33 Years Later – No Change In Polar Stupid

Posted on June 23, 2015 by Tony Heller

In 1982, scientists warned that fossil fuels are melting the Earth’s ice caps.

ScreenHunter_194 Jun. 22 23.18

Spokane Daily Chronicle – Google News Archive Search

Thirty-three years later, the area of sea ice on Earth is almost exactly the same as 1980

iphone.anomaly.global (1)

iphone.anomaly.global.png (512×412)

And thirty-three years later, these same geniuses continue to insist that the poles are melting. One might describe climate experts as “terminally stupid”

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to 33 Years Later – No Change In Polar Stupid

  1. judyryan46 says:
    June 23, 2015 at 3:38 am

    I would like to tweet this but, the link doesn’t actually give a source.

    Reply
  2. darrylb says:
    June 23, 2015 at 4:03 am

    Of course in 1982 they warned of melting, in 1972 freezing,

    There is much evidence that we might have hit a warming peak, which as a whole is much better than freezing. Either way, we are going to need adequate energy to prevent significant human anguish.
    Of course, there are the climate elitists who think the human pestilence should be destroyed regardless , Then they live their lives in elegance and daily escapades of frivolity unencumbered by us mortals, whether we be politically correct or incorrect. (color me either depending on the issue, but by far mostly incorrect)

    Gail,
    Please see my response to your writing on ozone variations as a result of temperature and out of phase EM emissions.
    I learned a lot from your contribution.
    Makes me wish I could have another go around in education.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      June 23, 2015 at 11:09 am

      darryl,
      I am a chemist too but never taught. You do not need to go back to school. Just find a field you like and start reading the papers on the internet.

      This paper for example has live links that you can click on to go to other papers.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

      And the website has “Related citations in PubMed”

      I can spend hours wondering around that website. The biggest problem is it sucks up all your free time. (Luckily I don’t watch TV)

      Reply
      • darrylb says:
        June 23, 2015 at 9:23 pm

        Gail,
        I meant I would like to go back as an instructor again.
        I occasionally have the opportunity to go into a school for a day or two,
        But I was a department chair and a mentor.
        I see the stuff come into (some) schools and I cringe.
        An example—
        I have former students who are teachers using the Al Gore junk.

        I have to restrain myself not to chide or embarrass them.
        I have to remind them of basic scientific principles and procedures.

        The AGW mission creep is remarkable. and as I have state once before on this
        blog, all of us blowing each others whistle does nothing.

        Our host is doing his job, it is up to us to take the ball and run with it, because for
        sure the alarmists, through organizations like the NGO’s are highly organized.
        We see marchers, etc warning of coming AGW destruction. Do we see anything
        much to the contrary?

        My venue was education, so that is where I try to get in my two cents, or three.
        Noting that I must arm myself as you do with current information.

        It is easier here in Minnesota than say the Northeast U.S. or South California or
        in some places like in parts of Australia, the hideout of Cook and the SKS gang. There I have been in contact with Jennifer Marohasy who has been challenging the Australia temp record just as our host has been challenging the U.S. as well as the world records.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 9:40 pm

          Since I do children’s entertainment for fun now that I am retired, I do what I can to get information out on a one on one basis. So far it seems to be working fairly well. I have only run into two of the brainwashed in all these years. The rest grumble about our idiotic government.

  3. omanuel says:
    June 23, 2015 at 5:09 am

    It is interesting to see how consensus science changes in response to the political climate. It was on Jan 5, 1972 that Richard Nixon announced he was discontinuing Kennedy’s Apollo Space Program to end the Cold War. laudelafleur.qc.ca/Nomoredreams.html

    Henry Kissinger had made that agreement during his secret visit to China in 1971. By 1974, the news media warned a “New Ice Age Is Approaching.” http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    In 1982, the story had reversed into “Earth’s Ice Caps Are Melting.”

    Propaganda artists are busy generating a new scare with each new day.

    Reply
  4. ren says:
    June 23, 2015 at 6:12 am

    A strong decline in the galactic radiation during magnetic storm. You can see that the sun protects the earth from dangerous radiation.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

    Reply
    • rah says:
      June 24, 2015 at 7:11 am

      Ain’t it funny how that works. The Earths magnetosphere protects us from the harmful solar radition and the solar magnetosphere/influence protects us from galactic radiation/particles. Mean while the gas giant Jupiter acts as a gravitational magnet that helps protect us from impacts from larger threats. Makes me how much our Galaxies influence is protecting us from things extra galactic.

      Reply
  5. ren says:
    June 23, 2015 at 6:20 am

    The man was destroying ozone as a result of nuclear tests in the stratosphere. It was a real threat to humanity. Man is not very resistant to ionizing radiation. The ozone layer at a pressure surface of the Earth would have only 3 mm.

    Reply
  7. rhymeafterrhyme says:
    June 23, 2015 at 9:20 am

    “I get the feeling, and I don’t think that I’m wrong,
    Climate scientists just make it up as they go along.
    Their story keeps on changing, it’s hard to keep pace,
    And we keep on believing, we’re a very strange race……”
    http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/climate-science-is-surely-building-its-own-funeral-pyre/

    Reply
  8. ren says:
    June 23, 2015 at 9:27 am

    Tomorrow the weather in the eastern quickly to change. Attention to the wind.
    http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_06221925_hd28.jpg

    Reply
  10. cfgj says:
    June 23, 2015 at 10:09 am

    33 years later and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have started losing mass plus the Arctic sea ice volume has decreased a lot. And don’t even mention the collapsed ice shelves in Antarctica:

    – Larsen A ice shelf collapsed in 1995
    – Prince Gustav ice shelf also collapsed in 1995
    – Larsen B collapsed 2002
    – Jones ice shelf collapsed by 2003
    – Muller ice shelf collapsed in 2008
    – Wilkins ice shelf collapsed partially in 2008
    – Wordie ice shelf collapsed in 2008-2009

    …some of these had been stable and in place for several thousands of years judged by sediments under them.

    Reply
    • ren says:
      June 23, 2015 at 10:37 am

      Because the temperature increased as a result of high solar activity.
      http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfmms.png

      Reply
      • cfgj says:
        June 23, 2015 at 11:05 am

        Got a reference for that?

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 11:11 am

          cfgj look at the bottom of the graph. It is from the Royal Observatory Belgium. (REN does not speak english)

        • ren says:
          June 23, 2015 at 11:15 am

          Yearly mean and monthly smoothed sunspot number
          Yearly mean sunspot number (black) up to 1749 and monthly 13-month smoothed sunspot number (blue) from 1749 up to the present.
          http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfaml.png
          http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 11:34 am

          You could also try reading A History of Solar Activity over Millenniaby Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyl ? Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit) University of Oulu, Finland (It cites tons of peer-reviewed papers)

          A review of “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia” by Ilya G. Usoskin
          http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2008-3&page=articlesu16.html

          Keeping possible uncertainties in mind, let us consider a list of the largest grand maxima (the 50 year smoothed sunspot number stably exceeding 50), identified for the last 11,400 years using 14C data, as shown in Table 2 (after Usoskin et al., 2007). A total of 19 grand maxima have been identified with a total duration of around 1030 years, suggesting that the sun spends around 10% of its time in an active state. A statistical analysis of grand-maxima–occurrence time suggests that they do not follow long-term cyclic variations, but like grand minima, are defined by stochastic/chaotic processes. The distribution of the waiting time between consecutive grand maxima is not as clear as that for grand minima, but also hints at a deviation from exponential law. The duration of grand maxima has a smooth distribution, which nearly exponentially decreases towards longer intervals. Most of the reconstructed grand maxima (about 75%) were not longer than 50 years, and only four grand minima (including the modern one) have been longer than 70 years. This suggest that the probability of the modern active-sun episode continuing is low5 (cf. Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008)

        • cfgj says:
          June 23, 2015 at 11:53 am

          I meant a reference for solar activity causing the recent warming..

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 12:29 pm

          The reference for a recent Grand Solar Maximum is in A History of Solar Activity over Millennia by Ilya G. Usoskin. That is why I gave you that as a reference.

          …Note that several “predictions” of the general decline of the coming solar activity have been made recently (Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2011), however, these are not really true predictions but rather the acknowledge of the fact that the Modern Grand maximum (Usoskin et al., 2003c; Solanki et al., 2004) must cease….

        • AndyG55 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 12:33 pm

          You forgot Gail, cfnt cannot read anything more than a couple of sentences long..
          There is no way he is capable or reading, let alone understanding that paper.

        • gator69 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 12:44 pm

          Casting pearls before swine.

    • Paul Clark says:
      June 23, 2015 at 11:49 am

      M’ok so if Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass all of a sudden, why didn’t it melt during thousands of years of warmer Holocene? The MWP was 2C warmer, why is 0.8C blamed on humans worse? It’s just such a religious cult.

      And why is there absolutely no contribution to sea level rise, which has been steady for decades of observation?

      It snows more in Antarctica during warm times, that’s how come the present interglacial hasn’t melted the polar ice sheets. Same for Greenland: more snow accumulation during warm times.

      As for ice shelves collapsing…so what? Ice is pushed forward by snow accumulation. The ice will travel a bit faster if there’s more snow. More snow means less sea level rise.

      Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      June 23, 2015 at 12:31 pm

      Its called “calving”….. FFS, go and learn something.

      …. maybe start with how to tie your shoe laces.

      Global sea ice levels are way above the short term average.
      https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_172_1981-2010.png?w=3072&h=2046

      Arctic ice thickness is doing very well, thickest since 2006.
      https://i2.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst-6-1024×807.png

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        June 23, 2015 at 1:39 pm

        Glaciers are also recoverning over the long term Andy.

        Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica
        Dan Zwartz ) , Michael Bird, John Stone, Kurt Lambeck

        Abstract
        A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ; 7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ; 9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X97002045

        And the same is happening in the Arctic.
        Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic It says: “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.”

        Another, more recent study in Norway agrees:

        A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
        Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks

        …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

        The authors of all these papers simply state that most small glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial increase has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.

        9% less solar energy translates to ~120 W/m² less solar energy on 21st of June at 65? N based on 1,361 W/m² (solar min) and 1362 W/m² (solar max) @ ToA.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 1:43 pm

          And yes I did mean 1,361 W/m²
          As someone else said Trenberth and his buddies live on a world that is a flat disk always facing a weak star.

          The value of 1150 W/m² at the equator at mid day vs TOA for that day when receiving 1353 W/m² gives a much better idea of how much energy is ‘lost’ before it encounters the oceans at the equator and is absorbed or reflected. ‘Lost’ is being reflected or being available to interact with the upper atmosphere such as forming ozone. In other words at that latitude at midday the atmosphere is pretty darn transparent especially when you consider the chemical reactions taking place in the atmosphere and the fact that some of the incoming radiation is absorbed and transformed in to ‘heat’ – kinetic energy.

          Information from link

      • Gail Combs says:
        June 23, 2015 at 1:58 pm

        A bit of an up date over whether MIS 11 is a good analog for the Holocene or if we are looking at heading into the deep freezer. (This is why all the Chicken Little dances over warming would be funny if they were not so dangerous.)

        Holocene vs MIS 11

        There had been a very intense debate within Quaternary science circles regarding which of the most recent interglacials is the best analogue for the present Holocene. Lisiecki and Raymo, (2005) essentially quashed the Berger and Loutre’s 2002 model and no one has come forward with anything supporting an extended Holocene since then.

        Lisiecki and Raymo (Paleooceanography, 2005) produced an exhaustive analysis of 57 globally distributed deep ocean cores reaching back about 5 million years.

        Lisiecki and Raymo’s conclusion?

        …the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….
        http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

        Why is this important?

        It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons. – link

        This is why the amount of solar energy on 21st of June at 65? N is calculated and compared in many different papers. MIS-19 which occurred somewhere within or at the Mid Pleistocene Transition, MIS-11 and MIS-1 (the Holocene) all occurred at a 400kyr eccentricity minimum cycle. That is why they are considered analogs and have been studied closely to determine if/when the Holocene interglacial will end in another deep freeze.

        MIS 11 (~420,000 BP-~395,000 BP) went long. That is it was a double precession cycle and this is what everyone is hoping for if they have any brains.

        There is just one tiny point that most everyone seems to miss — MIS 11 was warmer than the Holocene. Actually all the interglacials over the last half million years were warmer than the Holocene.

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif

        Collapse of polar ice sheets during the stage 11 interglacial

        Contentious observations of Pleistocene shoreline features on the tectonically stable islands of Bermuda and the Bahamas have suggested that sea level about 400,000 years ago was more than 20 metres higher than it is today1, 2, 3, 4. Geochronologic and geomorphic evidence indicates that these features formed during interglacial marine isotope stage (MIS) 11, an unusually long interval of warmth during the ice age

        we estimate that eustatic sea level rose to ~6–13?m above the present-day value in the second half of MIS 11. This suggests that both the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed during the protracted warm period while changes in the volume of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet were relatively minor, thereby resolving the long-standing controversy over the stability of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet during MIS 11.

        Here is an open source link for the paper referenced above:

        http://www.moraymo.us/Raymo+Mitrovica_2012.pdf
        MIS 11, was warmer than the Holocene according to pollen records from Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and America too.

        MIS 11 is also the warmest period in Brunhes chron recorded in Lake Baikal. The loess sequences in Northern China show evidence that the summer monsoon during MIS 11 was particularly strengthened, which is typical of warmer climate. Sea-level highstands at about +20 m, dated at about MIS 11, were identified in northern Alaska, in England, in Bermuda and the Bahamas and in the Cariaco Basin. MIS 11 is also characterized by unusual carbonate plankton blooms in high latitudes and massive coral reef build-up . https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/MIS11FutureClimateModeling.pdf

        The sea level 20 meters high than today means a lot less sunlight reflected off the ice especially in the SH. What this major change in albedo plus a warmer starting point (with the heat stored in the oceans) means is anyones guess.

        OOPS!
        Spoke to soon. A new paper as of November 2014

        Exceptional Agulhas leakage prolonged interglacial warmth during MIS 11c in Europe
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014PA002665/abstract

        Abstract
        The transport of warm and saline surface water from the Indo-Pacific Ocean into the South Atlantic (“Agulhas leakage”) influences the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which in turn exerts control on European climate. Paleoceanographic data document a remarkably strong Agulhas leakage at the end of marine isotope stage (MIS) 11c interglacial (~400?ka B.P.), which is one of the best orbital analogues for the Holocene. Here we assess the potential influence of this exceptional Agulhas leakage on North Atlantic climate based on a compilation of marine and terrestrial proxy records from the Iberian margin and continental Europe. We show that a ~5?ka long warm period persisted across Europe beyond the MIS 11c climatic optimum. This warm period is testified by increases in foraminifer-derived sea surface temperatures on the Iberian margin, a spread of temperate trees on Iberia, and the expansion both of evergreen trees and thermophilous diatom taxa in Central European lowlands. Paradoxically, this warming coincides with an insolation minimum, implying that orbital forcing can be excluded as the underlying cause. We conclude that persistent warmth during weak insolation at the end of MIS 11c in Europe may have been triggered by strengthened Agulhas leakage, which stimulated a vigorous AMOC and increased the northward transport of warm surface waters to higher latitudes via the North Atlantic Current. The close analogy of the present and MIS 11c orbital forcing underlines the possibility that the present-day increase of the Agulhas leakage, although driven by different forcing than MIS 11c, may considerably affect future climates across Europe.

        Reply
        • AndyG55 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 9:17 pm

          They even have a term for it.

          “Neoglaciation” started about 3500, years ago

          Neoglaciation reached its peak during the LIA, which we have recovered only very slightly from, it is this very slight warming out of the coldest period of the last 10,000 years that all the alarmista hyperventilating is all about.

          Quite bizarre really.
          We should be highly THANKFUL for that small amount of warming and be hoping that it keeps going!

    • Billy Liar says:
      June 23, 2015 at 11:08 pm

      … some of these had been stable and in place for several thousands of years judged by sediments under them.

      Got a reference for that?

      Reply
  11. ren says:
    June 23, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Soon the meteorological forecasts will begin with an analysis of solar activity and the stratosphere.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/

    Reply
    • ren says:
      June 23, 2015 at 11:42 am

      NOAA Monitors the Stratosphere

      NOAA monitors meteorological conditions and ozone amounts in the stratosphere. On this page we present graphics to aid in visualizing the evolution of the South Polar “ozone hole” and factors important for ozone depletion in the polar areas. Several other web pages (see links) discuss the processes of ozone depletion. Here we provide information on the size of the polar vortex, the size of the ozone hole, the size of the area where air is cold enough to form Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs), and which parts of this cold air are sunlit such that photo-chemical ozone depletion processes can occur. In addition, the latitudinal-time cross sections shows the thermal evolution at all latitudes.

      Reply
    • omanuel says:
      June 23, 2015 at 7:25 pm

      Thanks for your reminders that the Sun has dominant control over the climate of planets.

      Reply
  12. cfgj says:
    June 23, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Ice shelfs can be rather stable for millennia, it’s just that many of them were lost in the past 33 years due to melting.

    Reply
    • gator69 says:
      June 23, 2015 at 1:48 pm

      Dinosaurs were stable for millions of years, and are gone now. It’s called “nature”. Ice shelves collapse during interglacials, it is what intelligent people expect to happen.

      Reply
      • cfgj says:
        June 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm

        Stable & solid for 10000 years and suddenly gone after adding some CO2 into the atmosphere? Or only a freak coincidence?

        Reply
        • cfgj says:
          June 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm

          also, the ice shelves were alive and kicking during MWP, but they could not take current conditions.

        • gator69 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 2:04 pm

          If I take an ice cube out of a freezer and place it in an 80F room, then an hour later when I turn the thermostat down to 70F, does the ice stop melting?

        • gator69 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 2:02 pm

          Why would you assume CO2 is to blame? I already pointed out that ice shelves collapse during interglacials. Or have you forgotten that ice melts when the Earth comes out of an ice age?

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 2:27 pm

          Cold water absorbs more CO2 and warmer water absorbs less CO2 and if the water is saturated before cooling it 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

          Abstract

          The decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘carbon dioxide–starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. This was accompanied by the most significant Cenozoic faunal turnover on each of these continents, indicating that ecological changes at this time were an important factor in mammalian extinction. Further expansion of tropical C4 biomass in Africa also occurred during the last glacial interval confirming the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and C4 biomass response. Changes in fauna and flora at the end of the Miocene, and between the last glacial and interglacial, have previously been attributed to changes in aridity; however, an alternative explanation for a global expansion of C4 biomass is carbon dioxide starvation of C3 plants when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dropped below a threshold significant to C3 plants. Aridity may also have been a factor in the expansion of C4 ecosystems but one that was secondary to, and perhaps because of, gradually decreasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Mammalian evolution in the late Neogene, then, may be related to the carbon dioxide starvation of C3 ecosystems.

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 2:45 pm

          Tthis is a water world with 70% of the planet covered in water. 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.
          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

          CO2 over 579 million years: from a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over phanerozoic time (note data is ‘modelled’)

          https://i0.wp.com/2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg

          Temperature over 65 million years
          https://i2.wp.com/jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

          The earth is getting colder and the CO2 in the atmosphere is being bound up by biochemical/geological processes such as shells ==> limestone, plants ==> peat and coal.

          Anyone with any brains would want MORE CO2 to produce MORE food (it is also need to stablize human blood pH)

          Anyone with any brains would want a nice warm earth and not an ice box.

          Oh, and the atmosphere was probably a lot thicker*** during the time of the dinosaurs and therefore suported the weight of flying dinosaurs and the oxygen needs of the large dinosaurs. It also had more CO2 and therefore supported more plant life. In other words it was a garden of Eden and the Progressives are praying for the ice box of Dante’s lowest level of hell.

          ***Heavier atmosphere gives warmer temps per lapse rate?

        • Billy Liar says:
          June 23, 2015 at 11:13 pm

          Stable & solid for 10000 years …

          Got a reference for that? (Preferably, some sat pics from 10,000 years ago)

        • rah says:
          June 24, 2015 at 10:53 am

          fgj says:
          June 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm

          Stable & solid for 10000 years and suddenly gone after adding some CO2 into the atmosphere? Or only a freak coincidence?

          “Suddenly gone”??????????

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 24, 2015 at 1:21 pm

          RAH, The brainwashing is breath taking isn’t it?

          It is like cfgj believes CO2 directly melts ice and the ice was not melting at all during the entire length of the Holocene interglacial.

  13. ren says:
    June 23, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    cfgj says:
    June 23, 2015 at 11:53 am
    I meant a reference for solar activity causing the recent warming..
    Maybe you have a weak glasses?
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1990

    Reply
    • ren says:
      June 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm

      The monthly averages are the radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 centimetres averaged over the month. Vertical scale units are in solar flux units (1 sfu = 10-22.m-2.Hz-1), horizontal scale units are in years.
      http://www.spaceweather.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png

      Reply
      • cfgj says:
        June 23, 2015 at 3:24 pm

        So how is that causing the recent warming, which is still going on unabated in the seas?

        Reply
        • gator69 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 3:39 pm

          Abstract
          The accuracy with which the Argo profiling float dataset can estimate the upper ocean
          temperature and heat storage in the North Atlantic is investigated. A hydrographic
          section across 36\u0001N is used to assess uncertainty in Argo-based estimates of the
          temperature field. The root-mean-square (RMS) difference in the Argo-based temperature
          field relative to the section measurements is about 0.6°\u0001C. The RMS difference is smaller,
          less than 0.4°\u0001C, in the eastern basin and larger, up to 2.0°\u0001C, toward the western
          boundary. In comparison, the difference of the section with respect to the World Ocean
          Atlas (WOA) is 0.8\u0001°C. For the upper 100 m, the improvement with Argo is more dramatic,
          the RMS difference being 0.56\u0001° C, compared to 1.13\u0001C with WOA. The Ocean
          Circulation and Climate Advanced Model (OCCAM) is used to determine the Argo
          sampling error in mixed layer heat storage estimates. Using OCCAM subsampled to
          typical Argo sampling density, it is found that outside of the western boundary, the mixed
          layer monthly heat storage in the subtropical North Atlantic has a sampling error of
          10–20 Wm 2 when averaged over a 10\u0001 \u0002x 10\u0001 area. This error reduces to less than
          10 Wm 2 when seasonal heat storage is considered. Errors of this magnitude suggest that
          the Argo dataset is of use for investigating variability in mixed layer heat storage on
          interannual timescales. However, the expected sampling error increases to more than
          50 Wm 2 in the Gulf Stream region and north of 40\u0001N, limiting the use of Argo in these
          areas.

          So where are you finding warming, and exactly how much?

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 3:47 pm

          http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/research/calorimeter/calorimeter2.gif
          Sea Level vs. Solar Activity. Sea level change rate over the 20th century is based on 24 tide gauges previously chosen by Douglas [1997] for the stringent criteria they satisfy (solid line, with 1-? statistical error range denoted with the shaded region). The rates are compared with the total solar irradiance variations Lean [2000] (dashed line, with the secular trends removed).

          http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/research/calorimeter/calorimeter1.gif

          Sea Surface Temperature anomaly, Sea Level Rate, Net Oceanic Heat Flux, the TSI anomaly and Cosmic Ray ?ux variations. In the top panel are the inverted Haleakala/Huancayo neutron monitor data (heavy line, dominated by cosmic rays with a primary rigidity cutoff of 12.9 GeV), and the TSI anomaly (TSI – 1366 W/m2 , thin line, and based on Lean [2000]). The next panel depicts the net oceanic heat ?ux, averaged over all the oceans (thin line) and the more complete average heat ?ux in the Atlantic region (Lon 80°W to 30°E, thick line), based on Ishii et al. [2006]. The next two panels plot the SLR and SST anomaly. The thin lines are the two variables with their linear trends removed. In the thick lines, the ENSO component is removed as well (such that the cross-correlation with the ENSO signal will vanish).

          FROM: Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989

        • ren says:
          June 23, 2015 at 4:43 pm

          Do not forget about ocean circulation. In some regions of ocean is still warms, for example, the Indian Ocean, where there is strong magnetic fields (less of ionizing radiation).
          http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582172-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_large.jpg

        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 5:32 pm

          Text to go with REN’s image.

          …. The first set of high-resolution results from ESA’s three-satellite Swarm constellation reveals the most recent changes in the magnetic field that protects our planet.

          Launched in November 2013, Swarm is providing unprecedented insights into the complex workings of Earth’s magnetic field, which safeguards us from the bombarding cosmic radiation and charged particles.

          Measurements made over the past six months confirm the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere.

          But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field has strengthened since January.

          The latest measurements also confirm the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia….
          http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism

          It changes.
          June 2014 Magnetic Field
          http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/june_2014_magnetic_field/14582208-1-eng-GB/June_2014_magnetic_field_large.jpg

          This animation shows changes in Earth’s magnetic field from January to June 2014 as measured by ESA’s Swarm trio of satellites….

          http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2014/06/Earth_s_ever-changing_magnetic_field

        • AndyG55 says:
          June 23, 2015 at 9:10 pm

          “which is still going on unabated in the seas.”

          More utter BS !!! stop the mis-information, unlock your brain from its propaganda stupor and READ and try to comprehend all the data that says .. NO IT IS NOT !!

  15. Gail Combs says:
    June 23, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    cfgj keeps saying the oceans have continued to warm. So here is an interesting comment by Dr. Niv Shaviv (physicist) on the global warming “hiatus” disappearing act preformend by NOAA/NASA at the direction of Obama.

    He who controls the past controls the future! On the vanishing global warming hiatus
    Two weeks ago a science paper appeared claiming that once various systematic errors in the sea surface temperature are corrected for, the global warming “hiatus” is gone. Yep, vanished as if it was never there. According to the study, temperatures over the past 18 years or so have in fact continued rising as they did in the preceding decades. This meddling and adjustments of datasets was discussed elsewhere (e.g., on watts up with that). Here’s my two pennies worth opinion of it.

    The first thing to note is that half a dozen other global surface temperature reconstructions do show a “hiatus”. Although it doesn’t invalidate the analysis (science is not a democracy!) it does raise an eyebrow, and should therefore be considered very cautiously.

    The second thing to note is that this result wasn’t obtained because they considered any new data, instead, they adjusted systematic corrections to different datasets and their respective weights. This is very dangerous. Even if it isn’t deliberate, there is a tendency for people to look (and force) corrections that might push results towards preferable directions, in this case to eliminate the “hiatus” and ignore corrections that could do the opposite. I am not saying this is the case, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is. In any case, when adding inhomogeneous datasets (different buoys and ship intakes) that fact that different weights gives a different behavior (i.e., the existence or lack of a “hiatus”) is an indicator that the datasets are not added together properly! It is a sign that something is suspicious…..

    Greenhouse warming works by making the atmosphere more opaque to the infrared radiation. This implies that the effective layer from which radiation can escape back to infinity will reside higher in the atmosphere when more greenhouse gases are present, and since the atmosphere needs a typical temperature gradient to advect the energy from the surface to that emitting layer, the temperature all along the atmosphere has to increase. You can read more about it in Douglass et al. 2007 and see the figure below. Thus, increasing the surface temperature even more but removing the “hiatus” only aggravates the discrepancy! In other words, to really remove the “hiatus”, the NOAA people have to fiddle with the satellite data, not with sea surface data.….

    http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/warming-vs-altitude.jpg

    The warming vs. altitude, from Douglass et al. 2007. One can readily see that the atmosphere heats less than the surface and less than climate models typically predict. Increasing the warming at the surface only aggravates the discrepancy.
    Last, hiatus or not, the whole discussion diverts everyone from the real problem that alarmists have. Even with the hiatus removed, the “larger” warming of about 0.1°C per decade is still much smaller than the range of predictions standard models make, implying that the models significantly overestimate climate sensitivity and therefore significantly overestimate future warming. For example, as you can see here, a warming of 0.1°C/decade (i.e., 0.35°C over the 35 years of the graph) barely reaches the lower slope of the IPCC predictions.

    In any case, the whole story reminded me of the hockey stick…..

    Looks like NOAA/NASA are going to get themselves into a major tangle over their re-writing history since more and more scientists now view them as corrupt and not as sitting on a pedestal.

    Reply
    • cfgj says:
      June 23, 2015 at 5:56 pm

      Sinister conspiracy at work again? Isn’t it weird that there’s no evidence of data having been tampered with fraudulently? The conspirators must be really good!

      Reply
      • catweazle666 says:
        June 23, 2015 at 6:57 pm

        “Isn’t it weird that there’s no evidence of data having been tampered with fraudulently?”

        Given that there are currently at least two investigations into the “homogenisation” of the surface temperature datasets, with specific reference as to why they appear to be heavily divergent from the satellite data – one by the US Government, that is not a supportable statement.

        But there again, none of your statements ever are, of course.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          June 23, 2015 at 8:34 pm

          If an accountant ever did to the ledgers what NASA/NOAA (and CRU) has done to the original temperature data, they would be hung out to dry….

          OH WAIT — ENRON

          …Former Enron chief accounting officer Richard Causey was sentenced on Wednesday to 66 months in prison for his role in the accounting fraud that led to the company’s demise.
          Under the terms of the deal. Causey will also forfeit $1.25 million.

          ,b>Causey could have faced more than 20 years in jail if convicted, but managed to cut his jail time under a plea bargain with prosecutors.

          Causey pleaded guilty to securities fraud in December 2005 and pledged to cooperate with prosecutors in their case against other Enron executives.
          http://www.law360.com/articles/13645/enron-accountant-sentenced-to-66-months-in-jail

          And from another lawyer we find ENRON setting up the CAGW scam.

          A former lawyer for Enron, shocked to discover that his main job would be to help draft a global warming treaty, tells spiked that censorship and conformism are preventing proper investigation of climate change hysteria.

          ou’re a corporate lawyer who has got a new job doing government relations with an energy company. You would expect to be battling to prevent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, right? Not in the topsy-turvy world of climate change politics.

          Consider Christopher Horner’s bizarre experience in 1997. ‘I was innocently practising law about 11 years ago when a little energy company called Enron hired me away from my law firm to be director of federal government relations’, Horner tells me. ‘I was told on my first or second day that my number one priority was to get a global warming treaty. I was despatched to a meeting of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. I was seated next to the American Gas Association, Niagara Mohawk Power and BP, and on my other side was the Union of Concerned Scientists and so forth.’

          That big players in global energy should be in cahoots with environmentalists and climate change alarmists came as something of a shock to Horner. ‘Though I was a fully grown man, I had yet to understand the concept of “rent seeking” or even these “baptist and bootlegger” coalitions.’ Just as prohibitionists and drink smugglers had a common interest in maintaining a ban on alcohol, so big companies that want massive subsidies for renewable energy schemes and the right to sell emissions permits – the nearest thing yet to selling thin air – can find common ground with those who want us all to reduce our ‘carbon footprints’…..

          ‘I came back to my office and sent an email, essentially saying “Houston, we have a problem”. Did they have any idea what this group, which I was essentially chairing in [former Enron boss] Ken Lay’s stead, was doing? That didn’t go over well. They reminded me that they knew exactly what they were doing, that they had cobbled up businesses on the relative cheap that would – if they got their way – be worth a fortune. That was now their number one priority: windmills, owned by General Electric; gas pipe, owned by General Electric and Warren Buffett; solar panels, now held by BP, and so on.’

          While Lay, later convicted of a massive accounting fraud at Enron, was visiting the Oval Office just a few weeks later to give Bill Clinton and Al Gore tips on how to negotiate at Kyoto, Horner decided to jump ship and go over to the ‘other side’. Or maybe, if you’re a climate change activist, that should be called ‘the dark side’.….
          http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/5956

          If you do not understand this E. M. Smith, an economist by training explains it: “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

          and so does Mother Jones ADM’s bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

          According to PBS, Archer Daniels Midland Co.’s CEO, Dwayne Andreas is Perhaps America’s champion all-time campaign contributor “…Although virtually unknown to most Americans, since the 1970s, leading politicians of both parties have been well acquainted with Andreas, his company, and his money….”

          It is much easier and cheaper to buy politicians than it is to pay for innovation and research. Much less of a gamble too.

      • Gail Combs says:
        June 23, 2015 at 8:39 pm

        No
        Just mega-corporations pulling their usual stunt of buying politicians to force the public to shellout money to buy inferior products. Happens all the time and is the primary business plan of the 21st century.

        Why gamble on research when you can legislate a captive audience that has to buy your shoddy crap. Think of mercury filled twisty light bulbs that not only don’t live up to the hype but are now flooding land fills with mercury.

        Reply
      • rah says:
        June 24, 2015 at 4:30 pm

        If you had actually been paying attention you would have seen that Tony provides such evidence here all the time. Go back and check the archives and you will find plenty of it. Oh and recently WUWT that has had some posts on data tampering too? I bet you believed Obama when he talked about “Shovel Ready Jobs” and all these promises too!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU

        Reply
  16. Centinel2012 says:
    June 23, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    The question is than how will NOAA and NASA hide that?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *