Skip to comments.Antarctic Sea Ice Didnít Get The Memo That It Was Supposed To Melt
Posted on 10/20/2013 12:55:53 PM PDT by Signalman
By WUWT Regular Just The Facts
Per the graph above, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent has remained above the 1981 2010 normal range for much of the last three months and the current positive Antarctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming.
Furthermore, in 2013 we had the third most expansive Southern Sea Ice Area measured to date;
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
We just don’t understand. It’s warming that is making that Ice.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
OK that’s fun but it’s not going to get you very far in a debate on this issue. The moon is an even smaller rock, but without an atmosphere it’s very cold there.
Actually, I’ve received some encouraging scientific answers to my little lesson plan. Thanks for reading it.
And of course I don’t disagree with you by the way. There’s excellent research suggesting that variation in solar activity is the dominant cause of the temperature trends on Earth, but it involves the interations of solar particles on cloud formation, hence showing that the atmosphere is the key variable, more so than the actual variations in direct energy output by the sun.
Thank you... here’s your apple.
And you go to the head of the class!
Actually, Global Warming in the northern hemisphere causes Global Cooling in the southern hemisphere, and if you disagree, or even question the notion, you hate science.
Trust me, it's happening even as we "speak".
So often TSI is used as a red herring by the catastrophists. They say it can't be solar because solar peaked in 1950 (true but yet another red herring because it stayed high until the 2000's) and that it can only account for 0.1 of a 0.7 rise in the 20th century. It's part of their divide and conquer strategy to argue against natural factors leaving CO2 as the culprit.
A second effect of low solar activity is the decrease in high energy ultraviolet. Among other effects, it allows ozone to recover. Ozone is created by low frequency UV and destroyed by high frequency UV. Part of the destruction of the ozone layer in the late 20th century was solar. Part was man-made CFCs which took all the official blame. The increase in ozone warms the stratosphere with various effects on weather that may cause cooling in some cases and warming in others. It's not an easy one-for-one mapping but certaintly stratopheric warming is (a) not going to cause tropospheric "global warming" and (b) is contrary to CO2 warming which cools the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently mixed with the middle and upper parts still cooling long term, but the lower stratosphere switched to warming for the last 10-15 years.
A third effect of low solar activity is to allow more galactic cosmic rays to reach the earth. Those cause nucleation in the lower atmosphere and more low clouds. That is a well understood effect. What is not clear is if this would cause global cooling. It is definitely true that low clouds cool in some cases since low cloud tops are warmer and therefore send more radiation to space than colder high cloud tops. But low clouds can also warm, for example they almost always warm at night.
The right way to think of global temperature is that there is always global cooling to offset solar warming. The only thing that changes is the rate of global cooling. The rate of cooling is descreased by increaseing the amount of CO2 which is essentially all manmade at this point. But the greater effect on the rate of warming is weather. The catastrophists argue that weather doesn't matter, it just affects the short run. But they are wrong, the long run changes in weather, on the scale of millions or more years, changes the global average temperature and tracks somewhat to galactic cosmic rays. Short run is more difficult to see the changes.
One thing the catastrophists won't admit is that their models used to show more warming due to more benign weather. Generally the more active the weather, the more the planet cools. Now they try to claim that extreme weather is caused by manmade warming. They won't admit, however, that that means that the modest bit of global warming is resulting in negative feedback. It is doubtful that it is true anyway since real scientists have shown no change in "extreme" weather and even a bit of a decrease.
Thanks for this. Do you ever read or post on Climate Audit?
I also read some of the enemy sites like "Skeptical Science" (which is anything but skeptical. I learn a lot from their mistakes.