Arctic hits record low

Hi Robert,

For years I have been reading climate debates as a part of my leisure and pleasure. You are the only one who has demonstrated a decent understanding of climate due to your pilot school. You are the only one out of all. Is not it amazing? Why are you debating?

You are the only who has pointed that international climate or Earth climate or planet climate is a nonsense, or I would say a mental deviation. Obviously, The IPCC was already a hoax by the name itself and should have been dismissed from the name itself by any educated person. Obviously, when the IPCC was formed, there was no sign of even a slight climate change in any region since, I believe, 1895 when the term climate was introduced to serve specific purposes not limited by pilot training. It is my pleasure to know that I am not the only one who knows that climate is a strictly regional thing. For me it was middle school geography. I was lucky that I never had to take earth science in my school. How many generations did it take to dumb the general population in the US?

Robert, I don’t know if you are interested, but I can tell you a few basic things about warming. As you were trained as pilot, my major training was in warming. But then you may find Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Curry to be no different from the crowd they are debating with. I don’t want to disturb your leisure and pleasure. I wouldn’t say too much now because you may be more interested in correspondence with the Drs, rather than listening to an anonymous PF member. Just a few notes and I don’t mind you skipping them:

# 1. Global warming is as self-serving term as international climate. It is no different from gender or Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is a mental deviation. What is the overage T of the Moon and what does it tell?

# 2. The basic equation for heat (warming) is dQ=dU+dA. The dA part has nothing to do with temperature. Warming or heat dQ is not measured in Fahrenheit or any other units of temperature.

#3. Heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process. It is the main, central law of the universe. Heat cannot be trapped, reflected back, back fed, stored, contained or anything else the Drs claim, it always flows…….. ……. …….

#4. The property of CO2 claimed by Drs has never been demonstrated. No machine has been even attempted to be build. (The opposite was demonstrated, I believe in 1905). Let me tell you about Flying Spaghetti Monster living under my bed, if you believe one word the Drs say.

# 5. May be it is not noticeable for the eyes of the Drs, but the cold body heat flows to is the infinite in mass body of the universe at 0K which a kind of has been missing in the sight of the Drs. Is not it a sight of mental deviants?

#6. Warming is not subject of climate, but it is subject of thermodynamics, heat and mass exchange, and Theory of technical measurements and instruments climate experts are unaware of.


Anyway, Robert, stay warm, here in CT I have another blast of like 24” of no snow in the North East as the Drs wrote in, I believe, 2009 IPCC report.
( Do you understand the pleasure which makes me spend some time reading the debates?) According to the mental deviants I just saved $100 I gave to the guy who plowed my 200 yard driveway twice today when a few days back it was like 55F.

With a great respect,

Inquisitor

 

A bit of correction. I studied even global plus local climate / weather in 1980. Nothing I was taught was to the effect the earth was in danger due to warming. This nonsense started in the 1980s that I am aware of. When Gore kicked hard, he made it a mission of the Democrats. Prior to him, they did not bring it up.

I am well equipped to deal with the alarmists. Thank you very much. Also with great respect.

 

While the denier cultists irrelevantly argue over their very ignorant and demented cultic delusions and fraudulent myths that have nothing to do with the actual climate science that they can't even begin to understand......

.....in the real world...human caused, CO2-driven global warming is continually making a mockery out of their bamboozled denial of reality....

Canada’s Melting Ice Caps Are a Big Driver of Rising Sea Levels
The Queen Elizabeth Islands’ glaciers – forming the third biggest contributor to sea-level rise after Antarctica and Greenland – are melting at a dramatically increasing rate. Journal author Romain Millan explains why it started happening in 2005.
NewsDeeply
BY Maura Forrest
PUBLISHED ON: Mar. 9, 2017
Canada's northernmost reaches are the Queen Elizabeth Islands, a mass of 13 large islands and hundreds of smaller ones that fan out into the Arctic Ocean just west of Greenland.

There are eight major ice caps and ice fields in the Queen Elizabeth Islands, which account for 25 percent of Arctic land ice, not including Greenland. Many of the glaciers flow directly into marine basins, including the Arctic Ocean, Baffin Bay and Nares Strait.

Before 2000, these glaciers and ice caps were mostly stable. Though they were shrinking slightly, the changes were relatively small from year to year.

But new research published in the journal Environmental Research Letters shows that in 2005 there was a dramatic difference as Arctic temperatures climbed.

ArcticDeeply recently spoke with lead author Romain Millan, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, who says the Queen Elizabeth Islands are now a major contributor to sea-level rise.

Millan explained how the glaciers of the Queen Elizabeth Islands are changing, how they’re contributing to global sea-level rise and what the future may hold for Canada’s Arctic ice caps.


Romain Millan sets up weather monitoring equipment on Zachariae glacier in northeast Greenland. (Anders Anker Bjørk)

ArcticDeeply: What is happening to the glaciers on the Queen Elizabeth Islands?
Romain Millan: What you have to understand is that there are two main processes that are driving ice loss. You have surface melt and you have discharge of icebergs into the oceanfront n. Before 2005, these two processes were about equal, so the mass losses were equally shared between these two processes. But after 2005, there was a drastic increase in the surface melt due to warmer air temperatures.

Before 2005, the surface melt was at an average of three gigatonnes per year, but after 2005, it increased to 30 gigatonnes of ice per year – so it was multiplied by 10. If we look at the curve of the mass losses, there is an obvious change in 2005. It increased very suddenly.

AD: Did the weather suddenly get much warmer in 2005?
Romain Millan: There was an increase of about 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9degrees Fahrenheit) between 2005 and present. Warmer temperatures melt ice at the surface of the glaciers. Some might be absorbed on land, but most of the runoff goes into the ocean.

For the period we studied, which is the last 25 years, these glaciers contributed to 1mm (0.04in) of sea-level rise. So if all the glaciers in this region were to melt completely, it would contribute to 8mm (3.4in) of sea-level rise.”

AD: How did you measure this – the ice discharge and the surface melt?
Millan: For the icebergs calving in the ocean, what we did is we gathered ice velocity estimates from satellite data during the last 25 years. After, we combined those data with ice thickness measurements from NASA. When you combine the velocity with the ice thickness measurements, you can infer the ice discharge in the ocean.

And for the surface melt, we used the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model that is developed by European colleagues. Once you have the ice discharge, you combine it with the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (surface melt estimates) and you have a measure of the total mass losses.

AD: 1mm (0.04in) of sea level rise over 25 years doesn’t sound like all that much. Why should people be concerned about this?
Millan: If the climate continues to warm up as it was projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the contribution to sea-level rise is going to continue to increase significantly.

After Greenland and Antarctica, the Queen Elizabeth Islands are the main contributor to sea-level rise. (But) the numbers for Greenland and Antarctica are much larger. If Antarctica were to melt completely, it would contribute to a 70m (230ft) sea-level rise.

AD: To what extent are we locked into this surface melt? Can we change the path these glaciers are taking?
Millan: Carbon dioxide has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere. Even if we stop emissions completely, there will still be CO2 in the atmosphere for years so temperatures will continue to increase. So I have to say I’m not sure if we can do anything to counteract the melt of these glaciers now.

But this study is more of a warning signal about what’s happening to the climate on Earth.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

 

I agree with one thing you said, "the reality is C02 isn't the only thing effecting temperature". That is exactly what us so called deniers believe. Most if not all of us believe man's added C02 may indeed have some role to play in climate but as you yourself just admitted it is overwhelmed and negated by naturally occurring phenomenon. Where true believers and non believers really differ is that you think man is the overwhelming factor in climate change while we think man is a tiny fraction of the big picture and the climate is going to do what it's going to do with or without our infinitesimal contribution. Evidence of this is the last decade when man has vastly increased his C02 output but climate has remained relatively stable. The other thing we sort of agree on is that earth is warming. Difference is you attribute that to man while we think it's all part of coming out of the little ice age era and glaciers, ice packs etc are retreating to pre ice age levels as part of that.

 

Trend proves whether the earth is warming or cooling but is irrelevant as to why that is happening. You seem to agree with me though that a record cold or warm event is meaningless and that was the point of the OP. The AGW bunch uses every warm event as evidence earth is warming but calls every cold even " weather", that is delusional and or dishonest.

 

That's a complicated question and just as in the little ice age some parts of the earth were effected to a much greater extent than others. What it shows is our understanding of climate is in it's infancy and anyone who claims that scientist now understand everything as to how and why climate does what it does is completely full of crap.

 

A lie! He did not "admit" that at all. As the world scientific community overwhelmingly affirms, the over 46% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that has resulted from mankind's activities is very definitely the strongest factor currently affecting temperatures, causing a fairly steady upward climb in global average temperatures....the only thing that was pointed out to you is the fact that CO2 isn't the only factor involved....there are still other natural and un-natural human caused factors, like industrial aerosol and particulate air pollution, that still cause up and down variations in the general overall upward trend in temperatures caused by the increased CO2.

In the real world....2016 was the third 'hottest year on record' in a row, and July and August 2016 were the hottest months ever recorded, and 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000, and Arctic ice is at its lowest extent and volume for many thousands of years, and sea levels are rising at accelerating rates.

(NASA/NOAA)

Just more of your anti-science denier cult myths based on nothing. You may "think" this or that but you have no science or evidence to support your demented denial of reality.

"True believers and non believers" is how cultists like you see things, because you are in a cult based on a crackpot "belief" in the anti-science propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry in their attempts to delay the very necessary restrictions on carbon emissions in order to continue their trillion dollar per year profit stream. In the real world, there are the scientific facts and those who accept them, and there is the politically and economically motivated denial of the scientific facts and the ignorant fools who fall for the fossil fuel inspdustry propaganda.....like you!

Another completely bogus denier cult myth!

As I just said:
In the real world....
2016 was the third 'hottest year on record' in a row, and
July and August 2016 were the hottest months ever recorded, and
16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000, and
Arctic ice is at its lowest extent and volume for many thousands of years, and
sea levels are rising at accelerating rates.

In reality, one of the favorite propaganda memes of you denier cultists, the so-called 'pause' in the rate of global warming, was demolished by the scientists at NOAA a couple of years ago.....but you deniers still cling to their debunked cultic myths like grim death.

A new study recently confirmed those results....

Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed
By Jim Spencer
January 4, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.



The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency’s scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn’t answering its requests quickly enough.

The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.

“Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right,” Hausfather said. “They were not in any way cooking the books.”

NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don’t have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.

In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.

Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren’t part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.

“This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas,” Trenberth said in an email.

Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Hausfather’s study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .

 

"lies"
"liar"
"anti-science"
"cultists"
"denier cult"
"cling to cultic myths like grim death"
"ignorant fools... like you"

You know why most of us don't talking like that in every single post? The answer is: self awareness. We don't want to come off as *******s completely out of our minds.

 

Nope!

You deniers ARE already "completely out of our minds", as you continually demonstrate with your moronic rejection of the scientific facts about human caused global warming.

You just get unhappy when someone points out the truth about your behavior.....like lying, rejecting science as a way of understanding the universe, and gullibly clinging to your fraudulent cultic myths like grim death, long after they've been completely debunked.

Meanwhile...in the real world and back on topic....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.
(source - National Snow and Ice Data Center)

 

Okay, buddy. Say whatever you like, I guess...

 

It wouldn't be quite so perfectly Orwellian if he didn't also want to violently impose his will on all of us.

 

Okay, little dude, keep your head in the sand if you like....obviously you can't handle reality....but you are just an irrelevant denier cultist ranting from the lunatic fringe of society, so who cares if you choose to remain in ignorant denial of the facts.

 

I believe that you really want to believe that.

 

I believe that you really want to pretend that it's not the truth, even though it very obviously is.

 

Actually everyone on the planet believes that. Obviously the sun is the biggest thing affecting our climate, everyone knows that.

CO2 isn't overwhelmed by anything and is a major greenhouse gas that makes the planet a few degrees warmer than it would have been. When you trap heat the planet will be warmer.

Actually we both agree that humans are a tiny factor in the climate, but I am arguing that human civilization exists on a fine balance and even small changes in temperature can have massive economic consequences.

The consequences have been pretty small, there have been more droughts than usual but nothing too terrible, 2 degrees of warming isn't doing to end civilization. The problem is that we have just begun to tap our oil reserves and can warm the planet far more than 2 degrees.

And small warming changes in the short-term often results in a snowfall effect. Higher temperatures will melt ice, and with less ice cover the earth is darker, and a darker earth absorbs more heat, increasing temperatures more more. Also we have a ton of CO2 and methane trapped under that ice and when released its going to raise temperatures even more, and methane is far more potent than CO2. Also, warmer oceans will release water vapor and CO2 and water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas. This heating snowballs into more heating.

First, the warming we are seeing isn't the normal slow warming nature does over hundreds of years. It is very extreme compared to what we have seen in the last 2000 years. So something big is going on that wasn't before. We find that increasing the heat trapping of the greenhouse layer would produce the rapid warming we have been seeing and it is the only thing that have changed enough to do this.

 

There are some people just to emotionally invested to have a real conversation with and that guys one of them.

 

Obviously you didn't read up on the little ice age and the medieval warming period as I suggested. If you had you would see that the earth does indeed have very rapid changes in temperature without the help of man. On the C02 issue you just can't deny that the last decade plus has seen an exponential rise in it's levels with no corresponding rise in earths temperature as the AGW hypothesis is based on. It's a huge fail in real world test of a hypothesis and shows that man's C02 contribution is indeed quickly overwhelmed by natural factors.

Maybe the following will help you understand how fast climate can change and how often it can happen.

"During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels.

A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s. Horrendous floods devastated China in 1332 (reported to have killed several million people).

A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. During this period occurred the abandonment of settlements in the Southwest United States, including those in Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde. Tree ring analysis has identified a period of "no" rain between 1276 and 1299 in these areas.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age.

During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 degree Celsius lower than today.

Extreme weather during this period might have played an important role in the genesis of the Black Death (bubonic plague).

The Little Ice Age was not continuously cold: the 13th-14th centuries were cold; followed by an interval of more favorable conditions; then a return of more severe weather mid 16th-mid 19th centuries.

During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

You should know the information and points made below about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. For theses events we have very nice written historical records.

During the Medieval warm period (1100-1300 AD), global average temperatures were only 1°C (or less) warmer than in 1900, but in Europe:

• The Vikings established a colony on Greenland
  • Farming was productive on Greenland (has not been productive again since that time)
  • At end of period, the Viking colony was lost to sea ice expansion
• Grape vines were grown in England
• Wheat was grown in Norway (64° North latitude)

During the Little ice age (1550-1850 AD), global average temperatures were only 1°C (or less) cooler than in 1900, but in Europe:

• Re-advance of glaciers down mountains (valley houses in Swiss Alps were covered)
• Canals in Holland froze for three months straight. This rarely occurred before or after this period.
• Agricultural productivity dropped significantly, even becoming impossible in parts of northern Europe.

 

Because that's a strawman. In other words, a lie.

A single record high is not proof of AGW. Any more than a single record low is proof of the opposite.

Further, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Earth does not warm or cool evenly. Even in a warming planet, there will be areas that experience a cooling trend. Which is why we talk about GLOBAL warming -- i.e., the average temperature of the planet.

What IS proof of warming is that, looking at decades of temperature readings from all over the planet, we see a long-term trend line in that average temperature -- and it is marching upwards.

We see THOUSANDS of record highs, and very few record lows.

We see that nearly all of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade.

We see the oceans warming and becoming more acidic due to the absorbed CO2.

We see global changes in the behavior and distribution of thousands of species, from insects to plants to migratory animals.

In short, there is no question that the planet is warming, and at an unprecedented pace.

That proves warming. How do we know humans are responsible?

#1, we have correlation: the rise in warming correlates with human activity.

#2, we have a mechanism to explain the warming: greenhouse gas emissions

#3, we can show that most of the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses are due to human activity.

How do we know #3? Several ways:

#1, and most damning: Many of the most powerful greenhouse gasses -- like carbon tetrafluoride or sulfur hexafluoride -- have no natural origin. They are ONLY produced through human activity.

#2, isotope analysis can determine the source of a gas. Much of it is manmade, traced to the burning of fossil fuels.

#3, warming correlates geographically to human activity, and also to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism. There is more warming at the Earth's surface, for instance, than in the upper atmosphere. There is more warming near areas of concentrated human activity (like land) than above uninhabited areas (like the open ocean).

The list of evidence goes on, and on, and on. It is overwhelming. You have to be either willfully ignorant, or have an ideological motive, to still be denying the evidence for both warming and the human activity behind it.

 

A very long winded way of saying you agree with me and the guy that started the thread about a record warm temperature recorded in the Antarctic was full of crap when he said that was evidence of global warming. Interesting though how you and others waited until I posted about a record cold event to come out of the woodwork and say record events mean nothing. You were mia in the aforementioned thread which kind of proves my point doesn't it.

 

The floating ice sheets are fed by the ice sheets on land. When the floating sheets melt, it increases the rate of flow from the land-bound glaciers, which is where most of the rising sea levels come from.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/antarctic-ice-sheets-are-melting-but-when-will-sea-l-1575984813

Though as an aside, even the floating ice sheets cause the oceans to rise when they melt, because they are fresh water, and the oceans are saltwater.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html

The effect is small, but real.

I mean, seriously: you seem to think that the scientists who study this stuff somehow all missed a basic fact taught in middle-school science class. Really?

The only source for this claim is a handful of crackpot blogs, who provide no proof or context to back up the claim.

Overall, Antarctica heated up rapidly until the 1990s, and has slightly cooled since. As has been repeatedly pointed out, such regional cooling trends do not somehow cancel out the global warming trend. And the oceans around Antarctica continue to heat, which is why the ice sheets continue to melt at a rapid rate.

You seem to believe that if we take 1000 temperature readings, and 990 show warming while 10 show cooling, the existence of those 10 somehow show that there is no warming trend. Which is nonsense.

 

Since I did not see the original thread, I could not have responded to it. I happened to check the forum this morning and your thread was at the top of "New Posts". Hence I responded to it.

If the other poster claimed that a single record high was proof of global warming, he would be wrong.

But what he actually did was cite it as "more evidence" of global warming, and also linked to a graph of average annual global temperatures.

The "more evidence" part is shaky -- a single temperature reading isn't necessarily caused by global warming, so you can't be certain that it is actually evidence of warming. But he clearly meant to show that it was yet another data point that supported the long-term trend showing a warming planet.

 

Record cold means global warming is just around the corner. Teachers say.

 

In other words you are still proving my point in the OP. Every warm event is evidence of AGW because you attribute a warming planet to fossil fuel produced C02. Thanks for proving me right, every cold event is weather and every warm event is evidence of AGW.

 

All you are proving is that you are a troll, or have reading comprehension issues.

 

I'm just pointing out what your convoluted post actually say when you sift through all the attempts to obfuscate and confuse.