter in Antarctica).
One interesting fact about Antarctica is that the sea ice essentially melts out completely every year so there is no carry over from one year to the next like there is in the Arctic.
I have to admit I was a bit wrong on this. I've been saying that for a while and decided to check on it. I downloaded the monthly mean sea ice extent and area from the NSIDC*. The data covered from November 1978 to November 2013. The Antarctic sea ice minimum monthly extent always occurs in February and is around 3 million miles^2 varying mostly from about 2.5-3.5. The Antarctic sea ice maximum always occurs in September and is around 19 M mi^2 varying mostly from about 18.5-19.25 except it was a record 19.77 last September.
So I was wrong that it melts out completely but it drops around 85% every year. In my defense that may be valid for some values of "essentially melts out completely". ) The remaining sea ice is mainly in the Weddell Sea (about half of it according to the Mk. 1 eyeball) which is protected from the prevailing currents and winds by the Antarctic Peninsula and along the Western Antarctic coast which is further south than most of the continent. One other interesting thing I discovered was that the sea ice extent drops precipitously from November to January every year from around 16.5 M mi^2 to around 5 M mi^2.
I could do the area too but I've already spent too long on this research so I'll leave it there but it was fun.
* Data cite: Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, and M. Savoie. 2002, updated 2009. Sea Ice Index. [indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5QJ7F7W.
Deny that CO2 causes global warming as a scientist and you will lose EVERYTHING, no matter what your field is.
To deny that an increase in CO2 will cause warming goes against fundamental physics and the radiative absorption properties of CO2. Even such noted contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen will tell you the increase in CO2 will cause warming due to the physics. They just think there are other factors that cancel that warming.
The heat capacity of CO2 and the atmosphere in general has very little to do with global warming. It's the radiative properties that cause the effect. Over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans.
You are right that ocean acidification may turn out to be as big if not a bigger problem than global warming but when you say "who gives a fuck about a couple of degrees change" consider that the temperature difference between the depth of the Little Ice Age and the mid-20th century was only about 1 degree C. What difference will 2 C of further temperature rise make?
You're probably right but I usually give people the benefit of doubt if I don't know better already. At least he didn't cite something like ClimateDepot.
Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarctic
You really should distinguish between the different kinds of ice (sea, shelf & sheet ice) when you talk about Antarctica because they are very different things. The sea ice, that is ice that forms on the ocean from freezing of the water, has increased it's maximum somewhat recently. However the sheet ice, that is ice that is grounded on land that has built up over thousands and millions of years from snowfall is still decreasing. I'm too lazy to look it up right now but I'd bet that more Antarctic sheet ice is lost than is gained in sea ice so it's still a net loss.
Have the stones to admit you don't actually understand what you thought you did.
I would love it if the deniers took that to heart. It appears to me that most of them aren't willing to wade deeply enough into the real science necessary for understanding.
As far as the increase in Antarctic sea ice goes the scientific explanation (as always subject to revision with new information) is that it's partially due to the ozone hole over Antarctic which cools down the atmosphere and increases the strength of the circumpolar winds which push the ice around opening up polynyas which subsequently freeze over increasing the sea ice area. Another factor is changes due to global warming in currents and precipitation lead to the water being fresher on the surface of the ocean and more easily frozen. There is no indication that it's simply due to colder temperatures.
I'm not sure how it's really relevant to the story. The ship is trapped in sea ice at a time of year when there is normally some sea ice around in Antarctica. They just got caught by some shifting winds or something.
The story itself has nothing to do with global warming nor even the increase in Antarctic sea ice. It's about a ship that got caught by shifting winds closing existing ice around it and trapping it which is possible with nearly any amount of sea ice in the vicinity. But it was a sure thing that global warming would come into the conversation.
You should learn the difference between Sea Ice an Ice Shelf and an Ice Sheet before spouting off showing your ignorance. I stand by my statement that Antarctic sea ice melts nearly completely every year. Regarding the Antarctic Ice Sheet which you cited it's a big chunk of ice and would take several thousand years to completely melt under any imaginable circumstances.
It may be just past the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere but like the northern hemisphere the sea ice minimum occurs closer to the autumnal equinox which will be in March. A ship getting trapped in sea ice like this is more a matter of luck and bad timing than any unusual amounts of sea ice. The wind shifts unexpectedly and moves the existing sea ice into a position that blocks the ship. It doesn't take all that much ice to block a ship.
One interesting fact about Antarctica is that the sea ice essentially melts out completely every year so there is no carry over from one year to the next like there is in the Arctic.
That's pretty funny since the warmest years in the instrument record are 2005 and 2010 and the oceans are continuing to absorb energy right on schedule. Also, November 2013 was the warmest ever recorded globally. You can keep living with your delusions for a while yet but reality will catch up to them eventually.
Global climate models don't even try to predict on such a short time scale as 10 years. The signal to noise ratio is too large for any period less than 25 or 30 years to be able reliably discern one from the other.
Why don't you jump in your time machine and check about 200 years in the future to see that those things happened? If you want instant gratification you're looking in the wrong place.
Nobody is denying the Sun is (practically) the only source of energy on the Earth's surface including the oceans, land and atmosphere. All they are saying is that the Sun isn't variable enough to account for most of the variability in climate that is seen.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. I've done it before when I was even more wrong than in this case. If you have a scientific bent like I do it's more important to me to get the science right than to be personally right all the time.
And while I'm at it another correction, I should have said the Western Antarctic coast is further south than most of the Antarctic coast, not the continent itself.
Yes, they pretty much jump on any piece of data that appears to support their position usually ignoring the context of it. They don't have much else to hang their hats on.
The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly regulated by the atmosphere itself. It is a function of temperature and the availability of water to evaporate into it. Because of that water vapor can never force climate change but is strictly a feedback. If there is 1% more water vapor (really it's more like 4%) it's because the atmosphere is warmer.
Well, interestingly enough I just did go look at actual data as mentioned in the reply to myself just above your reply. Based on the data I downloaded (monthly mean sea ice extent from November 1978 to November 2013) I don't think it's accurate to say the Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing over the past 3 decades. Maybe there is a bit of a trend but the maximum monthly extend varied mostly between around 18.5 million mi^2 to around 19.25 M mi^2 over most of that time although it's been exceptionally high the past two years. Just eyeballing it maybe there's been about a 200,000 mi^2 increase over 3+ decades. That's ignoring the past two years because it's too soon to tell if that's a change in trend or just an anomaly.
I don't think "displaces" is the right word to use here since the added CO2 is in addition to the already existing gases. It doesn't directly force anything out of the atmosphere. As for water vapor some places are very humid and some places are very dry. Since the absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor overlap somewhat the less humidity in the air the more significant the CO2 becomes as a greenhouse gas.
Yes, I recall having gone into it with you before. I still don't think the specific heat of CO2 has anything to do with it. You'll have to enlighten me about what the IR+RAMAM spectrum has to do with it. I spent 15 minutes looking around and didn't find much. I guess the vibrational state of CO2 molecules must be what you're getting at but I don't make the connection. A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere doesn't hold on to the energy from an absorbed photon for long. As I understand it it either re-radiates it in a random direction or passes it along in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.
Well, I do change my conclusion because I just read something that indicates the ozone hole may not have as much to do with it as I thought. Now I'm sitting on the fence on that pending further information. As for the main conclusion that global warming is happening and increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere primarily caused by human emissions are the main cause, there's so much evidence for it and so little against it that it would take something revolutionary to change my mind. But if someone comes up with a magic bullet I'm still willing to change my mind. Just waiting for solid scientific evidence.
Did you even read the article you cited?
First of all you need to get your terminology right. The article is talking about sea ice (ice that forms on the surface of the sea) not the Antarctic ice sheet (ice on land that's the result of over a million years of snowfall). The other term you should know is ice shelf (ice that's floated on to the ocean at the tongue of a glacier/ice sheet).
Second, the article explains that about 80% of the increase can be explained by the strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole. It doesn't appear to have much to do with colder temperatures. In fact in spite of the record sea ice this year Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole set record highs for each month from June to September (winter in Antarctica).
Yes, I reply as much for the sake of others reading the conversation as I do for the OP. It's just something I do.
One interesting fact about Antarctica is that the sea ice essentially melts out completely every year so there is no carry over from one year to the next like there is in the Arctic.
I have to admit I was a bit wrong on this. I've been saying that for a while and decided to check on it. I downloaded the monthly mean sea ice extent and area from the NSIDC*. The data covered from November 1978 to November 2013. The Antarctic sea ice minimum monthly extent always occurs in February and is around 3 million miles^2 varying mostly from about 2.5-3.5. The Antarctic sea ice maximum always occurs in September and is around 19 M mi^2 varying mostly from about 18.5-19.25 except it was a record 19.77 last September.
So I was wrong that it melts out completely but it drops around 85% every year. In my defense that may be valid for some values of "essentially melts out completely". ) The remaining sea ice is mainly in the Weddell Sea (about half of it according to the Mk. 1 eyeball) which is protected from the prevailing currents and winds by the Antarctic Peninsula and along the Western Antarctic coast which is further south than most of the continent. One other interesting thing I discovered was that the sea ice extent drops precipitously from November to January every year from around 16.5 M mi^2 to around 5 M mi^2.
I could do the area too but I've already spent too long on this research so I'll leave it there but it was fun.
* Data cite: Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, and M. Savoie. 2002, updated 2009. Sea Ice Index. [indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5QJ7F7W.
Deny that CO2 causes global warming as a scientist and you will lose EVERYTHING, no matter what your field is.
To deny that an increase in CO2 will cause warming goes against fundamental physics and the radiative absorption properties of CO2. Even such noted contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen will tell you the increase in CO2 will cause warming due to the physics. They just think there are other factors that cancel that warming.
The heat capacity of CO2 and the atmosphere in general has very little to do with global warming. It's the radiative properties that cause the effect. Over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans.
You are right that ocean acidification may turn out to be as big if not a bigger problem than global warming but when you say "who gives a fuck about a couple of degrees change" consider that the temperature difference between the depth of the Little Ice Age and the mid-20th century was only about 1 degree C. What difference will 2 C of further temperature rise make?
You're probably right but I usually give people the benefit of doubt if I don't know better already. At least he didn't cite something like ClimateDepot.
If the shoe fits ...
Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarctic
You really should distinguish between the different kinds of ice (sea, shelf & sheet ice) when you talk about Antarctica because they are very different things. The sea ice, that is ice that forms on the ocean from freezing of the water, has increased it's maximum somewhat recently. However the sheet ice, that is ice that is grounded on land that has built up over thousands and millions of years from snowfall is still decreasing. I'm too lazy to look it up right now but I'd bet that more Antarctic sheet ice is lost than is gained in sea ice so it's still a net loss.
Have the stones to admit you don't actually understand what you thought you did.
I would love it if the deniers took that to heart. It appears to me that most of them aren't willing to wade deeply enough into the real science necessary for understanding.
As far as the increase in Antarctic sea ice goes the scientific explanation (as always subject to revision with new information) is that it's partially due to the ozone hole over Antarctic which cools down the atmosphere and increases the strength of the circumpolar winds which push the ice around opening up polynyas which subsequently freeze over increasing the sea ice area. Another factor is changes due to global warming in currents and precipitation lead to the water being fresher on the surface of the ocean and more easily frozen. There is no indication that it's simply due to colder temperatures.
I'm not sure how it's really relevant to the story. The ship is trapped in sea ice at a time of year when there is normally some sea ice around in Antarctica. They just got caught by some shifting winds or something.
The story itself has nothing to do with global warming nor even the increase in Antarctic sea ice. It's about a ship that got caught by shifting winds closing existing ice around it and trapping it which is possible with nearly any amount of sea ice in the vicinity. But it was a sure thing that global warming would come into the conversation.
You should learn the difference between Sea Ice an Ice Shelf and an Ice Sheet before spouting off showing your ignorance. I stand by my statement that Antarctic sea ice melts nearly completely every year. Regarding the Antarctic Ice Sheet which you cited it's a big chunk of ice and would take several thousand years to completely melt under any imaginable circumstances.
It may be just past the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere but like the northern hemisphere the sea ice minimum occurs closer to the autumnal equinox which will be in March. A ship getting trapped in sea ice like this is more a matter of luck and bad timing than any unusual amounts of sea ice. The wind shifts unexpectedly and moves the existing sea ice into a position that blocks the ship. It doesn't take all that much ice to block a ship.
One interesting fact about Antarctica is that the sea ice essentially melts out completely every year so there is no carry over from one year to the next like there is in the Arctic.
Maybe even more intelligent than the guy you're quoting.
Bingo!
That's pretty funny since the warmest years in the instrument record are 2005 and 2010 and the oceans are continuing to absorb energy right on schedule. Also, November 2013 was the warmest ever recorded globally. You can keep living with your delusions for a while yet but reality will catch up to them eventually.
Global climate models don't even try to predict on such a short time scale as 10 years. The signal to noise ratio is too large for any period less than 25 or 30 years to be able reliably discern one from the other.
The /. headline is crappy. The title of the actual paper is "Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium".
Why don't you jump in your time machine and check about 200 years in the future to see that those things happened? If you want instant gratification you're looking in the wrong place.
Nobody is denying the Sun is (practically) the only source of energy on the Earth's surface including the oceans, land and atmosphere. All they are saying is that the Sun isn't variable enough to account for most of the variability in climate that is seen.