LOL. Any scientist would make their name in the history of science if they overturned the "CO2 boondoggle". Do you seriously think they are all so cowed by leaders in the field that they are staying quiet about it? Do you seriously think that any scientist who cares about their reputation would continue to hold a scientific position they know to be wrong when they know that sooner or later the truth will be found and their reputation would then plummet? It boggles the mind to think that such a thing would be possible.
You're right, and the Bill that put ACORN out of business was a Bill of Attainder. We don't always follow the Constitution but nobody's perfect.
(TapeCutter, as an Aussie you may not know about ACORN. It was an organization that among other things registered voters that righties in country don't want voting and helped with housing and other things in low income communities. It was done in by some highly edited video that falsely implied they were abetting prostitution and everyone jumped on the bandwagon to deny them funding.)
Clouds develop when water vapor condenses in the atmosphere forming water droplets around condensation nuclei. But regarding their greenhouse effects clouds and water vapor are two different things with different absorption/reflection characteristics for radiant energy.
Answering the GP, during daylight clouds can reflect sunlight back into space providing a cooling effect but the albedo depends on things like the size of the cloud droplets, the density of the cloud, the angle of the light hitting it and probably a few other things. At night though they reflect radiant energy back toward the surface or absorb it providing a warming effect. And around the world near the day/night separation line the sunlight can actually be reflected from the bottom of the clouds down to the Earth. Overall the effects of clouds on global warming appears to be slightly positive.
In a few short years (if not already) there won't be enough petroleum to go around regardless of how much drilling (off shore or onshore) you want to do. It's time to be preparing for that day.
So anyway, yes, ice certainly freezes in the winter time. I didn't check September, just January and June, hot and cold six months apart, right? That gives a pretty good spread. And yes, 2007 was a hot year up North! In fact, it is the year most quoted on the web in comparative models, and I can see why that is if somebody is trying to make a strong point.
Well, the point of looking at September is that is when the yearly minimum ice occurs (although occasionally it may happen in early October). If you want to see maximum ice you would look in March or April generally. January and June are both transition periods, not when the ice sees it min/max extent. And rather than simple Arctic sea ice extent you should try looking for information about Arctic sea ice volume too. The multi-year sea ice that holds most of the volume has been disappearing and 2010 is considered the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ever. Taken as a whole every year from 2007-2010 has lower Arctic sea ice extent than any year before 2007 so choose any of them for your comparison. There is no evidence that Arctic sea ice is making much of a recovery and the long term trend is down.
Of course the reason the record only goes back to 1979 is because that's when the first satellite to measure sea ice was launched. Before that you have to use records gathered on the ground to estimate it. Before the 1950's those records were pretty spotty.
Really? I'm having a difficult time verifying that one way or the other.
Here is an overview of Antarctic ice with references to studies. There are references to scientific papers on the subject there. Measurements indicate Antarctica is losing 100-300 Gt/year from the ice sheets and the rate is accelerating.
That's a lovely rationalization, but it doesn't answer my original question; Why only in Antarctica? Do fluid and saline dynamics only work south of the equator?
There is a fundamental different between the Arctic and the Antarctic. That is that the Arctic is a relatively shallow ocean surrounded by land but Antarctica is land surrounded by relatively deep ocean. So some things do work quite differently between the two. See the SkepticalScience ling above for cites on papers about the scientific basis of what you call a rationalization.
... specifying, "Sea Ice Scientists" rather than, "Climate Change Scientists" is a little evasive.
Sea ice scientists are a subgroup of climate scientists which covers a broad range of scientific fields from the central radiative transfer physics field to paleoclimatologists to physical oceanographers and many others I could name. Sea ice scientists are describing an expected symptom of global warming in the decline of Arctic sea ice but the changes in albedo they find due to the decline have an effect on GW due to less reflection/more absorption of incoming solar radiation. In turn the oceanographers get involved as the Arctic Ocean warms from the increased absorption.
Please remember that the media tells us that thousands of scientists have come forward to assure us that Global Warming is a crisis issue requiring immediate government intervention. For changes of that magnitude, I do in fact think that we deserve all the evidence we can get, and that satellite photo-evidence would go a long way to supporting the claim.
I don't think scientists say much about government intervention. If something is to be done about the problem of global warming then government is the most obvious mechanism to enable taking action. Private enterprise generally doesn't look far enough into the future to take it into account although it's becoming a factor in the insurance industry lately. The problem with the magnitude of change from global warming is that there are built in buffers
I clicked on your "comparison" link and got Arctic sea ice for January (and 2008 missing). The Arctic always freezes up in the winter and will for a long time. After 2 months of darkness it gets cold up there. Did you switch to September when the yearly minimum sea ice occurs and compare? Compare any September since 2007 to any September before 2000 and you see a marked difference.
On a technical note it's important to get the terminology right so you don't confuse your audience. Ice sheets are the ice on Greenland and Antarctica (and a few smaller areas). Ice shelves are the tongues of glaciers floating on the ocean. What we're talking about is sea ice which is the ice that forms when the ocean itself freezes.
As far as Antarctica, it is losing ice as well from the ice sheets and ice shelves. Antarctic sea ice has grown. There are a couple of factors that lead to that. The ozone hole over Antarctica causes stronger circumpolar winds that open more polynyas in the existing sea ice exposing more open water to the cold air. Increasing rain, snow and glacial run-off freshen the surface water reducing its density so it floats on top of the denser warmer water below so less heat is transmitted to the surface from below allowing the surface to get colder.
I'm not sure the satellites that the sea ice scientists use take actual photographs. They've got plenty of data to download without doing photos.
How do you want to pay for all of the effort it would take to put together the collection you want? There's no money for it in the grants for research they get. Their regular jobs aren't paying them to do that. What you want is not necessary to the science they do or it would already exist.
Want to learn more about Arctic sea ice, look here. They don't actually use photographs much. To produce a photograph of the whole Arctic would require patching together multiple photos from multiple satellite passes. Instead they use things like microwave sensors to gather the data. Should some scientist take the time to patch together multiple photos (assuming they even exist) just for you?
If you want some comparison photographs of glacial retreat look here.
I got it to open all of the comments at once by fiddling with the comments score slider, moving it to -1.
One issue I found is that when I click on the score of a comment to see the mod history when I close the mod history box it returns to the top of the page instead of remaining with the comment I was looking at.
Scientists analyze and quantify those photographs in great detail. Once you have quantified the detail you can compare different years far more easily than you can from simple photographs. I don't assume the scientific community has all the power but I don't discount what they have to say either unless given a good reason to.
Well, my point is that just because it is cold where you are doesn't mean it isn't unusually warm elsewhere. The total energy in the system grows slowly over time with global warming but natural variability makes the distribution of that energy variable over time and location. Areas of cold are balanced by areas of warm within the envelope of the total energy in the system.
(But I was looking for a way to get the Nuuk and Coral Harbour information into the discussion anyway and you presented the opportunity.)
I don't think Gulf Stream disruption is really a prediction of global warming so much as just mentioned as a possibility. If it did get disrupted then likely the east coast of North America and Northern Europe would cool significantly.
Eyeballing satellite images is not science without a much deeper analysis. Comparison photos are made for the edification of people who aren't knowledgeable enough to understand the deeper analysis.
Duh! It usually drops in the winter because snow is building up on the northern lands. You have to look at the yearly average sea level to show anything about long term sea level trends.
Sea level rise over the 20th Century averaged about 1.8 mm/year but from satellite measurements the average rise from 1990 to the present was closer to 2.8 mm/year. I'd call that an acceleration.
Water vapor in the atmosphere and clouds are two different things although there is plenty of transition between the two states. Water vapor is always a greenhouse gas, capturing infrared radiation. During the day clouds tend to reflect sunlight causing a cooling effect but at night they capture infrared coming from the surface keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be. Recent research shows the net effect of clouds to be slightly positive.
If the effects of global warming are as bad as some say the population problem will take care of itself and not in a pretty way.
Yet the winter in the Northeast Canadian Arctic and in Greenland has been exceptionally warm.
On New Years Day Nuuk, Greenland set a new all time high of 44 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal high is 20 F. The previous record high was 39 F set 5 or 6 years ago.
On the 6th of January Coral Harbour, Nanavut, Canada at the northwest corner of Hudson Bay had a low temperature for the day of -3.7 degrees Celsius. That sounds cold but the normal low for the date is -34 C so the temperature was 30 C (54 F) above the normal daily low for January. A couple of other factoids:
After New Year’s Day, the town went 11 days without getting down to its average daily high (-26 C).
On both the 5th and 6th, Coral Harbor inched above the freezing mark. Before this year, temperatures above 0C (32F) had never been recorded in the entire three months of January, February, and March.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. Any scientist would make their name in the history of science if they overturned the "CO2 boondoggle". Do you seriously think they are all so cowed by leaders in the field that they are staying quiet about it? Do you seriously think that any scientist who cares about their reputation would continue to hold a scientific position they know to be wrong when they know that sooner or later the truth will be found and their reputation would then plummet? It boggles the mind to think that such a thing would be possible.
You're right, and the Bill that put ACORN out of business was a Bill of Attainder. We don't always follow the Constitution but nobody's perfect.
(TapeCutter, as an Aussie you may not know about ACORN. It was an organization that among other things registered voters that righties in country don't want voting and helped with housing and other things in low income communities. It was done in by some highly edited video that falsely implied they were abetting prostitution and everyone jumped on the bandwagon to deny them funding.)
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The libertarians post and the left wingers mod.
What's the name for that syndrome where smart people think they're dumber than they are and dumb people think they're smarter than they are?
Smart people know how much they don't know but for dumb people check out the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Clouds develop when water vapor condenses in the atmosphere forming water droplets around condensation nuclei. But regarding their greenhouse effects clouds and water vapor are two different things with different absorption/reflection characteristics for radiant energy.
Answering the GP, during daylight clouds can reflect sunlight back into space providing a cooling effect but the albedo depends on things like the size of the cloud droplets, the density of the cloud, the angle of the light hitting it and probably a few other things. At night though they reflect radiant energy back toward the surface or absorb it providing a warming effect. And around the world near the day/night separation line the sunlight can actually be reflected from the bottom of the clouds down to the Earth. Overall the effects of clouds on global warming appears to be slightly positive.
In a few short years (if not already) there won't be enough petroleum to go around regardless of how much drilling (off shore or onshore) you want to do. It's time to be preparing for that day.
I believe Fox News Channel lost large amounts of money for several years before it finally became profitable. Same think could happen here.
Back at ya.
So anyway, yes, ice certainly freezes in the winter time. I didn't check September, just January and June, hot and cold six months apart, right? That gives a pretty good spread. And yes, 2007 was a hot year up North! In fact, it is the year most quoted on the web in comparative models, and I can see why that is if somebody is trying to make a strong point.
Well, the point of looking at September is that is when the yearly minimum ice occurs (although occasionally it may happen in early October). If you want to see maximum ice you would look in March or April generally. January and June are both transition periods, not when the ice sees it min/max extent. And rather than simple Arctic sea ice extent you should try looking for information about Arctic sea ice volume too. The multi-year sea ice that holds most of the volume has been disappearing and 2010 is considered the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ever. Taken as a whole every year from 2007-2010 has lower Arctic sea ice extent than any year before 2007 so choose any of them for your comparison. There is no evidence that Arctic sea ice is making much of a recovery and the long term trend is down.
Of course the reason the record only goes back to 1979 is because that's when the first satellite to measure sea ice was launched. Before that you have to use records gathered on the ground to estimate it. Before the 1950's those records were pretty spotty.
Really? I'm having a difficult time verifying that one way or the other.
Here is an overview of Antarctic ice with references to studies. There are references to scientific papers on the subject there. Measurements indicate Antarctica is losing 100-300 Gt/year from the ice sheets and the rate is accelerating.
That's a lovely rationalization, but it doesn't answer my original question; Why only in Antarctica? Do fluid and saline dynamics only work south of the equator?
There is a fundamental different between the Arctic and the Antarctic. That is that the Arctic is a relatively shallow ocean surrounded by land but Antarctica is land surrounded by relatively deep ocean. So some things do work quite differently between the two. See the SkepticalScience ling above for cites on papers about the scientific basis of what you call a rationalization.
... specifying, "Sea Ice Scientists" rather than, "Climate Change Scientists" is a little evasive.
Sea ice scientists are a subgroup of climate scientists which covers a broad range of scientific fields from the central radiative transfer physics field to paleoclimatologists to physical oceanographers and many others I could name. Sea ice scientists are describing an expected symptom of global warming in the decline of Arctic sea ice but the changes in albedo they find due to the decline have an effect on GW due to less reflection/more absorption of incoming solar radiation. In turn the oceanographers get involved as the Arctic Ocean warms from the increased absorption.
Please remember that the media tells us that thousands of scientists have come forward to assure us that Global Warming is a crisis issue requiring immediate government intervention. For changes of that magnitude, I do in fact think that we deserve all the evidence we can get, and that satellite photo-evidence would go a long way to supporting the claim.
I don't think scientists say much about government intervention. If something is to be done about the problem of global warming then government is the most obvious mechanism to enable taking action. Private enterprise generally doesn't look far enough into the future to take it into account although it's becoming a factor in the insurance industry lately. The problem with the magnitude of change from global warming is that there are built in buffers
I clicked on your "comparison" link and got Arctic sea ice for January (and 2008 missing). The Arctic always freezes up in the winter and will for a long time. After 2 months of darkness it gets cold up there. Did you switch to September when the yearly minimum sea ice occurs and compare? Compare any September since 2007 to any September before 2000 and you see a marked difference.
On a technical note it's important to get the terminology right so you don't confuse your audience. Ice sheets are the ice on Greenland and Antarctica (and a few smaller areas). Ice shelves are the tongues of glaciers floating on the ocean. What we're talking about is sea ice which is the ice that forms when the ocean itself freezes.
As far as Antarctica, it is losing ice as well from the ice sheets and ice shelves. Antarctic sea ice has grown. There are a couple of factors that lead to that. The ozone hole over Antarctica causes stronger circumpolar winds that open more polynyas in the existing sea ice exposing more open water to the cold air. Increasing rain, snow and glacial run-off freshen the surface water reducing its density so it floats on top of the denser warmer water below so less heat is transmitted to the surface from below allowing the surface to get colder.
I'm not sure the satellites that the sea ice scientists use take actual photographs. They've got plenty of data to download without doing photos.
How do you want to pay for all of the effort it would take to put together the collection you want? There's no money for it in the grants for research they get. Their regular jobs aren't paying them to do that. What you want is not necessary to the science they do or it would already exist.
Want to learn more about Arctic sea ice, look here. They don't actually use photographs much. To produce a photograph of the whole Arctic would require patching together multiple photos from multiple satellite passes. Instead they use things like microwave sensors to gather the data. Should some scientist take the time to patch together multiple photos (assuming they even exist) just for you?
If you want some comparison photographs of glacial retreat look here.
This sounds similar to the ADSB system developed for aircraft.
Sounds like you should use your barley to make some beer. (I think the word you wanted was barely).
I got it to open all of the comments at once by fiddling with the comments score slider, moving it to -1.
One issue I found is that when I click on the score of a comment to see the mod history when I close the mod history box it returns to the top of the page instead of remaining with the comment I was looking at.
Scientists analyze and quantify those photographs in great detail. Once you have quantified the detail you can compare different years far more easily than you can from simple photographs. I don't assume the scientific community has all the power but I don't discount what they have to say either unless given a good reason to.
Well, my point is that just because it is cold where you are doesn't mean it isn't unusually warm elsewhere. The total energy in the system grows slowly over time with global warming but natural variability makes the distribution of that energy variable over time and location. Areas of cold are balanced by areas of warm within the envelope of the total energy in the system.
(But I was looking for a way to get the Nuuk and Coral Harbour information into the discussion anyway and you presented the opportunity.)
I don't think Gulf Stream disruption is really a prediction of global warming so much as just mentioned as a possibility. If it did get disrupted then likely the east coast of North America and Northern Europe would cool significantly.
Eyeballing satellite images is not science without a much deeper analysis. Comparison photos are made for the edification of people who aren't knowledgeable enough to understand the deeper analysis.
Duh! It usually drops in the winter because snow is building up on the northern lands. You have to look at the yearly average sea level to show anything about long term sea level trends.
Sea level rise over the 20th Century averaged about 1.8 mm/year but from satellite measurements the average rise from 1990 to the present was closer to 2.8 mm/year. I'd call that an acceleration.
Water vapor in the atmosphere and clouds are two different things although there is plenty of transition between the two states. Water vapor is always a greenhouse gas, capturing infrared radiation. During the day clouds tend to reflect sunlight causing a cooling effect but at night they capture infrared coming from the surface keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be. Recent research shows the net effect of clouds to be slightly positive.
If the effects of global warming are as bad as some say the population problem will take care of itself and not in a pretty way.
More work needs to be done on the subject of that paper before it becomes established science.
The CRU emails were "Much ado about nothing."
Yet the winter in the Northeast Canadian Arctic and in Greenland has been exceptionally warm.
On New Years Day Nuuk, Greenland set a new all time high of 44 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal high is 20 F. The previous record high was 39 F set 5 or 6 years ago.
On the 6th of January Coral Harbour, Nanavut, Canada at the northwest corner of Hudson Bay had a low temperature for the day of -3.7 degrees Celsius. That sounds cold but the normal low for the date is -34 C so the temperature was 30 C (54 F) above the normal daily low for January. A couple of other factoids:
After New Year’s Day, the town went 11 days without getting down to its average daily high (-26 C).
On both the 5th and 6th, Coral Harbor inched above the freezing mark. Before this year, temperatures above 0C (32F) had never been recorded in the entire three months of January, February, and March.
There's a balance there with your cold.
All I can say about the headline is Duh!