Artic Ice: CO2, Solar or Ocean Currents?

[IanC]

I'm sure these or similar graphs have been posted before but it is necessary to post up reasons for natural explanations for supposedly AGW catastrophies once in a while. Tell me again that the science is settled and CO2 is the root cause for everything.



as an interesting side note, Soon and Baliunas were the subject of many of the climategate emails dealing with subverting peer review to keep their work out of climate science journals

 

[konradv]

Your first set of graphs shows the addition of a new variable to the equation, CO2. Given its known ability to absorb infra-red radiation and the LAW (no theory here) of Conservation of Energy, why should we think what happened in the past will happen in the future?

 

[IanC]

Your first set of graphs shows the addition of a new variable to the equation, CO2. Given its known ability to absorb infra-red radiation and the LAW (no theory here) of Conservation of Energy, why should we think what happened in the past will happen in the future?

the first graph compares TSI to artic temp, good fit

the second graph compares CO2 to artic temp, no fit

the third graph compares ocean currents to artic temp, good fit

I didn't really understand your point konradv. And I don't agree with your understanding of the CO2 effect either. CO2 warms the planet by scattering the IR and slowing down nighttime energy loss into space, not by the piddly amount that it temporarily captures.

 

[IanC]

konradv- you should look up how the sun works to give yourself a better understanding of CO2 warming. it takes roughly a million years for the high energy photons produced in the centre of the sun to make it out of the body of the sun and by that time they are transposed into much lower energy photons that we recognize as visible light.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, why the melting now? And why do your graphs stop at 2000? The last ten years have been extremely warm in the Arctic.

Arctic Change: Global - Global Temprature Trends

Trends in Arctic temperature, 1880-2006 - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Arctic Climate Change

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/Arctic_T_Chg_Commentary.pdf

 

[westwall]

Your first set of graphs shows the addition of a new variable to the equation, CO2. Given its known ability to absorb infra-red radiation and the LAW (no theory here) of Conservation of Energy, why should we think what happened in the past will happen in the future?

Because what has happened in the past has ALLWAYS happened again. It is the foundation of modern geology. It is called the Principle of Uniformitarianism. I can show you Stromatolites that are a billion years old and they function the same as those today.
Amazing concept, eh?

 

[westwall]

OK, why the melting now? And why do your graphs stop at 2000? The last ten years have been extremely warm in the Arctic.

Arctic Change: Global - Global Temprature Trends

Trends in Arctic temperature, 1880-2006 - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Arctic Climate Change

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/Arctic_T_Chg_Commentary.pdf

The Danes seem to disagree with your sources. Given the known failings of the US temperature gathering ability and the lack of rigourous checks of those same instruments, not to mention the provable distorted data your sources are using, I think I will stick with the Danes.


Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)

 

[IanC]

OK, why the melting now? And why do your graphs stop at 2000? The last ten years have been extremely warm in the Arctic.

I don't know when the studies that contained those graphs were published. I assume early 2000's but I could be wrong. Are you assuming that they are designed to misdirect like the Mann98 hockey stick graph that cutoff the proxy data 35 years early to 'hide the decline'?

 

[uscitizen]

Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.

 

[westwall]

Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Sun? Seriously?

The Sun may have something to do with Global Warming...damn, I never thought of that!

 

[uscitizen]

Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

the loss of water in the great lakes is causing the rising there. I saw that on the discovery channel or something earlier this year.
You are wrong again.
Or is it still?

 

[antagon]

konrad, old rocks: present an argument which supports CO2 as a predominant factor in warming. refute the dominance of other better-fitting causes.

well, old rocks at least. konrad usually ignores any challenge to do more than parrot the state of the art half-assed CO2 science.

 

[loosecannon]

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

The bolded text isn't true. Continents are easily plastic enough to deform under the weight of 2 miles of ice and don't rely on "memory" to return to a previous shape after the ice melts. Even if they weren't plastic, continents maintain their elevations because they are lighter than surrounding magma and heavier materials that form sea beds.

If the continents didn't deform when the weight of ice was lifted from them they would simply rise as a single plate due to the release of pressure on their surface.

But the rest of what you posted is true. Glaciation is a cycle that has been advancing and retreating for 4 million years, before that year round ice was usually non existent even at extreme latitudes and high elevations.

There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice.

There is a reason to fear all of Russia, Canada, Greenland and Antarctica as well as 1/3 the US being shrouded under miles of ice while sea levels drop a few hundred feet.

 

[loosecannon]

konrad, old rocks: present an argument which supports CO2 as a predominant factor in warming. refute the dominance of other better-fitting causes.

well, old rocks at least. konrad usually ignores any challenge to do more than parrot the state of the art half-assed CO2 science.

define predominant.

 

[westwall]

Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

the loss of water in the great lakes is causing the rising there. I saw that on the discovery channel or something earlier this year.
You are wrong again.
Or is it still?

No, it's not. It is due to the fact that once upon a time there was around a mile thick slab of ice on them.

Geology of Lake Erie, Avon, Ohio

 

[westwall]

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

The bolded text isn't true. Continents are easily plastic enough to deform under the weight of 2 miles of ice and don't rely on "memory" to return to a previous shape after the ice melts. Even if they weren't plastic, continents maintain their elevations because they are lighter than surrounding magma and heavier materials that form sea beds.

If the continents didn't deform when the weight of ice was lifted from them they would simply rise as a single plate due to the release of pressure on their surface.

But the rest of what you posted is true. Glaciation is a cycle that has been advancing and retreating for 4 million years, before that year round ice was usually non existent even at extreme latitudes and high elevations.

There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice.

There is a reason to fear all of Russia, Canada, Greenland and Antarctica as well as 1/3 the US being shrouded under miles of ice while sea levels drop a few hundred feet.

Take a geology class then get back to us.

 

[uscitizen]

"There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice."

Tell that to Floridians and tens of millions of others who would be flooded out.

 

[loosecannon]

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

The bolded text isn't true. Continents are easily plastic enough to deform under the weight of 2 miles of ice and don't rely on "memory" to return to a previous shape after the ice melts. Even if they weren't plastic, continents maintain their elevations because they are lighter than surrounding magma and heavier materials that form sea beds.

If the continents didn't deform when the weight of ice was lifted from them they would simply rise as a single plate due to the release of pressure on their surface.

But the rest of what you posted is true. Glaciation is a cycle that has been advancing and retreating for 4 million years, before that year round ice was usually non existent even at extreme latitudes and high elevations.

There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice.

There is a reason to fear all of Russia, Canada, Greenland and Antarctica as well as 1/3 the US being shrouded under miles of ice while sea levels drop a few hundred feet.

Take a geology class then get back to us.

Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong.

 

[loosecannon]

"There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice."

Tell that to Floridians and tens of millions of others who would be flooded out.

They can move. The good news is that there would be 25% more habitable, arable real estate to move to.

For 4 million years we have been vacillating between a world in which half the land was covered in a mile of ice and a world in which only 20% of it was.

Considering that reality doesn't a little warming sound like a reprieve?