December 26 global sea ice area is second highest on record. The exact opposite of what experts both predicted and report.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
December 26 global sea ice area is second highest on record. The exact opposite of what experts both predicted and report.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
The expected, at least by this observer, of the solar dip which started 3 or 4 years ago. CO2 doesn’t drive climatic temp, rather its a function of the temperature.
Agreed. CO2 does not drive climatic temperatures. We live on a “water world” and water in all its forms has a much, much greater impact on climate than CO2 ever could.
Here’s another http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
’tis so true! CO2 does not drive temperatures. Thank God, or life would of been erased from day one.
CO2 going up & up with temperatures going way down… now that AGW theory is truly stuffed!
You’re right : the connection with CO2 and Temperature is minimal ; probably just a lag effect.
The oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface. They act like a giant hot water bottle smoothing out our climate by absorbing and releasing the energy from the sun.
Cold water absorbs more CO2 and warmer water absorbs less CO2 and if saturated before cooling will release CO2. The Ice cores show CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. The oceans over turn in about 800 years.
Over time the CO2 in the air has been bound as peat and then coal on land or as shells then limestone in the sea. This has left C3 plants over 95% of plant varieties, at the edge of CO2 starvation. Mankind releasing CO2 is saving life on this planet, not destroying it.
From the Royal Society:
Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution
Gail, or anyone else that may have this knowledge: Is there any evidence that there has been any time in the earths history when CO2 was the primary temperature modulator of earths climate?
No,
Aside from the fact this is a water world, the CO2 levels have never been much lower than today and therefore CO2 has been at the ‘saturated’ end of the logarithmic scale during the entire life of the planet. Any effect of CO2 has been in the ‘noise’ range.
From WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
Geologic CO2 over 579 million years: from a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over phanerozoic time (note data is ‘modelled’)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
Temperature over 65 million years:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
CO2 vs Temp over 600 million years:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
In my view SW solar radiation reaching the surface of the oceans is what drives long term climate cycles. The surface received SW radiation is modulated through cloud cover changes, location changes (poorly understood and affected by multiple solar cycle patterns.
Residence time of any energy input is the major determination in how much any given change can affect a system. The oceans not only moderate all energy inputs, they receive and make the total energy in the system far greater then if we only had dry land.
Through moving this warmth towards the poles, they make the earth far warmer then it would otherwise be. An increase of ten watts of SW radiation entering the deep clear oceans will still be there tomorrow, net week, net month, next year, maybe next decade, and maybe next century.
The same ten watts of LWIR striking the same part of the ocean may very slightly accelerate the water cycle, and will vanish from the earth today. Not all watts are equal in their capacity to change earth’s energy budget.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2014/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story
Winter in Europe.
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/
http://oi59.tinypic.com/wwf7lv.jpg
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/12/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies.html
Ocean Acidification also in question… looks like Climategate all over again.
Ocean Acidification has never been in question. Ocean Acidification has always been a straight out LIE! It is also part of the CAGW myth.
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.
The whole paper is well worth a read since it uses real world experimental data to tear CAGW to shreds.
Anyone that can read and understand the pH scale knows that the term “ocean acidification” is a fabricated exaggeration invented to scare people and not even close to resembling anything to do with science.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images2/184phdiagram.gif
Something that is alkaline or basic as seawater is cannot become acidic without becoming neutral first.
The acceptance of the terms “ocean acidification” and “sea water acidification” by anyone only serves to prove just how ignorant of basic science they are. The use of those terms by anyone that claims to be a “scientist” demonstrates without a doubt that they are intentionally deceiving the ignorant.
Nice. Remember that normal stomach acid is 0.1N hydrochloric acid for which the nominal pH is 1.0. Normal stomach pH with food present is about 4. Pepsin needs a pH around 4 to work properly, if I am remembering correctly. The process that creates stomach acid results in extra bicarbonate ions in the nearby veins, some of which get transported into the duodenum (where the lining also produces bicarbonate for neutralizing the acidic contents discharged by the stomach).
Where cool ocean there greater absorption of CO2. In the cool oceans life flourishes.
http://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images_loop/2014122900_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
Ren, that is an anomaly chart, so while not cogent to absolute T it is yet an interesting one that appears far cooler then what I have seen elsewhere. Do you know what the baseline is?
You have to neutralize and dissolve all the limestone and basalt in the ocean beds before you can lower the pH by any great extent. Any chemist or geologist that supports ‘Ocean Acidification’ needs to have their diploma put through the shredder. The concept is so ludicrous and so easily proved wrong, I wouldn’t even trust them to flip burgers for fear of them pocketing half the money.
Yeah, basalt is an acid neutralizer too. Interesting stuff about basalt and the Malthusian nonsense of ‘OH My Goodness, we are running out of …..’ Unlimiting Resources – Basalt for a High Tech Stone Age by E.M. Smith.
Well there goes the fallacy of Peak Everything and the other reason for Sustainability, Agenda 21 and Neo-feudalism.
Now If our Elite would be Masters would just get the heck out of the way, we grumpy individualists will build a ‘utopia’ and
makemoney create wealth for everyone while we are at it. Of course then the Elite would not have all the power, control and wealth, so we will never be allowed to reach our potential.Gail Combs this winter will show have claws. Solar activity decreases rapidly again, and will be the next wave in the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2014.gif
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/c2/512/latest.jpg
Thank you ren
I agree Gail. I live on the western slope of the Rockies, lots of upheaved limestone and basalt. The stream, largely spring-fed, That runs by my house typically runs at Ph levels of 8-9.0. When we get rain run-off into the running water the Ph drops, from the oak leaves and spruce needles I would assume.
I’m catching up some after the catastrophic failure of my computer since I’ve repaired it. I understand from biochemistry that calcium carbonate is a key coupling for marine life, but there are a whole host of other cations for carbonates to contribute to ocean buffering reactions [and other anions as well … of which phosphates easily come to mind]. The linked paper is fascinating, yet incomplete. Where are the links to other buffering reactions, ‘inorganic’ as well as other potential biochemical ones?
Can you Catholics impeach a Pope?
““Our academics supported the pope’s initiative to influence next year’s crucial decisions,” Sorondo told Cafod, the Catholic development agency, at a meeting in London. “The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”
Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing
Well, at least we now know he is fallible.
There are several conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching (infallible doctrinal statements) but the main one is that the teaching is about church doctrine and morals. CAGW is not about church doctrine. As an aside, even a large amount of Roman Catholics don’t really buy the whole infallibility idea.
This pope is very, very popular among Roman Catholics, but he is, sadly, uneducated in both economics and science.
If ONE (1) Church in the USA distributes that crap they are in violation of Johnson’s tax law which does not allow churches to get involved in politics.
The law is invalid. The government is forbidden to restrict religion by the first amendment to the constitution.
I am well aware of that Phi, but it is always nice when one of the unconstitutional laws can be used to bite the Warmists on the rump. A really nice Catch-22. Strike down the law or don’t use the church to spread political BS. Take your choice.
We can be lapsed again.
Gator, you do not go to your doctor for advice on fixing your car, nor do we seek guidance from the Pope on scientific matters. But he is human and is entitled to his opinion. and we are just as entitled to ignore him on the matter.
The problem is that the Pope speaks for a major religion. The implications of his statement of support for the UN IPCC agenda is disturbing because he has a wealth of scientific knowledge within the Vatican system. Either the alarmists have gained control of the Vatican’s scientific community or the Pope is willfully misleading his flock for nonscientific reasons ignoring good information from his scientific advisors. Is it to the Churches advantage that as majority of the flock remain in the relative 3rd world squalor they currently live in? Because that will be the effect if the Pope gets his way.
The progressives have often used the Christian religion as a water carrier. ‘Altruism’ was always ripe for exploitation by the Socialists.
Hedges goes so far as to name the ‘Five Pillars’ of the liberal (Progressive) class: the Democratic Party, churches, unions, the media and academia
Hedges Laments The ‘Death Of The Liberal Class’ (Don’t I wish) Seems Hedges is completely clueless about who his ‘masters’ really are… either that or he is a darn good liar.
And the US government FUNDS NPR with our tax money???
It’s been done before…but not for around five hundred years, unless one counts the ‘retirement’ of the last Pope.
No, no. The experts quite clearly predicted both less sea ice and more sea ice. See note under: Snow, Tornadoes, and Hurricanes.
This story relates to area, so is irrelevant.
Extent is the crucial parameter.
If extent is not playing ball, then volume is all that matters.
If neither extent nor volume are playing along, then area is the only true indicator of global sea ice collapse.
Except when it’s the second highest on record, in which case it becomes irrelevant.
And round and round the greens will go, frantically lying and spinning, blinded in their own self-delusional fog of denial.
2nd highest for the day of 12/26 as Steve pointed out. Not 2nd highest out of all days. That would be either a day in 1985 or 1988 from my precise measure of finger scrolling at 23 million km sq
But you still get Green commenters on lots of Forums saying that the Polar Ice is melting away, that just can’t face or repeat the truth.
Is this in part due to the AMO starting to head into negative territory?
Probably. This is from a couple years ago and the AMO looks like it is starting to head down. (From Vukcivic)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSCp.gif
On the 23rd you posted an article stating that sea ice thickness was ‘third’ highest…
Doesn’t a typical volcano eruption spew out enough CO2 to negate all of our attempts to lower CO2 emissions?