Arctic sea routes open as ice melts

by Serf Mon Aug 29, 2011 19:27

increased oil spillages more like!

The pristine fragile ecosystems of the artic will be destroyed by the first (inevitable) huge oil spill when an iceberg hits a tanker.

Also on another topic. It's interesting to see the same oil companies that engage in funding anti global warming think tanks, lining up to exploit the new opportunities for oil exploration and transport opened up by melting sea ice caused by ...ehhhh....global warming!!!

by T Mon Aug 29, 2011 23:59

The annual summer melt of the Arctic sea-ice reaches its maximum every year in September because the ice has been melting all summer and it usually continues into September and then towards the end as the days are already getting longer the cooling kicks in.

The graph in the image below illustrates this and also shows the recent increased in maximum extent of the melt which jumped in 2007 and has been similar in the intervening years but none have yet exceeded that record yet.

The second image is an older graph from 2009 but it is given here because to show how the ice builds up again once late autumn sets in.

Graph of extent of Arctic Sea Ice melt for 2011 so far. (USNational Snow and Ice Data Center)

Recent history of Arctic Sea Ice melt. (USNational Snow and Ice Data Center)

by Real Scientist Tue Aug 30, 2011 00:26

the same oil companies that engage in funding anti global warming think tanks

Do you have any actual evidence for this?

Actual examples plus figures for amount of funding - I hear a lot of similar sentiment from you AGW hysterics but almost never any actual evidence put forward to back it up.

I'm not saying such evidence doesn't exist but I never ever see any of you provide it

Is this one of the myths you AGW hysterics so love to peddle?

by Real Scientist Tue Aug 30, 2011 01:29

To understand Ice measurement we first have to understand the terminology used. There are 2 terms in particular which confuse people: these are 'ice area' and 'ice extent'. "Extent" and "area," which are not quite the same.

There is an entity called the [US] National Snow and Ice Data Center. If you go to its website, (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/index.html) you can find data and plots of sea ice extent.

Here (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/) is how the NSIDC itself explains 'ice area' and 'ice extent':

Important Note: The "extent" column includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. However, the "area" column excludes the area not imaged by the sensor. This area is 1.19 million square kilometers for SMMR (from the beginning of the series through June 1987) and 0.31 million square kilometers for SSM/I (from July 1987 to present). Therefore, there is a discontinuity in the "area" data values in this file at the June/July 1987 boundary.

My reading of those "important" words is that the only thing really measured by satellites was "area." Yet the plot also shows "extent," something more than was measured. And the difference is something they "assumed." (If you have a better explanation of that "Important Note," please enlighten me.)

What were the differences? From the above words from the NSIDC, you would think that the differences would be constant offsets (1.19 million sq km from 1979 through June of 1987, and 0.31 million since). The actual differences in the data file were not constant at all; they varied between 1.93 and 3.42 million sq km.

It appears that the area of an 'assumed' region is included in the NSIDC's graph. More importantly, it seems that assumed, non-measured area varies from year to year and month to month in no apparent pattern - that doesn't seem very 'Scientific' - if one of the AGW-Hysterics reading this has an intelligent and plausible explanation for this, I'd love to hear it

NSIDC graph of what it calls 'Northern Hemisphere sea ice' - a graph of essentially 'imaginary' data

Source: University of Illinois, Polar Research Group, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences.

look at the difference between ''Area'' and ''extent'' -
then go back and look at the definitions of 'Area' and 'Extent' provided above, notice anything?

by Serf Tue Aug 30, 2011 02:57

BTW, I'm a scientist too. science degrees are like toilet paper these days, They mean very little. Just like dollar bills do. The only thing that matters long term is the viability of our environment for the survival of the creatures living on it.

However, although corporate entities have the rights of a person and far more political and financial clout than one, they don't care if the air, food and water are poisoned. They don't breathe eat or drink. they just need higher and higher profits each quarter. thats it. Thats all that matters. however they do it.

here is a rather obvious link as requested. The fact that you couldn't find this yourself with the simplest of google searches makes me think you are definitely biased here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming

excerpt:
"One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view.[15]

And don't chuck that "there is less ice area but its getting thicker" chestnut at me, complete with some random graphs without sufficient context.

We are currently going through the same kind of solar conditions as during the little ice age. Yet our ice is decreasing. Imagine the scenario with high sunspot activity.

by Real Scientist Tue Aug 30, 2011 03:49

And don't chuck that "there is less ice area but its getting thicker" chestnut at me,

I never chucked anything at you - all I did was show you that "Sea Ice Extent" and "Sea Ice Area" are 2 very different things.

"Sea Ice Area" is what is actually measured by the satellites - "Sea Ice Extent" is an imaginary figure made-up by someone somewhere.

I certainly never made any claim that "there is less ice area but its getting thicker""as you allege. Your need to invent such nonsense is curious to say the least

complete with some random graphs without sufficient context.

nothing at all 'random' about the graphs - if you have problems understanding them all you have to do is ask, and I'm sure a qualified person can supply you with the understanding you appear to be lacking

The first of the 3 graphs is directly related to an earlier comment posted here. It is included to show that the NSIDC are essentially graphing imaginary data, according to their OWN definitions of "Extent" and "Area"

The 2nd might appear random to someone that knows nothing about the subject, but if you actually took the time to examine it you might have noticed that it too concerns Ice. It clearly shows that Ice in the Southern Hemisphere, as opposed to the Northern, is actually increasing over the specified time frame.

It may surprise you to learn that over 90% of the worlds store of Ice is to be found in the Southern Hemisphere. I'll leave you alone to ponder the significance of that, if you are able.

The 3rd graph is directly related to the point I made about the difference between "Sea Ice Extent" and "Sea Ice Area", and why it is important to understand exactly what those phrases mean when used in this context.

The 3rd graph is quite clear and easy to understand, so I'm very surprised that you appear to have such a hard time identifying, for yourself, what it shows, what with your alleged Science Degree and all. (Congratulations on that, btw, - your Mother must be very proud)

It clearly shows that your ridiculous allegation, that I was somehow saying "there is less ice area but its getting thicker" is complete nonsense. I was saying nothing of the sort. How one could possible arrive at the conclusion that I was saying "there is less ice area but its getting thicker" is a complete mystery.

From this one can only deduce that you either have not read the clear and easy-to-understand comment I made earlier regarding the difference between the "Sea Ice Extent" and "Sea Ice Area", or that you DID read it but somehow, for some inexplicable reason, (despite the alleged possession of a 'Science Degree') failed to understand a clear and easy-to-understand comment regarding the difference between the "Sea Ice Extent" and "Sea Ice Area",

All the graphs posted are very relevant to the discussion - your attempt to label them as 'random' casts serious doubt on the 'scientific credentials' you earlier claimed to possess,l and also you understanding of the subject under discussion. Considering that they all concern Sea-Ice and are all fairly clearly labeled as to what they are I'm surprised you have such a hard time getting to grips with them, what with the alleged 'Science Degree' and all.

Perhaps your alleged 'Science Degree' was in some weird discipline where graphs were not encouraged?

by Real Scientist Tue Aug 30, 2011 04:07

We are currently going through the same kind of solar conditions as during the little ice age.

This is a ridiculous statement to make. Your evidence for this is what exactly? You seem a little confused. The Little Ice age lasted for approx 300 yrs. You are aware of that are you not? Most people agree that it ended in the middle of the 19th century. a little over one hundred and fifty years ago. We have just come out of a Solar Maximum. But that is not at all the same as what you are alleging. Not even close.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Yet our ice is decreasing.

Another ridiculous statement given that the Southern Hemisphere Ice-mass is actually increasing . Had you bothered to take the time to properly understand the 2nd Graph above you would have seen that, but obviously you did not bother to do so.

As stated earlier over 90% of the worlds store of Ice is to be found in the Southern Hemisphere. THAT Ice Mass is not decreasing but is actually increasing. The Northern Ice Mass constitutes less than 8% of the World's Ice. So your statement is complete nonsense

Imagine the scenario with high sunspot activity.

You're asking me to imagine some ridiculous and false scenario that you just made up, based on a combination of your completely false understanding of the state of the World's Ice and your completely false understanding of Solar activity, both historical and current, without any evidence at all, right?

Why the hell would I want to do that?

by Serf Tue Aug 30, 2011 04:25

I mean nobody is paying keyboard jockeys to sit at their keyboards night after night on internet forums to do that after all.

We are experiencing a minimum of solar activity, i.e. sunspots and their related flares etc. These are the kind of conditions that existed during the little ice age where the thames was often frozen over.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

So you are basically saying that ice is reducing on the 8% of the northern hemisphere for some unknown reason (not c02 of course) but it is actually increasing in the southern hemisphere??
(thats a variation on the usual "thickening" argument I mentioned)

Ok, lets put aside my disagreements for now and run with that. So, have you any theories to explain why THIS phenomenon you are suggesting is happening?

Why should one hemisphere be losing ice while the opposite one gains?? Any ideas mr scientist??

I'm all ears. Educate me.

(but maybe read this first ;-) :
http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing

by Real Scientist Tue Aug 30, 2011 04:45

Interesting that you should point to Exxon and the figure of 16 Million., because that is only approx 60% of the amount in British Pounds Sterling that the Climate Research unit of (of 'Climate-gate' fame) has received in funding over the years. Since it's inception the CRU has received at least £23 Million, (that's POUNDS Sterling, not Dollars) in funding from a number of sources, including both Shell and BP.

Last time I looked both Shell and BP were Oil companies.

According to a link at Wikipedia: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university's School of Environmental Sciences. . . . . . Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.
Michael Sanderson (2002), The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 285, ISBN 9781852853365

The CRU are the holders and manipulators of much of the data upon which the theory of Global Warming rests.

So anyone who claims that 'Funding from Oil Co's="Bad Science by the recipients" has to also include the CRU. (IF they are being honest) ;-)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But despite the hysterical propaganda regarding funding emanating from the Global Warming devotees, when the figures are examined the true picture is quite a bit different from the one of poor cash-strapped Global Warming scientists struggling to make ends meet they like to portray.

The climate industry wall of money - http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-w...oney/

Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed. Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.

The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.

Follow the money . . . . . .

Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million dollars paid by Exxon over ten years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched. I wrote the Climate Money paper in July last year, and since then no one has claimed a larger figure.

Big-Oil may well prefer it if emissions are not traded, but it’s not make-or-break for them. If all fossil fuels are in effect “taxed”, consumers will pay the tax anyhow, and past price rises in crude oil suggest consumers will not consume much less fuel, so profits won’t actually fall that much.

But in the end, everyone spends more on carbon friendly initiatives than on sceptics– even Exxon: (how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research). Some will complain that Exxon is massive and their green commitment was a tiny part of their profits, but the point is, what they spent on skeptics was even less.

Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics.

It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program.

The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger.

For direct PR comparisons though, just look at “Think Climate Think Change“: the Australian Government put $13.9 million into just one quick advertising campaign. There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.. . . . . .

by Real Scientist Tue Aug 30, 2011 05:20

I mean nobody is paying keyboard jockeys to sit at their keyboards night after night on internet forums to do that after all.

Certainly no one is paying me, but I cannot vouch for you in that respect.

If you know where I can apply for such payments do tell please. I could do with a cash injection

We are experiencing a minimum of solar activity, i.e. sunspots and their related flares etc

YES - for approx 3 (three) years

These are the kind of conditions that existed during the little ice age where the thames was often frozen over.

Oh dear - you see now this is what happens when you don't read what was previously written, or you do read it but you don't really understand the significance of what you are reading and how it fits into the overall picture.

the little Ice age spanned approx 300 (three hundred) years -

are you seriously claiming that, all other things being equal, a Solar minimum of 3 (three) years should have the exact same effect as a Solar Minimum spanning approx 300 (three hundred) years? Seriously?

So you are basically saying that ice is reducing on the 8% of the northern hemisphere for some unknown reason (not c02 of course) but it is actually increasing in the southern hemisphere??

No - the data collected by the scientists is saying that. It is not merely a matter of it being my opinion, as you are trying to suggest. It is what is shown by the data itself.

So, have you any theories to explain why THIS phenomenon you are suggesting is happening?

I am not suggesting any 'phenomenon' - the data itself shows this to be the case - no amount of 'appeals to authority' posted by you, wherein you rely on others to interpret what the data is clearly showing, will change that.

Your reliance on 'appeals to authority' to interpret data and make your argument for you is quite telling in that it shows-up your own ignorance of this subject. If you had some understanding of the subject would not need to rely on the words of other by posting 'appeals to authority' such as you have done

Again if you bothered to examine the graphs posted, instead of running off and grabbing the first thing you found on the internet which appeared to support your point, you would notice that the data itself tells a different story than the one you and you little friend at grist.org, are attempting to peddle.

by Arctic Juggernaut Tue Aug 30, 2011 06:22

Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake." Greenpeace said in a July 15, 2009 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program pressed Leipold until he finally admitted the claim was wrong.

"We have to 'emotionalise' issues" says Leipold

Caption: Video Id: NC7bE9jopXE Type: Youtube Video
Greepeace leader caught live on TV telling complete porkies

by Curious Tue Aug 30, 2011 17:48

Are you saying that the tankers are not getting through? Are they only pretending to use the route? If this is not a new route due to Arctic ice melt then why wasn't it used before

I'm addressing this to T because his contribution seemed balanced.

by T Tue Aug 30, 2011 21:06

Nope, my response wasn't suggesting that they are or aren't getting through. I posted that comment and graphs just to show the seasonal variation of the ice cover and melt.

Based on that data, it would imply that if there was to be any month in which ships would be most likely to get through the Northwest and or Northeast passage then they would be August and September which I suppose is in agreement with the original article posting.

Now that you ask, I would agree that the ships have got through as suggested and probably around this time. Compared to say 10 years ago, it is clear from the graphs that the extent of sea ice is now falling to lower and lower levels making it much easier now for ships to use these routes with more ease than before.

On the Northwest passage about which much has been written about for a long time, it would appear that this would open during the summer some years for short periods and was unpredictable as to when it would occur but now that we have regular increased summer melts, this is now much more regular.

One other thing to note is that the NSIDC data (see their site) indicates that proportion of younger and thinner ice has increased and this seems to be partially due to the effects of the summer melt lasting longer into the autumn and the melt itself starting earlier in the spring/summer. The real worry is that the switch from ice cover which reflects about 85% of the sunlight to clear ocean which reflects somewhere between 15% to 20% depending on many factors, means the Arctic Ocean is automatically absorbing far more heat. This does two things. First it increases the moisture content of the air and because water vapor is a strong absorber of infra-red radiation it allows the air temperature to increase a lot more. The second effect is that heat delays ice formation later. This change in reflectivity known (or albedo effect) is one of the strongest positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system.

The near full ice cover and freezing conditions during the winter contributes to the Polar vortex air flow -as far as I know, which effectively traps the cold polar air in the Arctic allowing it to remain colder well into the Spring. If the sea-ice is slow to reform, then it affects the formation of this. If there were no Polar vortex, then it would allow warmer air from lower latitudes to penetrate deep into the Arctic. Since this doesn't normally happen but may soon if it hasn't already, then that is bound to change the dynamics up there quite a bit.

by Serf Tue Aug 30, 2011 21:36

hey real scientist, please lay off the aggressive ad hominem "you're an idiot" type comments and address the points. Its a discussion. Anyone would think reading your posts that you were deliberately trying to needle the other contributors until they blew up and the discussion was derailed into a flame war! only someone trying to close down a discussion would want to do that. ;-)

Now, why is sea ice increasing in the south and rapidly decreasing in the north??

Isn't this pretty much what the warmists said would happen?

whats causing the ice decrease in the north considering it is now a solar minimum?

If not the sun then could it be greenhouse gases? whats your opinion?

You need heat to melt ice no? where is extra heat coming from in a solar minimum?

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 02:01

For someone that started conversing in a VERY caustic tone your last comment is quite hypocritical

You were asked for proof of a statement you made earlier regarding Oil CO funding the Sceptic-side of the debate. You then immediately started hurling accusations of 'bias' simply because someone asked you for proof - you made the original statement, not me, so it's up to you to provide some proof. I already knew to some degree what you were going to provide as proof - I've heard the Exxon story hundreds of times by now.

I also notice that you have ignored the evidence I posted that completely disproves the urban-myth you warmistas keep peddling regarding the level of funding for one side of the argument vs. the other - if you claim that "Oil money=bad science" then you have to admit that the CRU, Stanford and many other supposedly 'respected' pro-AGW organisations and institutions must also be practicing bad-science.

Otherwise it becomes clear that 'Bad Science' for you simply means 'anything you find inconvenient' for your "Global Warming=CO2 theories".

You Warmistas just completely ignore the fact that Oil Co money has filled the pockets on both sides of the divide. Not only that but Oil co funding + Gov't funding for AGW proponents far outweighs funding for the sceptic side.

But then of course you would ignore it, because that makes your little Oil Co Urban Myth look like the propaganda it is.

Add to the Oil Co funding for Warmistas, the massive amount of Gov't funding and funding from other sources such as Greenpeace, to name but one, and you have a massive mountain of funding for the Warmista side.

the figures make it clear, even to the average AGW-junky, that the AGW side is in receipt of exponentially greater amounts of funding than the Sceptic-side.

So naturally you of course are now choosing to ignore ALL of that, because you find it inconvenient for furthering your argument.

And you have the gall to accuse me of not addressing the points?

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 03:17

let's move on to your questions., such as they are.

Let's number them first:

1) Now, why is sea ice increasing in the south and rapidly decreasing in the north??

2) Isn't this pretty much what the warmists said would happen?

3) whats causing the ice decrease in the north considering it is now a solar minimum?

4) If not the sun then could it be greenhouse gases? whats your opinion?

5) You need heat to melt ice no? where is extra heat coming from in a solar minimum?

Questions 1, 3, & 5 are essentially the same question repeated over and over with the addition of the words 'Solar Minimum' to make it look like you warmistas have always considered Solar Activity in your calculations and erroneous Climate Models. Thjs of course is nonsense - until quite recently the AGW camp has completely ignored Solar Activity.

The only reason Solar Activity has now entered the Warmista lexicon is that the recent CERN experiments have shown that Cosmic Rays probably effect the Climate far more than CO2 , and the amount of C-Rays which reaches the earth is likely influenced by Solar Activity.

Both Svensmark and Kirby have been rabidly attacked by the Warmistas for years for suggesting such a thing - but now the warmistas have had to eat-humble-pie on this score because the recent experiments at CERN have shown them to be the bullying completely wrong blowhards many on the sceptic side always claimed that they were.

The CERN press release stated

"Climate models will have to be revised,

"it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone"

So now we know for sure that the Climate Modellers are working with useless models at present - this of course explains why so many of their 'predictions' have turned out to be nothing but bullshit.

1) I don't know for sure and NEITHER DO YOU - neither do the Warmista scientists - they just make it up as they go along. But if I had to guess I say the ocean currents are still redistributing energy, in the form of heat, which earlier entered the system during the 150 year run up to the Solar Max. The Arctic-Ice-Sheet has no land under it while the Antarctic rests mostly on land, hence the resistance to warmer-water-current redistribution of energy in the South.

That you warmistas refused at the time to admit that extra energy might be entering the system due to Solar activity is something you are completely glossing over - again because it is inconvenient for your CO2 theories. Essentially your CO2 theories can be summed up as "we don't know what's causing this, and we refuse to consider anything other than human activity and CO2, so therefore we conclude it simply MUST be CO2".

2) the Warmistas have made so many and so varied, and often contradictory, predictions that it's impossible to tell one way other unless one has read every little bit of info ever published on the subject. I haven't and neither have you.

But even a stopped clock is correct twice daily. So if the Warmistas DID 'predict' it, and I have yet to see reliable 'proof' that they did, then so so what? With so many and so varied and often contradictory 'predictions' being made on the back of Global Warming, some of them have to occasionally be correct, if even only by accident. the Laws of Randomness dictate it

What I do know is that the magical 'consensus', which you warmistas love to bang-on about, has not said any such thing.

The IPCC has certainly not 'predicted' this before it became apparent that the Southern Ice was increasing in Mass.- they only included it in their list of things that are supposed to happen AFTER it became obvious that it was happening - they do that a LOT, I've noticed.

3) Question 3 is the same as Q1 except you threw in a bit about 'Solar Minimum' - again you Warmistas only started including 'Solar anything' after it became apparent 3 years ago that we had just left a Solar Max and entered what looks like a Solar Minimum. Prior to that you warmistas were quite adamant that Solar Min and Max had very little to do with conditions here regarding overall temperature of the Biosphere. Very adamant indeed. For you warmistats it was CO2 24/7.

5) I would guess the 'extra heat' (actually extra energy) already entered the system during the run-up to the Solar Max - it is merely being redistributed - hence the melting in the Arctic, where one current of warm water rises, and the small bit of melting off one of the Antarctic peninsulas (which your little patronising friend at Grist.org mentioned earlier) where another of the Warm currents circulates.

unlike the warmistats I admit that it's a guess - the warmistas do not admit that they are guessing - they love to roar that "the science is settled" when it is anything but. Having observed their panicked reactions over the years to Svensmark and Kirbys theory of Cosmic-Rays, I can only presume that they do this to drown out opposing views which might, if listened to, effect the level of funding they receive.

BTW there has also been speculation concerning increased underwater volcanic activity off the coast of the Antarctic peninsula which your little friend at Grist.Org ignored completely - That too would add heat to the water in that area which certainly would effect the Ice Sheet melt-rate, and yes, your warmista climate modeling friends and predictors choose to ignore THAT completely as well, when discussing the Ross Ice Sheet

But your repeated references to Solar Minimum, are what interest me at the moment. In what appears to be an effort to make it look like you know what you are talking about, it actually shows that you don't.

What they show is that you are winging it completely. You are essentially appearing to claim that because we have had a tiny amount of time in which the Sun has been relatively inactive, that the Earth will suddenly immediately react to that minute amount of Solar inactivity.

All this shows is that you are completely ignorant of the fact that there is hardly anything that the Earth's climate immediately reacts to - there are time-lags in the system, some of them quite massive, due to the time it takes for energy to circulate throughout the various redistribution mechanisms, such as ocean currents.

The fact is that we have not been collecting data long enough to even know how many and what sort of cycles may be having an effect on the climate. The AGW crowd are just dishonest in their refusal to admit any of that.

So this brings us right back to your ridiculous contention that a 3 (three) years Solar Min is supposedly equal to a 300 (three hundred) year Solar Min.

I've mentioned it twice now to you and you have deliberately chosen to completely ignore it, preferring instead to hypocritically accuse me of ignoring the point.

Would YOU now care to address THAT?

Since I have replied to your badgering, it's now time for you step-up and address the points YOU have been completely ignoring.

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 03:44

But of course, being Junkies, they'll just go on pretending that it's not.

Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, excerpted below, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."

The global warmists’ dam breaks - https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experime...tion/

Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva appear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August). The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post below). The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.

Willy-nilly the results speak for themselves, and it’s no wonder the Director General was fretful. ....

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them".

I can only presume he's terrified of raising the ire of professional AGW bullies such as Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones and Michael Mann (discredited producer of the so-called 'Hockey-Stick' graph so beloved of that charlatan Al Gore) , which might result in him losing funding or his job - they've done it before to others who dared contradict them.

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 08:24

"1) I don't know for sure and NEITHER DO YOU - neither do the Warmista scientists - they just make it up as they go along. But if I had to guess...."

For someone who admits they dont know, you seem awfully certain it's not CO2 or other greenhouse gases. I find that rather suspect.

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 09:40

after petulantly demanding that I deal with your questions, you refuse to address the many points made therein preferring instead to engage in puerile drive-by one liners?

So it's obvious you were never interested in 'discussion' and are only seeking to provoke flames - what was it you said earlier "deliberately trying to needle the other contributors until they blew up and the discussion was derailed into a flame war! only someone trying to close down a discussion would want to do that." - yes that about sums you up

"For someone who admits they dont know, you seem awfully certain it's not CO2 or other greenhouse gases. I find that rather suspect."

to be honest I couldn't give a damn what you find suspect - Your thoughts on this subject are fairly worthless given the complete lack of understanding of the whole subject which you have displayed in your recent posts.

The CO2 nonsense you AGW-Junkies cling so desperately to, has been falsified so many times now it's almost embarrassing to watch you deluded CO2-Junkiies try to resurrect it again and again, only to see it flop over on itself one more time.

I know it's been falsified, as do many others, I have seen it falsified many times recently. - only problem is that there are a giant herd of sheeple firmly wedded to the notion - and they, like you, are either refusing to admit that they were wrong all along, or are simply incapable of understanding that the CO2 theory is now completely busted.

Like you, they don't even appear to know why they are wrong, (despite the alleged 'Science Degree' - BTW was it in 'Political Science' or something like that, your 'Science Degree' I mean? ) even after it's been explained to them in fairly clear and concise language.

Any certainty I display comes from having read enough about the subjects under discussion as to have a fairly good understanding of them. This is something you obviously have yet to do - read both sides of the debate - I already have done so and found the Pro-AGW side to be completely lacking. It''s a very leaky ship those AGW/CO2 guys are sailing, it has been for quite some time now. and the CERN experiment just blew a great big hole in it, right below the water-line.

You obviously are completely incapable of understanding the significance of the recent CERN experiments, even after it's been explained to you. (despite the alleged 'Science Degree')

Just as you are completely incapable of understanding how hilariously ridiculous your clueless repetition of the phrase 'Solar Minimum' looks, in the context you are using it.

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:34

yeah yeah I'm an idiot, I get it. Whatever, go on knock yourself out.

However genius as you believe you are by comparison to me, you still seem unable or unwilling to address one simple point

i.e. that If you (by your own admission) don't actually know why the ice is melting in the artic then how can you be so absolutely certain that it ISN'T CO2 related?. Answer: You can't really can you?

Can't have it both ways mr "scientist".

Another barrage of personal insults will serve no useful purpose. I am not going to be riled by your unpleasantness no matter what, so you might as well just address my point

if you actually can that is ...

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:04

you refuse to address the fact that your little rant earlier about funding by Oil Co's is nothing but a Myth, and has been proven to be so by simply adding up the figures for sums spent on promoting AGW.

You refuse to admit you that you just use the term 'Solar Minimum' as a buzzword and seem oblivious to the fact that you have no understanding of how Solar activity might relate to the Climate, even when it's completely obvious to everyone else

yet like a child you demand the right to petulantly and repetitively demand an answer to a question that has already been answered.

You know so little about all this that you don't even appear to realise that the question has been already answered.

Even more hilariously, you think you are on to some sort of argument-winner by harping on about CO2?

Even after the significance of the CERN experiment has been explained to you?

Really?

the CO2 theory has been falsified - you cannot seem to grasp how or why that is even after it has been explained to you?

Really?

This is comedy gold, . . . seriously - you're either a comic genius or completely clueless. I'm betting on the latter

Tell you what - when you finally get around to addressing the points you have yet to address, I'll answer your little question for you, all over again, . . . . one more time, just for you.

So off you go . . . it's up to you now . . . you've talked the talk, so now it's time to put yer money where your mouth is.

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:19

If you (by your own admission) don't actually know why the ice is melting in the artic
then how can you be so absolutely certain that it ISN'T CO2 related?

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:30

just looks silly at this stage - you have numerous points to answer which you have repeatedly refused to address - throwing a tantrum because you're not getting the answers you appear to want, just looks childish.

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:39

If you (by your own admission) don't actually know why the ice is melting in the artic
then how can you be so absolutely certain that it ISN'T CO2 related?

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:56

your silly question has been answered already - you're just unable to recognise that, or unable to understand the answer - while you're pouting about CO2 you are of course just attempting to distract from the fact that you are refusing to address the points YOU have been asked to address - your refusal to deal with with these outstanding issues in an upfront and honest manner is quite telling

by dear oh dear Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:00

You appear to be a VERY confused individual.

I certainly never said "I don't actually know why the ice is melting in the ar[c]tic"

Where did you ever get that ridiculous idea from?

You need to go back and actually read what was actually written - more slowly this time perhaps,

by undecided Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:05

RS, you are just coming across like a total knob and it's not helping your case. Maybe stop insulting people and just answer the question
How can you be so certain it's not C02? After all you did say yourself you didn't know what was causing the warming. And something is melting the ice up there. And there is a good deal of C02 in the atmosphere. I'm not totally convinced that one cloud chamber experiment completely removes C02 from the list possible explanations. Surely when a solar minimum occurs there will be less cloud and more during a maximum. wouldn't it just tend to cancel out leaving a fairly constant amount of heat energy entering the system?? so where is the extra heat energy coming from to melt the ice then?

You say it is heart energy from the period of recent solar maxima just working through the system. But if the cloud theory is correct then how did this heat energy ever get into the system in the first place?? Surely it would have been reflected by the extra cloud cover presumably generated by the increased high energy muon activity?? From whence then comes the extra energy you say is working its way through the system and melting the northern artic ice??

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:21

"I certainly never said "I don't actually know why the ice is melting in the ar[c]tic"

actually you did!!

QUOTE:
"1) I don't know for sure and NEITHER DO YOU - neither do the Warmista scientists - they just make it up as they go along. But if I had to guess..."

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:22

. . . you are still refusing to address any of the outstanding issues you have been asked to address.

this continuous repeated asking of a question that has already been answered is just silly, and really does look like an attempt on your part to try and distract from the fact that you are refusing to address those outstanding issues you have been asked to address numerous times now, regarding funding and your ridiculous contention that a 3 yr Solar minimum is equal to a 300 yr solar minimum

"After all you did say yourself you didn't know what was causing the warming. " - let me actually spell it out for you - N.O. I. D.I.D N. O.T - you are not just misstating (or misunderstanding) my answer - you are also misstating your original question - this really is very dishonest of you

"Surely when a solar minimum occurs there will be less cloud and more during a maximum."

oh dear - you really should stop referring to 'Solar Minimum' in this fashion, in a rather weak effort to make yourself look knowledgeable. It's really isn't working for you, you know.

"But if the cloud theory is correct then how did this heat energy ever get into the system in the first place?? "

Well you could save yourself a lot of embarrassment and just read up on it yourself, rather than sitting here arguing with me about it when you obviously know little or nothing about it, but for some reason you are refusing to do even the most basic prep work on this - I'm not your own personal private teacher you know - if you want to cadge free lessons you're going to be disappointed - you'll have to fork out some cash if you want me to do all your work for you -- seriously , stop being so lazy and do some reading - there's a whole internet out there

by oh you silly billy Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:25

I said . . . . "I certainly never said "I don't actually know why the ice is melting in the ar[c]tic"


You said . . . actually you did!!

go back and read your original question and stop making a fool of yourself

by T Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:29

The CERN experiment does not prove this. What it shows is that cosmic rays may have a role in aerosol production at high altitude which in turn can may have an effect on cloud formation and the authors are not even remotely suggesting that this is the main driver of cloud formation. I fail to understand why anyone who jump on this data as proof that the entire global warming argument is wrong.

One should also note that not all aerosol particles will lead to cloud droplet formation, so for example if you increase the amount by 2, it doesn't follow that the number of cloud droplets increases by this factor at all. The quantity of cosmic rays rapidly drops as you go lower in the atmosphere because they are blocked and or absorbed by the air. And cloud formation depends on many other factors including the amount of water vapor and the temperature. The effects of aerosol at high altitude are likely to work in both positive and negative ways. This doesn't even address any of the lower atmosphere dynamics.

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:32

"But if the cloud theory is correct then how did this heat energy ever get into the system in the first place?? Surely it would have been reflected by the extra cloud cover presumably generated by the increased high energy muon activity?? From whence then comes the extra energy you say is working its way through the system and melting the northern artic ice??"

Heh! apparently mr scientist for all his arrogant supercilious bluster and insults hasn't even thought about the ramifications the CLOUD theory has for his own explanation for northern ice melting. What an asshat!

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:39

your answer was to my question:

1) Now, why is sea ice increasing in the south and rapidly decreasing in the north??

answer from you:

"1) I don't know for sure and NEITHER DO YOU - neither do the Warmista scientists - they just make it up as they go along. But if I had to guess...."

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:40

It's an inverse relationship between Solar activity and Cosmic Rays received here on Earth, you idiot.

You could just have gone and found that out for yourself by even the most rudimentary search to find an explanation of Svensmark and Kirby's theory but Nooooooooooooooo, that would have been the smart thing to do.

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:43

I think you'll find that "toal" is not a real word
did you mean to[t]al??

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:43

you're actually quoting yourself as some sort of proof that I'm wrong? hahaha - comedy gold!!

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:47

your answer was to my question:

1) Now, why is sea ice increasing in the south and rapidly decreasing in the north??

answer from you:

"1) I don't know for sure and NEITHER DO YOU - neither do the Warmista scientists - they just make it up as they go along. But if I had to guess...."

which you'll note is different from the question you kept ridiculously repeating earlier, which was "you don't actually know why the ice is melting in the artic?"

the fact that I even have to point that out to someone that claims to be the recipient of a 'Science Degree' is astounding

unless of course you were lying about the degree

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:55

so let me get this straight. You say it's an inverse relationship with solar activity?

i.e. more solar activity = more high energy muons = less cloud = much more heat energy into the system

and a solar minimum = less high energy muons = more cloud = much less heat energy into the system.

Yet surely cloud droplets condense around ionised particle tracks as in the wilson cloud chamber for example?? And surely since clouds are made up of tiny water droplets condensed from water vapour, you would get more of those with more high energy particles passing through the water vapour in the upper atmosphere?

Heh...Some scientist you are!!

by Real Scientist Wed Aug 31, 2011 13:10

You say it's an inverse relationship with solar activity?

NO - Svensmark and Kirby's theory says so - not me. You really should stop making a fool of yourself here and just go and read up on the theory. That way you'd save yourself a lot of embarrassment later, if or when it finally dawns on you that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and are unable to follow the clear , simple and easy-to-understand statements (for a person of normal intelligence) made on this subject so far

a solar minimum = less high energy muons = more heat energy into the system.

Wrong again , as usual

I never said anything about 'HEAT energy' entering the system - In fact I took the time to point out that it was 'energy' entering the system, not HEAT - I very definitely made a distinction between the two, go back and check it once again

If you actually go back and read what I wrote (slowly this time) you see that quite plainly. But somehow I doubt you will bother

Your own complete inability to actually read and understand what was written, is making you look like a total fool

by Serf Wed Aug 31, 2011 13:22

"you're actually quoting yourself as some sort of proof that I'm wrong? hahaha - comedy gold!!"

no. you can't even read the misspelled title of your own post. thats comedy gold!

also you then try to tell me what I said about more solar activity meaning less heat getting to earth because of increased cloud cover is wrong then proceed to say the exact same thing. That lack of basic english comprehension is also comedy gold.

Its clear that you just want to derail this discussion using ad hominem attacks because you haven't really got much of an argument to counteract the prevailing ideas about the role of CO2 in climate change, except one cloud experiment which, while interesting, does not support your theory of residual heat from recent solar maxima in the ocean system alone being largely responsible for melting the arctic ice, but in fact undermines it somewhat. (more solar activity = more cloud=less heat )

I'm exiting the discussion because you're just a troll looking for someone to abuse and cannot engage in a civilised manner

by Liege Fri Sep 16, 2011 19:48

Latest news on Arctic ice.

Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level
Fri, Sep 16, 2011
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0916/122....html

SEA ICE on the Arctic Ocean shrank to its second-smallest extent since modern records began, in keeping with a long-term trend, the US National Snow and Ice Data Center reported yesterday.

The annual sea ice minimum was reached on September 9th, the centre said. “Changing winds could still push ice flows together reducing ice extend further,” the researchers said.

A full analysis will be available next month, when monthly data are available for all of September, which is usually the month when the annual minimum is reached.

Arctic Ocean ice is an important sign of a changing climate and what happens in the Arctic has a major influence on global weather patterns.

At its apparent minimum, sea ice around the North Pole covered 1.67 million square miles (4.33 million square km). That measurement is 61,800 square miles (160,000sq km) above the all-time record low reached in 2007, the centre said.

However, it is far below the average minimum for the period 1979 through 2000, according to the data centre.

The satellite record began in 1979.

These figures differ from those reported by the University of Bremen in German, which issued a statement that the Arctic ice reached a record low minimum on September 8th. – (Reuters)

by Liege Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:43

Now the whales are making their way through.

Whales find Arctic path from Atlantic to Pacific

WHALES ARE blazing a trail ahead of humans through the melting ice floes of the Northwest Passage. Satellite tracking has confirmed that loss of Arctic sea ice is opening up the waterway connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to marine mammals.

A route through the Northwest Passage, providing a valuable short-cut between Europe and Asia, has been the quest of seafarers for centuries. Despite the effects of global warming and Arctic sea ice shrinking at a rate of 8 per cent per decade, the route is still too dangerous for shipping.

The research however shows that the Northwest Passage has already opened up for bowhead whales, which are expert at negotiating ice-bound waters.

Between 2001 and 2010, scientists tagged 180 whales in west Greenland, Alaska and the western Canadian Arctic with satellite-tracking transmitters. The first evidence that bowhead whales were making progress through the Northwest Passage came in 2002. A 12m (39ft) juvenile from Greenland swam to a western point about a third of the way along the route. Four years later a 14m (46ft) adult male tagged near Point Barrow, Alaska, was tracked east to a point 800km (497 miles) from the position reached by the Greenland whale.

In August last year, two adult males from west Greenland and Alaska – one 15m (49ft) and the other 17m (56ft) long – entered the Canadian High Arctic sea channels. Approaching from opposite directions, the whales crossed each other’s paths in the Parry Channel that runs through the Queen Elizabeth Islands archipelago in the Canadian High Arctic.

The scientists, led by Dr Mads Peter Heide-Joergensen from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, discussed the findings today in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters .

Sea ice in the Northwest Passage was previously thought to have been a physical barrier separating bowhead whales from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The study showed that whales had found a passage route through two principal Canadian Arctic waterways, Viscount Melville Sound and Parry Channel.