Sea ice extent now the third lowest on record

[RetiredGySgt]

Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Satellite records? They have been around what? 30 years? Who the hell cares what satellite records show when discussing trends and long term situations of the Earth? They are not of any significant importance EXCEPT in regards the last 30 years. You have no records before then. Once again NUMBNUTS the poles were much warmer then now for over 20 years from the 20's to 40's. And there are still poles.

Another example of retardo at work.

Sources?

Already posted several times. Or are you senile too?

 

[k2skier]

Satellite records? They have been around what? 30 years? Who the hell cares what satellite records show when discussing trends and long term situations of the Earth? They are not of any significant importance EXCEPT in regards the last 30 years. You have no records before then. Once again NUMBNUTS the poles were much warmer then now for over 20 years from the 20's to 40's. And there are still poles.

Another example of retardo at work.

Sources?

Already posted several times. Or are you senile too?

short answer, no...

 

[Bern80]

We most certainly do not know that for a fact. CO2 does not trap heat as if the atmosphere were a single layer, but as if it were multiple layers. See the American Institute of Physics site

This one is so basic it's stupid Rocks. We can agree that CO2 acts as a blanket trapping heat. So lets say we're really adding more to the layers we are putting on ever thicker blankets so to speak. It is almost a perfect parellel to a human using blankets to keep warm. if I throw more and more blankets on you aren't going to reach the point where you simply boil up. The maximum temperature you can reach is going to top out at some point regardless of the number of blankets you add.

Well, that is true, but we are very far from that point right now. And, when we reach that point, from past periods of rapid warming, the oceans will largely be dead, anoxic.

Now that is a funny statement. My major in college was Geology. I know much better than you what the depth of time means.

It is funny because it makes it all the more perplexing that someone who claims to have some concept of geologic time relative to human time can be so easily duped into believing that man has obtained irreversible earth altering power in less than a geologic blink of an eye.

From the beginning of the clathrate outgassing to the peak of heating at the end of the Permian is estimated to have taken only 8000 years. At the peak, the oceans were largely dead, anoxic.

Part of this statment has been thoroughly debunked already. It admittedly uses SURFACE temperature as the means to show warming. It is known that these surface temperatures are exageratted in comparison to measurements by satelites precisely because they are on the surface where they are susceptible to other temperature factors such as the heat of building around them. Your link are fuirtther suspicious because they provide no citations of there own, they basically just say it's so. It is quite clear from the way the various 'misleading' articles are written that it is a group of people trying to prove AGW, again seeking out the evidence to prove something is hardly scientific as one will invariably fall into the trap of seeing what they want to see and discounting the rest.

Various misleading articles written by all the leading climatologists, gelologists,and geophysists. Satellite data is what is being used to show the melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Satellite data is what is being used to show the rapid and accelerating melting of the glaciers worldwide. Satellite data is what is being used to demonstrate the enlargement of desert areas on all continents. Far from disproving the effects of global warming, the satellite data has backed up the accelerating effects that we are seeing right now.

And what is the rest that is being discounted? Care to show some articles that show that global warming is not happening, or that the GHGs are not creating the problem. I have thus far been shown exactly two that make all or part of these statements. While there have been thousands of articles published worldwide demonstrating the connection.

Of course there is a connection between warming and greenhouse gases. No one denies this. What is in question is the extent to which man has contributed to it. The problem I have and why it is often called junk science is because we are present with these that show an increase in CO2 levels that roughly correlates to increasing industrialization. The 'junk' part of it comes into play because people like Al Gore assume causality without actually establishing causality. What I have seen little actual science behind is that this 30 - 40% increase in CO2 from what i have read is all attributable to industrialization AND is the cause of the warming trend. You don't need to post the greenhouse gas effect link for the upteenth time. What needs to be established is how much of that CO2 increas is attributable to man because like temparature it would be rising also regardless so it can't be that all 100 ppm or so are attributable to man. Then it needs to be established how much that is contributed to the roughly 1.4 degree fahrenheit increase in the last 100 years or so, because again we know the temp shoud be rising anyway. And that's of I agree with your numbers which are definately open to debate....Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

You will notice that they actually agree with many of the numbers supplied such as the increase in CO2 levels, but is noted that water vapor is not factored in.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bern80


Of course there is a connection between warming and greenhouse gases. No one denies this.

Have you not been following this board? There are many here that deny that GHGs have any thing at all to do with the current warming.

What is in question is the extent to which man has contributed to it.

To the extant that he has contributed to the GHGs in the atmosphere. From CO2, CH4, to NF3.

The problem I have and why it is often called junk science is because we are present with these that show an increase in CO2 levels that roughly correlates to increasing industrialization. The 'junk' part of it comes into play because people like Al Gore assume causality without actually establishing causality. What I have seen little actual science behind is that this 30 - 40% increase in CO2 from what i have read is all attributable to industrialization AND is the cause of the warming trend. You don't need to post the greenhouse gas effect link for the upteenth time. What needs to be established is how much of that CO2 increas is attributable to man because like temparature it would be rising also regardless so it can't be that all 100 ppm or so are attributable to man.

You are completely wrong on this. Until the early 1800's, the temperatures were not rising. The rise from there to the early 1900's was in line with natural variability. However, on a declining Milonkovic Cycle, we should be cooling, not the warming that we are seeing. And we are well outside of natural variability in our current rise. Especially, since with a strong La Nina at the same time as a very inactive solar minimum, we should have set some records for low temps, worldwide. Instead, the coolest year of that period, 2008, tied 2001 for the eighth warmest on record. At present, mankind is putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate more than 130 times the rate that volcanos, the chief source of new natural CO2, is. That is a USGS figure.

Then it needs to be established how much that is contributed to the roughly 1.4 degree fahrenheit increase in the last 100 years or so, because again we know the temp shoud be rising anyway.

Once again, we should be cooling, by the Milankovic Cycle, not warming

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

And that's of I agree with your numbers which are definately open to debate....Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

You will notice that they actually agree with many of the numbers supplied such as the increase in CO2 levels, but is noted that water vapor is not factored in.

Water vapor has long been factored in. Water vapor is a feedback, not a cause. The average length of residence for a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is less than ten days. If you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, in a few days, it would be back from the evaportation of the oceans. Were you to double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, it would rain out in less than ten days and go back to the equilibrium established by atmospheric temperatures.

Now if you remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few short decades, you would have the ocean frozen almost to the equator. In fact, this has happened in the geological past, and has resulted in what is known as the 'Snowball Earth'. And it would take many milenia for the volcanic action to replace the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will take about two hundred years for that CO2 to be reduced by natural processes. That is, if the feedbacks from the extra warmth does not reach the tipping point for releasing the Methane Clathrates in the ocean. We are definately going to find out if that is the case, for I do not see any actions that will prevent the CO2 level from reaching 600 to 700 in this century.

 

[Bern80]

You are completely wrong on this. Until the early 1800's, the temperatures were not rising. The rise from there to the early 1900's was in line with natural variability. However, on a declining Milonkovic Cycle, we should be cooling, not the warming that we are seeing. And we are well outside of natural variability in our current rise. Especially, since with a strong La Nina at the same time as a very inactive solar minimum, we should have set some records for low temps, worldwide. Instead, the coolest year of that period, 2008, tied 2001 for the eighth warmest on record. At present, mankind is putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate more than 130 times the rate that volcanos, the chief source of new natural CO2, is. That is a USGS figure.

Dude, did you even look at that graph in the link you posted? The end of their records stop at 1850 at about the top of a cycle. Up to 1850 I have to presume they are looking at a scale in thousands of yeards (200,000 to 100,000 to present) because they say at the top the long cycles run in about 100,000 year intervals. then at the end at 1850 that add on 150 years, which is clearly not the same scale as what they used up to that point. They use almost the same distance to show 150 years as the do 100,000 years and surprise, surprise the GHG forcing looks very dramatic, when if you put the 150 years they added on to scale you could see the same type of increased forcing in several places on the graph. They're just plain dishonest Rocks. They have an agenda as is clearly noted by their 'our view' section of the site.

Water vapor has long been factored in. Water vapor is a feedback, not a cause. The average length of residence for a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is less than ten days. If you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, in a few days, it would be back from the evaportation of the oceans. Were you to double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, it would rain out in less than ten days and go back to the equilibrium established by atmospheric temperatures.

Now if you remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few short decades, you would have the ocean frozen almost to the equator. In fact, this has happened in the geological past, and has resulted in what is known as the 'Snowball Earth'. And it would take many milenia for the volcanic action to replace the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will take about two hundred years for that CO2 to be reduced by natural processes. That is, if the feedbacks from the extra warmth does not reach the tipping point for releasing the Methane Clathrates in the ocean. We are definately going to find out if that is the case, for I do not see any actions that will prevent the CO2 level from reaching 600 to 700 in this century.

So in a nutshell you are disgreeing that water vapor is a legitimate greenhouse gas and that their stated contribution of it is overstated?

 

[Chris]

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level in 600,000 years.

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the pole and the glaciers continue to melt.

 

[Old Rocks]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks
Water vapor has long been factored in. Water vapor is a feedback, not a cause. The average length of residence for a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is less than ten days. If you removed all the water vapor from the atmosphere, in a few days, it would be back from the evaportation of the oceans. Were you to double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, it would rain out in less than ten days and go back to the equilibrium established by atmospheric temperatures.

Now if you remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few short decades, you would have the ocean frozen almost to the equator. In fact, this has happened in the geological past, and has resulted in what is known as the 'Snowball Earth'. And it would take many milenia for the volcanic action to replace the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will take about two hundred years for that CO2 to be reduced by natural processes. That is, if the feedbacks from the extra warmth does not reach the tipping point for releasing the Methane Clathrates in the ocean. We are definately going to find out if that is the case, for I do not see any actions that will prevent the CO2 level from reaching 600 to 700 in this century.
Bern80;
So in a nutshell you are disgreeing that water vapor is a legitimate greenhouse gas and that their stated contribution of it is overstated?
Old Rocks;
Bern, go back and read that statement carefully. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that most influences the temperature on a day to day basis. But it's short atmospheric residence time relegates it to a feedback effect, not a causal agent.

 

[code1211]

From the discussion between Rocks and Bern, I followed the link posted by Rocks to his source which is a advocate of Athropogenically caused Global Warming. This is the linked destination:

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

This is one quote from that article:

The Eccentricity Cycle (Elliptical Cycle)

This is the longer cycle. About every 100k years. When the earth orbit is elliptical we spend less time close to the sun in the span of a single year. This means we get less solar energy on an annual basis, and tends to cool the earth.

According to Ralph Keeling, Director of the Co2 program at Scripps Institute of Oceanography: “The ice sheets melt when the ice sheet is exposed to more summer sunlight. This happens when the northern summer aligns with the point of closest approach between the earth and sun. The point of closest approach is known as perihelion. The earth/sun perihelion depends on how elliptical the orbit is. The more elliptical, the closer the approach.”



For the sake of accuracy, the closest pass that the Earth makes currently to the Sun occurs when the Northern Hemisphere winter is in full swing.

When the Planet is in the grip of an Ice Age, the Eliptical Orbit of the planet brings the Earth closest to the Sun.

When the orbit of the Earth is approaching the most circular orbit, Ice Ages end and Interglacials, such as the one we currently enjoy, begin. Within about another 5 to 8 thousand years, the orbit will be most circular.

I don't know exactly what the author is trying to imply, but he is using a Red Herring to imply it. The most dominant of the Milankovitch Cycles is the Eccentricity Cycle, using the start and end of Ice Ages as a guide, and that cycle is continuing to move toward warming at this point in its cycle.

The wobble and the tilt are also influences and, the combined influences, have produced this prolonged warm period in which the civilization of Man has risen.

If the other Interglacials are any source of information, we may expect to become about 2 degrees warmer absent any other terrestrial influence. That is what has happened before and what should happen again with or without the exhaust rising from the passing city bus.

 

[code1211]

Bern80


You are completely wrong on this. Until the early 1800's, the temperatures were not rising. The rise from there to the early 1900's was in line with natural variability. However, on a declining Milonkovic Cycle, we should be cooling, not the warming that we are seeing. And we are well outside of natural variability in our current rise. Especially, since with a strong La Nina at the same time as a very inactive solar minimum, we should have set some records for low temps, worldwide. Instead, the coolest year of that period, 2008, tied 2001 for the eighth warmest on record. At present, mankind is putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate more than 130 times the rate that volcanos, the chief source of new natural CO2, is. That is a USGS figure.

Then it needs to be established how much that is contributed to the roughly 1.4 degree fahrenheit increase in the last 100 years or so, because again we know the temp shoud be rising anyway.

]

Two points of innaccuracy.

The first is the beginning of the rise of temperatures. Temperatures bottomed out between 1600 and 1750. The warming started about that time.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first commercial steam engines were in use right around 1700, but the impact of the coal burned to fire these things certainly could not have been the main driving influence of a reversal of the fall of global temperature that started at least 50 years earlier in any event.

Really usable Steam Powered engines were not in use until much closer to 1800.

The Milankovitch cycles are not in decline. The ecentricity Cycle which is the dominant one in terms of ice ages and interglacials, will reach its most circular stage in about 5 to 8 thousand years. This is more conducinve to warming and will continue to be accentuated over the next several eons.

 

[code1211]

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level in 600,000 years.

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the pole and the glaciers continue to melt.

And yet the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is higher now than in the last two yearts and looks to be approaching the llevel of 2005. The growth or reduction of this water born volume of ice is more related to the temperature of the surrounding water than the surrounding air.

"We" have added about 3 to 5 % of the annual contribution to CO2 and nature's contribution is rising as well as ours. In truth, by volume, Nature's contribution is rising faster than that of Anthropogenic sources.

 

[Old Rocks]

Greenland-Arctic blog

Sea levels set to rise as Arctic warming replaces millennia long natural cooling cycle

(09/03/2009) According to a new study published in Science the Arctic should be cooling, and in fact has been cooling for millennia. But beginning in 1900 Arctic summer temperatures began rising until the mid-1990s when the cooling trend was completely overcome. Researchers fear that this sudden up-tick in temperatures could lead to rising sea levels threatening coastal cities and islands. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said lead author Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than ever before."

 

[Old Rocks]

Summer sea ice likely to disappear in the Arctic by 2015

(08/31/2009) If current melting trends continue, the Arctic Ocean is likely to be free of summer sea ice by 2015, according to research presented at a conference organized by the National Space Institute at Technical University of Denmark, the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Greenland Climate Center.

Greenland-Arctic blog

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA reveals dramatic thinning of Arctic sea ice

(07/07/2009) Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type of sea ice for the first time on record, report NASA researchers. Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington used observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) to make the first Arctic Ocean basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of sea ice cover. The researchers found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 17.8 centimeters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 67 cm (2.2 feet) over the four winters from 2004 to 2008. The total area covered by thick older ice that survives one or more summers ("multi-year ice") shrank 42 percent or 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles), leaving thinner first-year ice ("seasonal ice") as the dominant type of ice in the region.

Greenland-Arctic blog

 

[KittenKoder]

Greenland-Arctic blog

Sea levels set to rise as Arctic warming replaces millennia long natural cooling cycle

(09/03/2009) According to a new study published in Science the Arctic should be cooling, and in fact has been cooling for millennia. But beginning in 1900 Arctic summer temperatures began rising until the mid-1990s when the cooling trend was completely overcome. Researchers fear that this sudden up-tick in temperatures could lead to rising sea levels threatening coastal cities and islands. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said lead author Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than ever before."

See? We were right, you were wrong, nothing to worry about.

 

[Old Rocks]

????????

 

[KittenKoder]

Why don't you repost that chart of yours showing all the temps for the last million years again?

 

[Chris]

No use telling KK the facts.

She is happy with a giant hole in the ozone, a pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

 

[KittenKoder]

No use telling KK the facts.

She is happy with a giant hole in the ozone, a pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

Repost that chart showing all the temps as far back as we can go ... seriously, what have you to fear?

 

[Chris]

No use telling KK the facts.

She is happy with a giant hole in the ozone, a pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

Repost that chart showing all the temps as far back as we can go ... seriously, what have you to fear?

Changing the subject again?

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

What effect is that having on the earth?

 

[KittenKoder]

No use telling KK the facts.

She is happy with a giant hole in the ozone, a pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas, and a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

Repost that chart showing all the temps as far back as we can go ... seriously, what have you to fear?

Changing the subject again?

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

What effect is that having on the earth?

Wine about me changing the subject then you change the subject to another over posted subject that is not even a subject for which your subject is a part of.

No, I haven't changed the subject, but why won't you repost that one chart anymore?