Arctic ice melt slows down: NASA

AFP News ^ | September 21, 2013

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Arctic sea ice melted less this summer and continued to cover a greater expanse than last year's record minimum, NASA data shows.

But the remaining Arctic sea ice cover is much thinner overall compared to the previous decades by as much as 50 percent. Scientists say thinner seasonal ice is replacing older, thicker ice as it melts away.

"Thinner ice melts completely at a faster rate than thicker ice does, so if the average thickness of Arctic sea ice goes down, it's more likely that the extent of the summer ice will go down as well," said Goddard senior scientist Joey Comiso-Wanker.

"At the rate we're observing this decline, it's very likely that the Arctic's summer sea ice will completely disappear within this century."

[palmer]

yes and C02 is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. but Democrats want us to believe that a change that is a small percentage of that tiny amount

Without manmade CO2, the rise would have been from about 0.028% to 0.03% due to warming following the Little Ice Age. With manmade CO2, the amount has gone from 0.028 to 0.04. That is not a small percentage rise. You can still argue that the rise does not matter because of negative feedbacks, saturation, and/or constant lapse rate. But these are technical arguments that still acknowledge that 0.04% actually does matter.

For example to make an argument about saturation, one must argue that 0.03% is sufficient to saturate, etc.

[palmer]

C02 does not affect the Earth's climate

Established science says CO2 absorbs energy in the atmosphere: http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/03/12/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-âgreenhouseâ-effect-â-part-nine/

C02 has been skyrocketing but the Earth is getting colder and has been since 2000

Not colder, but not significantly warmer either. Basically no effect, which means you are correct in the short run. In the long run you may be incorrect (see link above), or negative feedbacks, etc may mean you are correct again. Personally I think there is some effect in the long run, but weather and natural cycles will dominate.

[palmer]

And H2O is 400 times more responsible as a greenhouse gas for warming and cooling the Earth

In the short run. See my link above. The short run means that water vapor (and clouds) reflect more or less short wave and capture more or less long wave energy. Those changes can result in planetary changes in temperature ("global average temperature") of 0.1C in just a week. Meanwhile the theory says that CO2 might add 0.1C in a decade or more provided there are no negative feedbacks. So while H2O is more responsible it also fluctuates and gets capped by natural processes like rain.

[Dark Knight]

Those changes can result in planetary changes in temperature (”global average temperature”) of 0.1C in just a week. Meanwhile the theory says that CO2 might add 0.1C in a decade or more provided there are no negative feedbacks. So while H2O is more responsible it also fluctuates and gets capped by natural processes like rain.<<

H2O causes changes that are clear within one week. CO2 may cause a fluctuation equally that is visible within one decade or 520 weeks. One is roughly 520 times more responsible as a warming cause. Or if you like rounding 500 times more or 50,000% more responsibly than CO2.

I looked at the absorption spectra diagrams in the link. They really made it clear that given the MASSIVE difference in H2O representation in the atmosphere, heat and not temperature is the key, and water is KING.

That is the key to the nonsense science of climatology.

DK

[Democrat_media]

My reply is to this palmer, I included others because they are on this thread but I am only debunking what palmer said. I agree with a lot of what Dark knight and right wing assualt said just including you 2 because he is spreading lies to you 2 also:

Co2 does not affect climate . The Sun's solar cyle does (as it created the mini ice age during the last several hundred years. temperates have correlated with the Sun's solar cycle not C02 levels. The Sun's solar cycle is the smallest it's been in a a 100 years. solar cycle 24 is much smaller then the previous ones and 25 will be even smaller. The declining solar cycles mean that the next several decades will be much cooler than now. some are saying another mini Ice age.

The Earth is cooling as the following link and graph show

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3067952/posts

you spread liberal media lies that are MEANT to grow government and enslave us.

0.039% is C02 percentage the “great” scientist say is there now

0.039% is really 0.00039

see 25% is 0.25< br> 0.25% = 0.0025

you don't even understand grammer school math.

so your difference is really 0.00009

a million Earths fit into the Sun . the sun is a Star .

funny that you and leftists concentrate on a gas that is 0.000039 of the atmosphere but ignore the sun's cycles that correlate with temperatures. The Earth would be -455 Fahrenheit if the Sun weren't there.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/The-Weakest-Solar-Cycle-in-100-Years-216752671.html

“If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum,” Penn states. The first Maunder Minimum occurred during the second half of the 17th century. Almost no spots were seen on the Sun during this time, which coincided with Europe’s Little Ice Age.

amazing the brainwashing of the media and gov. and the trust people have in gov even on this site.

what a coincidence that gov funded scientists happen to isolate a product of capitalism( C02) as causing global warming but the ignore the Sun's Solar cycles. there isn't even any warming but cooling coming . so i hope you liberals don't live in the North.. so why are you helping the liberal media and gov enslave us and grow gov and destroy this country by spreading their lies?

[Democrat_media]

My reply is to this palmer, I included others because they are on this thread but I am only debunking what palmer said. I agree with a lot of what Dark knight and right wing assualt said just including you 2 because he is spreading lies to you 2 also:

Co2 does not affect climate . The Sun's solar cyle does (as it created the mini ice age during the last several hundred years. temperates have correlated with the Sun's solar cycle not C02 levels. The Sun's solar cycle is the smallest it's been in a a 100 years. solar cycle 24 is much smaller then the previous ones and 25 will be even smaller. The declining solar cycles mean that the next several decades will be much cooler than now. some are saying another mini Ice age.

The Earth is cooling as the following link and graph show

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3067952/posts

you spread liberal media lies that are MEANT to grow government and enslave us.

0.039% is C02 percentage the “great” scientist say is there now

0.039% is really 0.00039

see 25% is 0.25< br> 0.25% = 0.0025

you don't even understand grammer school math.

so your difference is really 0.00009

a million Earths fit into the Sun . the sun is a Star .

funny that you and leftists concentrate on a gas that is 0.00039 of the atmosphere but ignore the sun's cycles that correlate with temperatures. The Earth would be -455 Fahrenheit if the Sun weren't there.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/The-Weakest-Solar-Cycle-in-100-Years-216752671.html

“If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum,” Penn states. The first Maunder Minimum occurred during the second half of the 17th century. Almost no spots were seen on the Sun during this time, which coincided with Europe’s Little Ice Age.

amazing the brainwashing of the media and gov. and the trust people have in gov even on this site.

what a coincidence that gov funded scientists happen to isolate a product of capitalism( C02) as causing global warming but they ignore the Sun's Solar cycles. there isn't even any warming but cooling coming . so i hope you liberals don't live in the North.. so why are you helping the liberal media and gov enslave us and grow gov and destroy this country by spreading their lies?

[ogen hal]

I agree. The idiot dishonest “warmers” are anti-science whores.

[Democrat_media]

Yes and the “warmers” even on this site are helping the media and gov to enslave us by menacing us with the global warming hoax or imaginary hobgoblin

http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/12/no-warming-left-to-deny-global-cooling-takes-over-cet-annual-mean-temperature-plunges-1c-since-2000/

CET temperature data from the UK Met Office: “The overall annual temperature shows a diminution of pretty much a full degree Celsius over the last 13 years.” Here’s the chart:

[Dark Knight]

I won’t say dishonest, but surely shown a pile of doo. I looked at the website palmer referenced and it was clear to me when they were misrepresenting. But they were sophisticated in their scientific presentation, so regular people could look at it and believe. Not know, but believe.

Ask a really good prognosticator if they have 40 years of info, what kind of predictive value could you put on it? 5 years? 7 years? 100 years?

Models don’t generally predict outside their database. And they usually aren’t better than a 1/4 of the time frame. 40 years of date...maybe 10 years of projection.

And mixing of data by accuracy...LOL. Can you predict with a tenth of a degree accuracy, when your data is by the 1/2 degree, or 1/5 degree? Your worst data, determines your accuracy. Much of the non satellite data is horridly gathered, and in dispute on collection methodology. Is surface data collection on land a representative sample enough to predict retention of heat content on the Earth as a whole? A clue, the oceans are the biggest heat sink on the Earth and good luck figuring out their heat content with a 1 degree accuracy (that would include all depths).

The models don’t work predictively. They really never have. That is the replicable part of science and the scientific method. But to put climate “science” in a box...climate is the weather over time. If you cannot predict the weather at a particular time...logical conclusions are a tough mistress...eh Laz?

DK

[palmer]

I looked at the website palmer referenced and it was clear to me when they were misrepresenting. But they were sophisticated in their scientific presentation, so regular people could look at it and believe. Not know, but believe.

Science of Doom is quite technical. But there are a few facts that are hard to dispute. The first is that CO2 molecules absorb energy. It is obvious that a small amount is enough because the mean free path of a photon is supposed to be 25 meters. The IR that is absorbed is released in all directions, but roughly half up and half down. WIth the average 25 meters in mind, he atmosphere can be thought of as many layers with CO2 (and water vapor as well) absorbing and releasing heat.

There are a couple easy experiments to verify heat trapping and release. The one I like is to measure temperature (or look at the weather service readings) on partly cloudy but calm nights. If the clouds are patchy and a patch of clouds moves over the station the temperature stops dropping and can even increase.

One way to think about it is a space blanket that reflects IR (not quite the same as absorbing and reemitting, but close enough. Tie the space blanket up in some trees and sit under it. It is not stopping heat loss by stopping convection like a regular blanket wrapped tight, or a sleeping bag. Rather, it is reflecting heat back to you.

The CO2 in the atmosphere does that. You have probably seen the absorption spectra of CO2 and other gases. Since those vary, there are some frequencies that CO2 absorbs and reemits that other gases do not.

The flip side of all this discusson is that water vapor does a lot more absorbing and reemitting and is highly variable due to weather. So the weather mostly dictates how much of the sun's heat is trapped each night and over longer time intervals.

I agree that surface temperatures are badly polluted with urban areas being the prime collection sites. I only refer to satellite measurements for that reason. I also agree that models can't predict anything. Models can't be verified because they don't model weather properly and in many cases do not model it at all.

So how are we supposed to know the effects of adding CO2? I have argued for many years on several forums that the warming in the 90s can't be attributed to CO2, but have argued that part of it was. Even including the late 90;s the warming has been modest, about 0.1C per decade and slowing. There are no bad consequences to that kind of warming and it is in fact good. We will have lower heating bills (we spend twice as much as on cooling). We will have better growing conditions (CO2) and longer seasons. We will have lower death rates because death rates are always highest in winter.

I would rather not argue about this subject at all, but I also want to argue from the best coherence of scientific facts that I can gather. Simple things like warming from clouds at night and the absorption bands of CO2 due to the modes in which CO2 can vibrate that O2 and N2 cannot. There's no good alternative explanations for things like that although I keep reading all the alternatives that I come across.