Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[-1=e^ipi]

As i understand things, if the scientific community is asked to calculate the average global temperature for nov 1, 2015 the best they can do is 1 deg c accuracy.

Well the uncertainty of annual temperature anomaly for recent years is about +/- 0.05 C (95% confidence interval) according the the Berkeley Earth data set. There is also an additional +/- 0.05 C on how one relates temperature anomaly to actual temperature.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt

[69cat]

-1=e, i will read the accuracy link later, but 0.05C accuracy seems very optomistic however i will read about it.

Regarding your link with the 25 page climate study, do you not find it very questionable? I must be misunderstanding the wording because to me it is.

Starting with page 4, the electrical circuit of fig 1a appears very correct. However, what appears to be purposeful ommission, is the voltage (energy) source. One cannot have a variation in current (delta t) without first applying an energy source (the sun) and the energy stored in the capacitors is a function of the voltage. One cannot have temperature at all or a charge on the capacitors without an initial energy source to charge the circuit.

Further reading of the paper therefore raises suspicion of its validity anytime there is a reference to the voltage source (sun) for the climate model. If you take a highlighter and emphasize each time the words "unknown, uncertain, not understood, not enough information, lack of data" etc, basically any wording that applies an unknown in regards to the energy source is of significant consequence in analyzing the primary variable of current (temperature).

Fig 7 shows temperature response with solar irradiance reduced by a factor of ten. I must be completely missing something here and hopefully someone can explain it. Solar irradiance is a measurement of the suns energy measured on the earths surface. Is this not correct? It must not be because if this is the correct definition how is it possible to reduce the output of the voltage source by 10 (turn down the sun with a dimmer switch) and still see a temperature rise. Yes, the capacitors (oceans) are discharging into the circuit but you automatically begin decreasing current (temperature). Yet the model has shown an increase in temperature with the energy source essentially removed. You will know in a matter of a day the your local environment reaction to the sun being turned down 50%.

Now granted, it does get confusing by stating that the solar cycles remain unchanged. Lets assume the output of the energy source is still generating its fundamental frequency/amplitude and the model has removed a harmonic (solar irradiance). I dont think this statement is valid but to give benefit of the doubt to the model then i will use it. If we assume the 'solar cycle' is the energy source and you go back and review all the wording pertaining to an "unknown" regarding the energy source would it not be fair to say there is a high likelihood that the magnitude of the source is underestimated?

A final reality check of the models output would be to compare it to a data set that was used to construct the model. In this model it does state that tree ring data was used to define temperatures from 1000 years ago and earlier. What i find in regards of studies on tree rings to present day is that they are in conflict with the model output of present day. To me that says there are errors in the model.

As i say, i must be missing something when i find reference on page 6 and 13 saying the sun has a minor influence on temperature as well as all uncertainties mentioned regarding the energy source of the model. (sorry, my copy-paste function does not work in that document via the tablet).

[-1=e^ipi]

Regarding your link with the 25 page climate study, do you not find it very questionable?

I do have a number of criticisms of the study, and think it could be improved (and was attempting to do so in the climate sensitivity thread; but I put that on hold when I ran into multicollinearity issues because I didn't want to bother learning how to get matlab to work in quad precision), but I still think it's one of the best papers on climate sensitivity and determining how much warming was due to anthropogenic factors.

Starting with page 4, the electrical circuit of fig 1a appears very correct.

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of the electrical circuit analogy. I think a better way to think about it is that when you start in equilibrium and increase radiative forcing (be it more CO2, more solar activity, less volcanic activity, etc.) then the Earth will tend towards a new equilibrium over time. However, some feedback effects are very fast (such as water vapour) where as other feedbacks are very slow (melting of polar ice-caps) and you have feedbacks of varying timescales anywhere in between. Consider the function of the temperature change vs time due to a perturbation in radiative forcing and call this the impulse response function. What Van Hateren does is try to numerically approximate the impulse response function as a sum of exponential functions with varying timescales. As long as Van Hateren's choice of the exponentials has timescales that are dense enough and span the relevant decay times then his estimate of the impulse response function should be decent.

Fig 7 shows temperature response with solar irradiance reduced by a factor of ten. I must be completely missing something here and hopefully someone can explain it.

Van Hateren multiplies solar irradiance by 0.7 and then by 0.25 because 0.7 is roughly the Earth's albedo and 0.25 is the ratio of the area of a circle to the surface area of a sphere of similar radius. If anything Van Hateren overestimates the effect of the sun since increasing solar irradiance has a stronger effect in equatorial regions than polar regions (and equatorial regions are less sensitive to changes in radiative forcing); using a grey earth model and also by performing various regressions I think that Van Hateren is overestimating the effect of the sun relative to CO2 by a factor of 2 (I discuss this in the climate sensitivity thread). To account for this effect, plus the fact that Solar Irradiance is strongly correlated with cosmic rays, Van Hateren would have been better off treating the magnitude of changes in solar irradiance relative to the changes in greenhouse gases as a free parameter in his model.

A final reality check of the models output would be to compare it to a data set that was used to construct the model. In this model it does state that tree ring data was used to define temperatures from 1000 years ago and earlier. What i find in regards of studies on tree rings to present day is that they are in conflict with the model output of present day.

Van Hateren does his analysis with just the instrumental data and then redoes the analysis using reconstructed data. I understand your skepticism regarding treerings and you can always ignore the results that use the reconstructed data and just look at the main result of Van Hateren (which is the instrumental period). Personally I think that if one wants to use a reconstructed data set it would be better to use Marcott et al. (which has no tree-rings and reconstructs for the entire Holocene).

[69cat]

I appreciate your feedback - 1=e, i have more to read now. My background is electrical so if i use the electrical schematic i can understand how the temperature can rise by changing what previously was a fixed resistor value (atmosphere composition). Therefore my background will always bring me back to questioning the accuracy of the models energy source as all other things become resultants of the source. There are other aspects of the suns output that are not easily measured and we are still learning about. I read recently that solar storms pump significant amounts of energy into the earths poles/magnetic field, also solar flares are well known to cause issues wth high voltage lines - Quebec Hydro having a long line running north/south that is like a large antennae. I think as time goes on we will learn that there are other ways the sun puts energy into the earth than simply solar radiation. Not to sound argumentative, just that without seeing how a model was built i wonder about input variables of this importance. Ultimately i think we will know in about 5 years what is true.

I will have to re-read your posts but it is good to understand the jetstream slowing down. I wasnt aware of that previously but it makes sense, some reading i have done now says it has been noted to be speeding up since sometime 2013. Wonder if that is impacting the climate locally, weather systems moved through very slowly last year, a few came through this year slowly but less of them and more from the South than West, will have to see what next summer acts like.

[-1=e^ipi]

There are other aspects of the suns output that are not easily measured and we are still learning about.

Yes. However, if they are correlated with solar output and you treat the strength of solar output as a free parameter, then this deals with the issue and gives an unbiased estimate of climate sensitivity; though the main issue is that this increases the confidence interval considerably (Van Hateren's confidence intervals are very small).

[69cat]

Here is more reading on why the suns influence is likely underestimated by the AGW group. Unfortunately some of the papers must be purchased.

http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.a2UH0HOQ.5wU6uMMB.dpbs

Link #2 talks of an over estimation in the amplication of the sun through the atmosphere.

Link #31 (abstract only) speaks of a solar maxima of 1995 to 2005 and minimas of the past as well as one predicted in 2020-2045 all based on influence of Saturn and Jupiter on the sun.

Link #35 draws strong correlation bewteen solar cycle length (not tsi) and observed temperatures. This one makes mention of the cold winters we experienced recently whereas the best the AGW group can answer is "regional variability".

This topic is much like discussing religion, you either beleive the sun drives the climate or not. However regardless of beleif, the impact of temperature cycles on the jetstream seems quite valid and may explain to me why periods of extreme drought in SW US coincides with periods of excess rain on the prairies.

[Michael Hardner]

If you read Euler's post above, he explains why this is likely not a factor.

[69cat]

Am i to understand that if solar output is treated as a free parameter and we adjusted the suns output so that it is 50% of what it is today, the earth will continue to warm up? Just to be clear, when the sun goes down or the earth tilts away from the sun i do notice a drop in temperature, but the sun is not a factor in the IPCC climate models. Or is it more acurate to say the parameters chosen for the suns input into the model show the sun of no consequence. But if different data/methods was used to model the sun then perhaps the results would be much different. For example in the paper that demonstrated no significant change in earths temperature by dropping the suns input by a factor of 10 did not have a significant change on the earths temperature - there must be a significant issue with wording because i will bet my life that if day time hours world wide dropped from 12 to 1.2 hours the earth would cool. So what is the wording and graphs in fig 5 trying to say?

It is interesting to note there is a lot of scientific study presently being done on how the sun works and its impact on the earth however the IPCC has come to the conclusion they have it figured out 100%. Is this why anyone still researching how the sun impacts the earth is a sceptic?

I am trying to get a handle on how the IPCC seems to have conluded the sun has been modeled with 100% accuracy. So far no luck as i see lots of research saying we still have much to learn about the sun.

[-1=e^ipi]

no significant change in earths temperature by dropping the suns input by a factor of 10

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you elaborate? Are you referring to this?:

"Van Hateren multiplies solar irradiance by 0.7 and then by 0.25 because 0.7 is roughly the Earth's albedo and 0.25 is the ratio of the area of a circle to the surface area of a sphere of similar radius."

[69cat]

-1=e,

I was wondering if you were interested in revisiting this thread, specifically i was wondering if you have some thoughts and research on strong El Nino events being typically followed by strong La Nina.

To get back to your question i was wondering about a statement in the study you had linked that stated lowering the suns input factor to the model by a factor of 10 had no appreciable impact on earth cooling. But that question rolls into what i post below.

I have stated that i have observed evidence on my farm of 60 year climate cycles and have been learning more on this. You have read of things like the AMO, NAO and PDO so am asking if you would review this link and tell me if you think it possible the IPCC climate models do not allow for variability in the suns output as i think they should. Basically because the global warming alarmists deny the sun varies at all.

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2413/global-cooling-forecast-basics-astrometeorology

The author demonstrates a 60 year cycle based on planetary motion. Same as the moon creates tidal changes in a predictable manner, so does the other bodies in our solar system influence the sun and oceans.

The prediction is for a solar minimum in 2030 as many already know will occur, and we are already entering a phase of the earth cooling and that will bottom around 2035 to complete the 60 year cycle. I have read mathematical models that predict the upcoming solar minimum without the person linking to planetary motion - just a formula that matched solar cycles for the last few centuries. So when both math and an explanation of planetary movement come to the same result then i take note.

So one of the points in the above link is we will see rapid cooling in the next few years. And it seems to me a strong El Nino when lead to a strong La Nina which drives rapid cooling. Thermodynamics would make that true. Wondering if you would take the time to read the link and have any thoughts on how the oceans may change to a rapid cooling phase.

[-1=e^ipi]

To get back to your question i was wondering about a statement in the study you had linked that stated lowering the suns input factor to the model by a factor of 10 had no appreciable impact on earth cooling. But that question rolls into what i post below.

Could you tell me what page it was on? Maybe it was referring to the fact that the effect of GHGs dominates changes in solar output since 1950.

if you would review this link and tell me if you think it possible the IPCC climate models do not allow for variability in the suns output as i think they should. Basically because the global warming alarmists deny the sun varies at all.

I can answer that without looking at the link. In the IPCC's 5th assessment report, all their predictions made with CMIP5 models assumed that all volcanic activity would stop after 2011 (or was it 2005, I don't remember) and that solar irradiance would stop changing. This is of course nonsense and both give the IPCC's predictions an upward bias, but it helps create alarm. Really, it isn't that hard to make predictions of future solar activity using fourier analysis or simply use the average level of past volcanic activity (or if you prefer you could do Monte-Carlo simulations).

The prediction is for a solar minimum in 2030 as many already know will occur, and we are already entering a phase of the earth cooling and that will bottom around 2035 to complete the 60 year cycle. I have read mathematical models that predict the upcoming solar minimum without the person linking to planetary motion - just a formula that matched solar cycles for the last few centuries. So when both math and an explanation of planetary movement come to the same result then i take note.

I've read a few people suggesting that AMO may be caused by either solar activity (which may be caused by planetary motion) or changes in the length of day (which may be caused by planetary motion as well). As far as I know, this remains an unanswered question and an ongoing area of research.

So one of the points in the above link is we will see rapid cooling in the next few years. And it seems to me a strong El Nino when lead to a strong La Nina which drives rapid cooling. Thermodynamics would make that true. Wondering if you would take the time to read the link and have any thoughts on how the oceans may change to a rapid cooling phase.

I'm not sure what else to say, other than El Nino doesn't really have a 60 year cycle, AMO does. Planetary fluctuations remains a good hypothesis for explaining variation in solar activity and maybe changes in the length of day on Earth. But from what I can tell (I could be wrong), this isn't resolved in science and is sort of in the same category as some of the unresolved mass extinction events; hopefully it gets resolved in the next decade or two.

[waldo]

I can answer that without looking at the link. In the IPCC's 5th assessment report, all their predictions made with CMIP5 models assumed that all volcanic activity would stop after 2011 (or was it 2005, I don't remember) and that solar irradiance would stop changing. This is of course nonsense and both give the IPCC's predictions an upward bias, but it helps create alarm.

again? You're trotting this out, again? In another thread, you made the same false claim model projections presume that "volcanic activity would stop", that "solar irradiance would stop changing". At least previously you accepted... acknowledged that the changing TSI is/would be relatively small in relation to the influence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentration.

the actual related IPCC wording speaks to "no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes [at least 10 years duration] in total solar irradiance before 2035"; specifically, per a prior post:

speaking only to 'near-term temperature... before 2035'..... is there a pre-event "fudge-factor" you feel appropriate to use for major volcanic eruptions (and the related cooling that only lasts for a few years... whereupon temperature recovers)? The statement following explicitly declares, with high confidence, that an increase in TSI will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentration (per IPCC AR5 WG1 11 - Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability):

Projected Changes in Near-term Temperature --- The projected change in global mean surface air temperature will likely be in the range 0.3 to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This projection is valid for the four RCP scenarios and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance before 2035.

A future volcanic eruption similar to the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo would cause a rapid drop in global mean surface air temperature of several tenths °C in the following year, with recovery over the next few years. Possible future changes in solar irradiance could influence the rate at which global mean surface air temperature increases, but there is high confidence that this influence will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere

.

[-1=e^ipi]

again? You're trotting this out, again? In another thread, you made the same false claim model projections presume that "volcanic activity would stop", that "solar irradiance would stop changing". At least previously you accepted... acknowledged that the changing TSI is/would be relatively small in relation to the influence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentration.

I was answering a question. What I said is factually correct. They pretend TSI remains constant and volcanism stops to make predictions.

[waldo]

I was answering a question. What I said is factually correct. They pretend TSI remains constant and volcanism stops to make predictions.

how is "no major" volcanic activity... stopped volcanic activity? That's your factually correct? Notwithstanding, of course,cooling related to volcanic activity is short-livid (a few years) and recovers. Is this you being "factually correct" to over-emphasize the impact of volcanic (cooling) activity, while at the same time you throw-down your ready reach, "upward bias, but it helps create alarm." This is you being factually correct?

as for TSI... just what do you interpret secular change to mean? As in "no secular changes [at least 10 years duration] in total solar irradiance before 2035"... I've added and bold highlighted my understanding of what it means - and you? Of course, again, you acknowledged any TSI change would be small in significance relative to the influence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentration - you acknowledged that. Is this you again being "factually correct" to over-play the impact of increasing solar radiation?

.

[69cat]

Ok - 1e=, i understand this talk is all a hypothesis, just like AGW however the temperature rise and melting of the polar ice caps is not progressing as the AGW crowd has modeled and in fact the opposite is true for about 10 years now.

As per the link in post 260 i was looking at planet alignments and found Saturn and Jupiter to be on opposite sides of the sun during minimum temperature periods at 1852, 1911, 1969 and projected at 2031. These planets are in direct alignment on same side of sun during peak warm periods of 1881, 1942 and 2000. I did not look further back in time but there seems more of a link to earths temperatures to planetary influence than C02 levels. Since the upcoming solar cycle is expected to be very short i think one is better to beleive the earth will cool rather than warm as AGW claims.

Interesting reading i have found is that volcanic and earthquake activity is expected to increase soon as per a few authors. Whether this is due to oceans transitioning from warm to cool phase or gravity from planets/sun depends on whose research is read. Though for the sake of talking strictly hypothesis then it could be said they both may be related.

Interesting to hear you have also read about variations in length of day and how this may affect the oceans, and also volcanic and earthquake activity.

My guess is there are greater forces at work than the AGW crowd likes to claim. Given what we know of planet motion, solar cycles and temperature cycles in the earths record i will put more faith in what the muzzled scientists have to say than the heavily government funded (likely agenda driven) AGW scientists have to say. I expect the next couple years to prove me right or wrong.

[waldo]

.... however the temperature rise and melting of the polar ice caps is not progressing as the AGW crowd has modeled and in fact the opposite is true for about 10 years now.

in the interests of clarification and towards broader discussion:

#1 - just who/what is your labeled "AGW crowd"?

#2 - do you have a cite to provide reference as to your understanding, your interpretation of what you describe as, "the {modeled} temperature rise and melting of the polar ice caps"? If discrepancies exist, are you aware of explanations to that end and do you accept them... and if not, why not?

#3 - do you have a cite to detail the observations you're relying upon in your understanding/interpretation?

#4 - do you have a cite to support your statement/claim that the opposite of the understanding/interpretation you have (re: #2) occurred, most pointedly, as you say, "for about 10 years now"... one that relies upon the observations you're speaking to (re: #3)?

My guess is there are greater forces at work than the AGW crowd likes to claim. Given what we know of planet motion, solar cycles and temperature cycles in the earths record i will put more faith in what the muzzled scientists have to say than the heavily government funded (likely agenda driven) AGW scientists have to say. I expect the next couple years to prove me right or wrong.

your "guess"... your "faith"? Oh my!

your "muzzled scientists"? These would be your, apparently... preferred scientists... as in not your "AGW crowd" - yes? Just who are your preferred scientists, who/what is "muzzling" them... and how is this "muzzling" being done (who, what, when, where, why).... world-wide... no one can break through the "muzzling"?

.

[69cat]

What are you looking for Waldo, documentation that projections are for more polar ice melting or documentation that the polar regions are forming more ice than even 1979?

Here is some literature from IPCC on the former

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=593

Google is your friend for more cites on the claims that AGW will lead to continued melting of the polar regions.

So i would consider the IPCC as part of the crowd supporting AGW hypothesis and those that reference IPCC data, models and studies in the goal to limit CO2 emissions.

So what is your take on projections for more polar ice melting but the ice instead is reforming?

As for the muzzling, i would say it comes from such things as a movement to jail any scientist or politician who provides a dissenting opinion of AGW, i have even read such opinions here on MLW. I would also say it would include the omission in government and media to pursue issues that may contest the AGW viewpoint. Science is about contending viewpoints and presenting new theories UNLESS it is in regards to human caused global warming - in such a case the science is settled, there is no denying it, any who do are deniers and should be ignored and discredited. Does this public opinion on denying the basic truths of how good science works create an atmosphere where contending views are supressed/muzzled. Guess you dont hear this kind of talk do you?

So your position is that global warming was to cause continued melting of the ice caps but now that is not true, you accept any explaination for the exact opposite? If i propose that if i hold a metal ball in my hand and have convinced you it will shoot up to the sky when released, but instead falls to the ground, you will beleive my explaination? Yes, i expect you would.

No, i do not accept any explaination for the exact opposite occuring to what the settled science has stated would happen. I shift my focus in areas that have studies that continue to fit the trend that is being presently observed.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648?via%3Dihub

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689150

[69cat]

By the way Waldo, provide what you beleive the planets temperature and polar regions will do over the next 5 years and 10 years. A link that best supports your viewpoints will be of interest.

[waldo]

So what is your take on projections for more polar ice melting but the ice instead is reforming?

By the way Waldo, provide what you beleive the planets temperature and polar regions will do over the next 5 years and 10 years. A link that best supports your viewpoints will be of interest.

you made statements/claims that I explicitly tailored citation requests to. You've provided nothing that counters your link referenced IPCC 2001 projections mentioned that speak directly to "eight key concerns related to the impact of this climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic"... which I understand you've narrowed to your expressed focus on "temperature rise and melting ice".

changes reflecting on climate aren't properly measured in terms of your mentioned, "the next 5 years and 10 years"... or even in the implied ~15 years period that reflects upon your 2001 dated reference; climate is not measured in 5, 10... 15 years. So-called climate normals are typically measured over a 30-year periods and observed changes reflect upon those normals... until time passes and new normals are established. If you truly want to look at a projection what observed condition/state are you referencing from? There's a reason I asked you to cite the observations you were presuming to speak to.

based solely on the link you provided (which associates with the WG2 report of that 2001 iteration... not the actual report that includes more detailed/specifics on modeling projections), the only related phrase I read from your provided link is, "Substantial warming and increases in precipitation are projected for polar regions over the 21st century by almost all climate models". Now, if you presume to be more granular in your focus to something other than, "over the 21st century"... you will need to provide something to that end. Now... your provided link also details many, "Climate Changes in the 20th century"... observed changes... including the broadest of statement, "Many documented changes already parallel those forecast to result from climate change:" But again, you're in the wrong IPCC report if your intention is to speak with more focused granularity on those related respective forecasts that pertain to the 20th century... if this is your intent, again, you will need to provide something to that end.

perhaps you need a do-over, yes?

alternatively, if you want to make a broad summary statement on warming and ice melt... and how you presume to indicate, as you say, "ice is not melting, ice is reformatting", then you should focus your attention in that regard... perhaps provide a reference period (perhaps one suitable for proper trend analysis) and proceed to substantiate your statement/claim.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ok - 1e=, i understand this talk is all a hypothesis, just like AGW however the temperature rise and melting of the polar ice caps is not progressing as the AGW crowd has modeled and in fact the opposite is true for about 10 years now.

Yes. They overpredicted warming. Other causes of temperature changes were underestimated.

As per the link in post 260 i was looking at planet alignments and found Saturn and Jupiter to be on opposite sides of the sun during minimum temperature periods at 1852, 1911, 1969 and projected at 2031. These planets are in direct alignment on same side of sun during peak warm periods of 1881, 1942 and 2000. I did not look further back in time but there seems more of a link to earths temperatures to planetary influence than C02 levels. Since the upcoming solar cycle is expected to be very short i think one is better to beleive the earth will cool rather than warm as AGW claims.

It will have an effect, but I doubt it will be great enough to offset changes in greenhouse gasses just based on the magnitude of radiative forcing. We know how much radiation is coming from the sun, how much it changes due to natural variability, the magnitude of GHGs expected and the radiative forcing associated with that.

[69cat]

So what is it this time Waldo, a cite referencing NASA has confirmed ice is reforming and cant yet explain why that does not fit what was expected.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

“The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”

Not a good indication that the science is settled when the scientists need to find an explanation for the opposite occurring. If the science is settled then statements like this from NASA would never have a situation occur that requires such statements.

As i understand it then, you do not have a position on whether global temps will rise or fall over the next 5 or 10 year periods or whether polar regions will continue to build ice. Not confident in the science i see.

[waldo]

As i understand it then, you do not have a position on whether global temps will rise or fall over the next 5 or 10 year periods or whether polar regions will continue to build ice. Not confident in the science i see.

I'm shocked you would play the "science is settled" meme - shocked! Notwithstanding you are clearly out of your element, you keep using the plural "regions", yet somehow only manage to ever speak to one of those regions - is there a problem?

here, let the waldo edumacate you some:

- Antarctic sea-ice extent is a single-years presentation as, effectively, all Antarctic sea-ice melts from one year's freezing season to the next year's melting season. Unlike the Arctic, there is no concept of multi-year sea-ice in the Antarctic:

- active research is ever ongoing concerning Antarctic sea-ice; scientists have determined an assortment of contributing influences in regards to the relatively recent increase in seasonal sea-ice extent:

- the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice.

- ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds

- this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice

- now, if you really want to speak to Antarctic ice loss... as in ice-sheet melting loss, for example, a handy graphic (per NASA, per wiki).... that rate of change is in 'billion metric tons per year'. And by the by, it's ice-sheet melting that has the significant implications in terms of rising seas:

.

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess it's difficult for some people to grasp the seemingly contradictory concept that global warming actually increases (momentarily) antarctic ocean ice coverage. Even though it is just basic meteorology.

[Guest]

I guess it's difficult for some people to grasp the seemingly contradictory concept that global warming actually increases (momentarily) antarctic ocean ice coverage. Even though it is just basic meteorology.

In my experience, the typical "denier" can grasp the concepts but are good conservative foot soldiers and parrot the BS they are fed. Just like it is with many sports fans; supporting the team is more important than facts or reason. When conservative political parties are no longer oil shills, the exact same "deniers" will no longer dispute the evidence and most likely pretend they never did.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Guest

[69cat]

Time to catch up on the latest info.

So the story being defended is the water in the polar regions is warming more all the time and CO2 levels are at an all time high, and the natural outcome is to have less ice? Yet Greenland for example seems to have levelled off in its ice loss yet all rational says it should be loosing ice at its fast rate yet. I have lost count, is this the 4, 5 or 6th "hottest year ever recorded" in the last 10 years?

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

Here is something, when claimed

- the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water.

How does the warming ocean claim fit with the latest SSTA measurements?

Here is a link right from NOAA

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.18.2016.gif

To save some searching i will just point out that "the blob" has disappeared and El Nino is weakening. All i see is cold water around the Antartic but with a little data "adjustment" that can be fixed i bet.

You bet i am a "denier". When ice melt rate slows down and ice forms during the hottest years ever with highest CO2 ever i tend to look for more plausible answers. Mainly that the "deniers" who claim we have not seen the hottest year for about 19 years now probably have it right. But no doubt there will be many that will say the cooling oceans and resulting impacts in polar regions contrary to IPCC predictions will all see this as sure signs to beleive the end is nigh. Ride that fear mongering band wagon to the bitter end and pay all your taxes.