Arctic ice on the verge of another all-time low
August 28, 2008
This animation is comprised of Envisat ASAR mosaics of the Arctic Ocean and highlights the changes in sea ice between June and mid-August 2008. The dark grey color represents ice-free areas while blue represents areas covered with sea ice. Credit: ESA
Following last summer's record minimum ice cover in the Arctic, current observations from ESA's Envisat satellite suggest that the extent of polar sea-ice may again shrink to a level very close to that of last year.
Envisat observations from mid-August depict that a new record of low sea-ice coverage could be reached in a matter of weeks. The animation above is a series of mosaics of the Arctic Ocean created from images acquired between early June and mid-August 2008 from the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument aboard Envisat. The dark grey colour represents ice-free areas while blue represents areas covered with sea ice.
Current ice coverage in the Arctic has already reached the second absolute minimum since observations from space began 30 years ago. Because the extent of ice cover is usually at its lowest about mid-September, this year's minimum could still fall to set another record low.
Each year, the Arctic Ocean experiences the formation and then melting of vast amounts of ice that floats on the sea surface. An area of ice the size of Europe melts away every summer reaching a minimum in September. Since satellites began surveying the Arctic in 1978, there has been a regular decrease in the area covered by ice in summer – with ice cover shrinking to its lowest level on record and opening up the most direct route through the Northwest Passage in September 2007.
The direct route through the Northwest Passage - highlighted in the image above by an orange line - is currently almost free of ice, while the indirect route, called the Amundsen Northwest Passage, has been passable for almost a month. This is the second year in a row that the most direct route through the Northwest Passage has opened up.
Prof. Heinrich Miller from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany commented that, "Our ice-breaking research vessel 'Polarstern' is currently on a scientific mission in the Arctic Ocean. Departing from Iceland, the route has taken the ship through the Northwest Passage into the Canadian Basin where geophysical and geological studies will be carried out along profiles into the Makarov Basin to study the tectonic history and submarine geology of the central Arctic Ocean. In addition, oceanographic as well as biological studies will be carried out. Polarstern will circumnavigate the whole Arctic Ocean and exit through the Northeast Passage."
Regarding the use of satellite data for polar research Miller continues, "The polar regions, especially the Arctic, are very sensitive indicators of climate change. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that these regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and predicted that the Arctic would be virtually ice-free in the summer months by 2070. Other scientists claim it could become ice-free as early as 2040. Latest satellite observations suggest that the Arctic could be mainly ice-free even earlier."
Miller added, "At AWI we place particular emphasis on studying Arctic sea-ice, and along with in-situ studies of sea-ice thickness change satellite data have been used extensively - not only for the regular observation of changes in the Arctic and Antarctic, but also for optimising the operation of Polarstern in regions covered by sea ice."
The Arctic is one of the most inaccessible regions on Earth, so obtaining measurements of sea ice was difficult before the advent of satellites. For more than 20 years, ESA has been providing satellite data for the study of the cryosphere and hence revolutionising our understanding of the polar regions.
Satellite measurements from radar instruments can acquire images through clouds and also at night. This capability is especially important in areas prone to long periods of bad weather and extended darkness – conditions frequently encountered in the polar regions.
By making available a comprehensive dataset from its Earth Observation satellites and other ground and air-based capabilities, ESA is currently also contributing to one of the most ambitious coordinated science programme ever undertaken in the Arctic and Antarctic - the International Polar Year 2007-2008.
Further exploitation of data collected over the Arctic since 1991 is part of an ESA Initiative on Climate Change that will be proposed to the ESA Member States at its Ministerial Conference in November 2008. The proposal aims to ensure delivery of appropriate information on climate variables derived from satellites.
In 2009, ESA will make another significant contribution research into the cryosphere with the launch of CryoSat-2. The observations made over the three-year lifetime of the mission will provide conclusive evidence on the rates at which ice thickness and cover is diminishing.
Source: European Space Agency
Nov 05, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Agreed. Especially since they have records of ships crossing the direct route through the northwest passage long before the advent of artic ice monitoring.
Hence why it has the name "passage".
Correct. If they extended to interval to 1900 they wouldn't be anywhere near the record.
Of course these are the same people that told us the arctic would be ice free this summer...
Velanarris: Yeah, and the "fountain of youth" has the name "fountain", too. Ever seen one? Please state your reference to someone actually previously finding a dependable route through the northwest passage (without benefit of icebreaker, that is). Not holding my breath...
GrayMouser: Please state reference to previous records of ice-freeness that beat this one. Specifics please. Not holding my breath...
If you denialists ever were to get around to using actual facts instead of making shit up, maybe you might get taken seriously. As it is, you're good for a quick laugh and nothing more.
GrayMouser: Please provide reference to people having claimed it would be ice-free this summer. The earliest I've ever seen claimed was NEXT summer (2009), and even that included the word "may". Can you say "Straw Man"?
Not holding my breath...
We "deniers" don't argue with idiots,it only brings us down to your level then you win through experience.
Look up your own references as we do,out side the gospel according to the Goricle.
Try history.A Chinese fleet sailed round the Arctic Ocean in about 1200 and it was mostly ice free.Plus other references more recently.As I said,look it up yourself,don't avoid the bits you don't like.
http://environmen...998.html
Velanarris, you have been proven wrong before and failed to provide valid scientific facts. Either you fail to understand the word "love" of nature and others or you are playing some stupid game. Please explain your purpose since you are not able to argue based on fact?
GrayMouser, you don't even deserve any attention because you don't provide any facts, just rethorics, but today people listen to facts.
All of you 3, by being so ignorant, or pointless or factless, or based on "proven wrong" already science, and by being uncapable to make a slight near valid scientific point, you are strenghtening the very well proven fact that Co2 is causing global warming.
Can you provide a prove of this or the scientific fact behing this?
the above probabably refers to 1421 not 1200's and in the book of that name, it does not claim they sailed around the artic seas just that sailed up to some northern Canadian islands and over to Greenland. nothing in the book suggests the artic was ice free.
Just as I posted in the other article (which you either failed to notice or decided to ignore)
http://www.junksc...enhouse/
Google the name Roald Amundsen. Crossed the Northwest passage in 1903 long before the invention of the icebreaker. There are purported accounts of viking crossings as early as the 13th century and accounts of Danish and Russian naval officers navigating quite far into the passage all throughout the 1700's.
Of course the vikings abandoned the route when the "Little Age Age" a period of heavy volcanism and INCREASED co2 brought on intense cooling forming the current ice sheets.
But CO2 only causes global warming because science says so, a hundred years of geological research must be wrong because the new guy (climatology) says so.
A fleet from China sailed past some Canadian islands and on to Greenland via the artic. From China...
L2Geography.
please provide the link to the info (another ridiculous falsity again right). And even if a ship can make it one day near the North, iso what? Co2 still makes things worst and worstening.
The two can live together. Global warming means thing get warmer, even if the had been warm before. You are pointless, boring, stubbern and mean not only no to respect those who are suffering today of global warming but worst, you contribute to a worstening of the situation. It is very sad.
Global warming is caused by an increase in solar energy. If you look at a chart for solar energy output you see there is a direct correlation in the increase in solar output and the recorded mean temperature increase.
The data that your "scientists" cling to shows that the temperature rises, and the CO2 rise follows afterwards. This can be explained by a multitude of things, for instance, polar ice melt. Geologists and climatologists measure the CO2 within the ice cores we pull from ice packs.
The sun's energy rises, the earth gets warmer, and the co2 is released from the ice. The co2 isn't causing the warming, but is a direct resultant from the warming caused by solar activity. Keep in mind, I'm not denying that co2 has warming properties, I'm merely saying they are overstated and climatologists along the Gorian lines of AGW are misrepresenting or misinterpreting the facts about global warming, and in turn not solving anything.
The AGW camp has been spawned by rampant media and mob mentality. Facts are continuously denied and the AGW prophecies of humankinds doom are more akin to a cultist's predictions of the end of the world than factual science.
How did the people in New Orleans die due to global warming? Global warming did not tell them to build a city below sea level in hurricane alley. Katrina was not a result of global warming, unless you want to say every hurricane that ever came from the southern hemisphere into the northern hemisphere was caused by AGW, in which case damn those native americans for creating so much CO2 and damn their pre homo-erectus ancestors for causing all this global climate change that allowed hurricanes to exist.
Or maybe we can be sensible and realize that a hurricane hitting the land on which New Orleans stands is an event has happened for hundreds if not thousands of years.
now if a Hurricane formed in the northern hemisphere, or even better, in the middle of the United States then I'd give AGW some credit, seeing as that's the theory of what will happen if AGW goes out of control.
http://abcnews.go...=4728737&page=1
I fail to see the relevance but I hold degrees in physics, history, and engineering.
Yeah, for instance you would *never* start a rebuttal by calling someone an idiot...
I have 32 Master's degrees. I have an IQ of 332, having used the Krell device. I can run a 2-minute mile, despite being 340 pounds of solid muscle. I taught Kung Fu to the Chinese in the first place, having invented it one evening. Did I mention I'm 300 years old?
Sarcasm aside, in these forums claims are so easy to make as to be meaningless. It is possible in theory that you are telling the truth, but the only real fact that matters in this circumstance is that you don't *sound* like someone with those degrees, you don't *argue* like someone with those degrees, so you have no credibility.
I'm assuming you don't mean the gradual increase in the sun's output over the last 4 billion years, becuase it would be easy for someone with more than 3 brain cells to calculate what that works out to as a percentage increase over, say, a 200 year period. Basically, unmeasurably small.
If you're refering to something else, please provide actual references. But I'm not holding my breath...
as opposed to the fake ones I didn't realize that degrees alter the way someone expresses themself. I also didn't realize you can hear text from a wesite.
How would you like me to argue, perhaps a few personal attacks like these:
You are most certainly a degree wielding debater.
So, when you strip the BS, what you have is 1 guy, some unsubstantiated legends, and some partial incursions. Need I remind you that your original point was that prior icelessness of the arctic region was "proven" by all the "previous passasges". As Cartman would say, "weeeeeaaaak".
Aw, come on, surely somewhere in your massive education they taught you the concept of a metaphor? "Sound" doesn't have to mean just auditory perception based on atmospheric vibrations. I think that comes under the heading of nit-picking.
And yes, an education certainly does affect how you *sound* (jeez, deal with it), even in a written forum. Not just details like the vocabulary or spelling (it's possible to be brilliant and a terrible speller), but things like quality of argument (rebuttals vs personal attacks), access to facts, belief in the *importance* of facts for gods sake, ability to organize one's thoughts and express them. Etc.
Yes, it is possible to be educated and still be a hothead, and yes I know that even the hallowed halls are full of political intrigue and backbiting, but unless you are determined to be deliberately obtuse, I think you get the point.
What I find most interesting about this particular segment is that while two of the examples you gave were certainly ad hominim, the other two were just as certainly not. So, do you really not understand the difference, or were you just being careless? Or do you believe, as some do, that anything said that you don't like is proof of character flaws in the speaker?
Regarding Amundsen, the article is quite clear. Have either of you read it?
"The direct route through the Northwest Passage - highlighted in the image above by an orange line - is currently almost free of ice, while the indirect route, called the Amundsen Northwest Passage, has been passable for almost a month."
You tend to not hold your breath quite often, and no I'm not talkinga bout a gradual increase in solar energy output.
Solar energy output fluctuates much like a fluorescent light bulb.
reference: http://www.space....8_02.gif
from the article - http://www.space....320.html
There are quite a few more but the linked graph is one of the better examples.
I'm not aware of what Amundsen wrote on his route deviating from expected routes according to his research, but I would be interested to know.
Regarding Amundsen's Northwest Passage. According to the article it has been passable for almost a month, it is interesting to note that Amundsen was trapped in the ice for three winters before he was able to traverse the entire route. Therefore his voyage cannot be considered proof that the entire passage was ice free in any one year.
Shame you didn't hold your breath...
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt...glaciers have entirely disappeared"
Washington Post, November 22, 1922
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.......great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, ......at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
The following USAToday article was based off of the prediction of Mark Serreze:
"This summer may see first ice-free North Pole"
by Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
http://www.usatod...71_x.htm
That's because you know at least enough not to argue with yourselves.
As for being able to engage in logical discourse, you are clueless. Anything more than simple sophistry is beyond you.
Kindly explain how the role of CO2 in radiative forcing is non-existent.
You do realize that radiative forcing is not applied correctly by the IPCC?
Ipcc - The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values. [2]
Which isn't wholly accurate. Actually radiative forcing is loosely defined as the change in net irradiance at the tropopause. "Net irradiance" is the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system and is thus measured in Watts per square meter.
You should also know that according to actually radiative forcing equations (when done properly) CO2 has a logarithmic relationship, not exponential. Meaning for every equal increase of a CO2 in the atmosphere it takes an exponential amount more on the next addition to affect the same delta in change.
IPCC won't tell you that between radiative forcing and spectroscopic banding that we're basically at the level of null delta with CO2, where it cannot affect any greater change.
then what do your consistant comments on other people's character show about you?
http://scienceand...tem.html
But the oceans, according to the Argo probes, has been cooling:
http://www.enters...eans.htm
For the Arctic ice cap melting, the change in the ocean currents that pushed more warm water under the polar cap:
http://people.iar...IA_R.pdf
and
http://icecap.us/...12ab.JPG
"Solar energy output fluctuates much like a fluorescent light bulb"
"Shame you didn't hold your breath..."
"Solar energy output fluctuates much like a fluorescent light bulb"
Strange, I tought human were producing Co2! How funy everyone was lied to, we are not making any Co2, it has been the sun all along! Oh! by the way, what is coming out of cars, factories and coal power plants?
Solar Radiance varies, so does the temperatures in day-night, summer-winter, las ninas-el nino, etc...
Co2 will not make nights warmer than days, it will make days warmer than previous days over time, and las ninas warmer than the previous ones over time. Still, Co2 -the one from humans is enough for that (even if sun makes Co2 as well)- makes temperatures increase and this is called global warming. So please don't use this argument again, it does not hold. It is like saying that there are nights after days, so what?
Is has nothing to do with the Co2 that is causing Global warming (no one is complaining about solar radiance, this is an old un-releated un-relevent mis-guiding cliamte pattern that is already (as are differences between summer-winter) known when the Co2 was proven to be causing global warming. Sorry that you did not know but now you do. So stop coming out with this bs pointless arguments.
North pole being 100% out of ice is very different than a passage from one place to another where a ship can manage to get a little near the North Pole in the middle of ice somehow. So please do not use this argument again to say that human Co2 are not causing Global warming. The argument is completely flawed (unless you can pursue this further but you should really realise by now that it makes no sense at all).
radiative forcing is fed from human made emissions "A useful example is that of carbon dioxide. If we took pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels and increased them to current levels without changing any other aspect of the climate system, then there would be an imbalance in the climatological radiation budget. The incoming radiation would be unaffected, but the outgoing longwave would be absorbed more strongly (the enhanced greenhouse effect), so the longwave cooling (OLR) to space would be reduced and a net heating would occur: this is a positive radiative forcing, and can be computed with some accuracy".
"You do realize that radiative forcing is not applied correctly by the IPCC?"
So what? Co2 is still causing global warming using the other more maybe correct formula.
Have you done some reading before coming up with such an already well known -proven wrong again- argument? You should really do more reading about what the experts are saying to these kind of "denialist" and easy to counter argue with irrelevent facts. Simple search (try it next time, you might avoid to contribute to some sad things, please think a little........more)
http://answers.ya...0AAjuZrB
http://www.skepti...php?a=18
At the bottom of the link are 10 study's done over the last 10 years that prove it. Done by teams of Phds, so unless you go over their math and show me faults, I will defer to them.
The link from the SPPI is not valid. A conservative think tank that is anti global warming is not a sources. Also Roy Spencer is a creationist, Which proves that he lets his personal beliefs taint his view of science. It is funny to me that 99% of people that do not believe in man made global warming believe that a big invisible guy made us.
He is also Rush Limbaugh's go to climate guy. Here is a nice Rush page, it uses direct quotes from him to show what a moron liar he is.. This is my favorite "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68) What a moron.
http://www.fair.o...age=1895
This quote is damn good also.."Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)I love this one, a complete lie made up on the spot.
Lastly the IPCC report took 6 years, had 1250 Phd authors, and 2500 field specific expert reviewers. But I should believe you when you say "You do realize that radiative forcing is not applied correctly by the IPCC". hurmmm Why are you right and they are wrong?
In this link
http://www.agu.or.../6.shtml
Chylek and Wong state that the radiative forcing formula should be limited to small optical depths, not world wide predictions.
Explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.
In doing so, stick to the physics; quoting the ditto-head meister & his ilk will not suffice.
Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.
To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.
If you read the paper I linked you'd realize that the above is a "nuh uh" argument. Read the paper, if you can dispute it with substantiated fact I'll withdraw.
Read the paper.
Not when the models used to calulate it are flawed and simplistic. Truth is, we don't know enough about the earth's climate systems to make the suppositions that the IPCC and subsidiaries make. When you guys toss around terms like radiative forcing, ensure you know what it actually means. Radiative forcing is well defined above and the official definition is nothing like what you purport it to be. You're missing 90% of what radiative forcing actually does.
As for you excalibur. How do I dodge the question if I answer it directly and provide a paper released by IPCC scientists where they state themselves that the facts and figures on Radiative forcing as released by the IPCC are wrong.
Your argument is the equivalent of Newton announcing his theory for gravity and you saying, no, the glue on the bottom of our shoes holds us down.
Refute the papers I've linked with current and accurate data or admit defeat.
And the post you linked here, the "best answer" also says you're wrong about the extend of radiative forcing. Although he disputes Motl's math he does the math out showing a mean temp increase assuming no negative radiative forcing, of .9 celsius if atmospheric carbon was to reach 590ppm. Do you realize how much CO2 that is? It's an astonomical amount, we don't have the capability to affect that change within the next thousand years with our current technology. That and you're still discounting the negative feedback mechanisms.
http://igloo.atmo...sh?fm=08&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=29&sy=2008
You may have to copy and paste site... physorg not working right
Just copy and paste into your browser...
igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=29&sy=2008
copy and paste into browser...
Using USGS data, the amount of volcanic CO2 is about 1-2% of that released by man.
"[...]or the entire pacific northwest's common decay process."
Irrelevant; it is offset by an almost equal capture of CO2 by photosynthesis.
Its melting is caused by infra-red radiation from mass, such as land, sea and air.
And since we cultivate so much farmland and use higher concentrations of CO2 on those crops that balances us out doesn't it.
Anyone else ever look at the IPCC chart for AGW radiative forcing? They list aerosols on the chart, which are purely man made as having a negative RF index. Yet they only account the human made CO2 in their figures for raditive forcing. So even in their exaggerated charts and graphs they show an inability to explain themselves or interpret data. It's is intellectual mistreatment, DKA, Excalibur, anyone else who's firmly in the AGW camp, I feel bad for you guys. I'd demand some serious answers if I were you.
Secondly, it seems the only truly open-minded thing to say about AGW is that it has not been proven but there are compelling arguments on both sides. And if you aren't open-minded then, really, what's the point in a debate? Also, let's all be humble and realize that as humans we have been fooled at nearly every step of our collective lives. The Earth looks just complex enough to do it again...
MikeB
"why they named the Northwest Passage"
This has been discussed and you where proven wrong and still Co2 causes temperatures to increase so stop this non-sense or prove your point.
Velanarris, where did you get the idea that aerosols are purely man made?
http://cloudbase....Aero.htm
As far as CO2 forcing is concerned, the connection between CO2 levels and global temperature is still a theory. It hasn't been proven (probably because the system is too complicated) but historical data shows that natural CO2 levels have been as high a 7000PPM during the Cambrian era. At that time the global average was around 22 degrees C. Since then the CO2 levels have dropped sharply but the temperature seems to vary between 12 and 22 degrees. http://www.geocra...ate.html
What are the controlling factors? Until we know that AGW is a very shaky theory.
Most of that CO2 is just released back into the atmosphere when the crop remnants rot. A small fraction is locked up in the soil as humus and other organic compounds for a longer period of time.
Plants show a preference for the lighter carbon-12 isotope in their CO2 uptake. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere is dropping as one would expect if the carbon released is primarily from plants and not physical processes or geological processes. Since farming(on existing crop land) is a carbon-sink and forrest cover isn't changing noticably for non-human reasons that leaves some combination of land-use changes and the burning of fossil fuels(old plants) as prime candidates for much of the increase in CO2.
Given that the death toll of coal burning is some 30 000 deaths/year in the US alone according to the EPA, which is about an order of magnitude worse than the death toll of the Chernobyl disaster, I can't see any justification to keep using coal-power in OECD even before you include the CO2-emissions. Nor can I see any reason to just let underground coal fires keep burning for decades or even centuries without serving any purpose. Nor does it make sense to drain peat bogs(which hold an enormous amount of carbon that cannot decompose as fast as it is added as long as the bog is wet and anaerobic) or destroy rainforrest just to grow biodiesel. Can we at least agree on this?
Or increasing.
Arctic sea ice extent will be more this year than last year. The trend is up.
Two data points are probably not enough to base a trend analysis on.
But then again I don't think that 30 years of satellite data is enough either.
I think it may just be a case of wait and see, and if some of the predictions are true we won't have to wait too long. If it melts it's climate change, if it doesn't its natural variation. Lets give it five years.
If you truly understood radiative forcing you'd know that ANY decrease in transparency at IR wavelengths, due to ANY CAUSE, that does not also cause an off-setting decrease in transparency at supra-IR wavelengths, MUST, for any body with an albedo less than 100%, result in a rise in temperature of that body.
If you read the article you would see that artic ice is at its second lowest coverage with a cuple weeks more of loss before it starts growing. So your statement that artic ice is increasing seems pretty disigenous.
regarding your degrees, I would like to congratulate you. It would seem you are an intelligent guy....
...No...
...I'm kidding....
You see, based on your ramblings (which reflect the thought process of a 15 yo kid), I would have to make a rather safe assumption that **you are BS'ing us**
I would not even go into discussion about your theories for "increased solar activity" bc a freshman year physics student could explain the sun-atmosphere-surface energy budget (Atmospheric Physics 101). That makes you a bad scientist. That's OK.
Believing, though, that Katrina-magnitude hurricanes occuring every 3-years as well as the frequency and magnitude of hurricanes in the recent years is normal, that makes YOU ignorant and REST OF US AGITATED.
Inductively, I would have to assert that your "Marco-Polo-and-the-hunt-for-penguins" history thesis has the same scientific validity as your physics degree.
That is 1st year lab/paper physics. An increase in the temperature also increases the outgoing IR emissions (also 1st year physics.) But what about outgoing radiation in the microwave region? Those would also go up and would transfer energy, albeit at a lower rate that IR and visible.
Another offsetting factor would be high altitude cloud formation which would raise the Earth's albedo.
Affects wavelengths that are below the absorption spectrum of CO2.
Dear Hyperspaced,
A climate theory 101 student would know that radiative forcing is being improperly applied and the IPCC definition is bogus.
In regard to category 4 or 5 hurricanes formed in the same waters as Katrina the measurment are as such:
http://www.wunder...at45.gif
from http://www.wunder...ster.asp
On the above linked page is also the storm formation for the pacific and indian oceans as well. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes have not increased, and the data being used for both hurricane formation theory and for AGW do not have enough pertinent data or a long enough timescale to support the underlying hypothesis for AGW. Current AGW budgeting and funding is a knee jerk reaction by the masses because they "feel bad." It's a social redirection, much like a cult or religion.
Just because people don't believe in your AGW God, doesn't mean you should attempt to crucify them with half truths and twisted definitions.
In 30 years or so you'll all feel a bit silly when they completely revise the theory to state the opposite effect is happening, much like they did in the 70's.
It's simple green guilt, and you've all fallen for it. I can't help you guys, you'll have to help yourselves. Meanwhile I'll sit back and watch you guys waste money and resources while you make commodities too expensive for typical consumers and lower the quality of life for the middle and lower classes with ridiculous laws and insane taxation.
The facts are out there guys, you just refuse to read them objectively, and unfortunately the one thing I can't do is help someone think for themselves. You don't need a degree to do that, just some common sense.
Sometimes when faced with a non-problem, one must have the courage to do nothing.
Your argument here is completely invalid. IR being absorbed by CO2 happens within 10 meters from the origination. If you double the amount of CO2 it would happen at 9.7 meters. If human beings completely ceased creating CO2 it would happen at 10.3 meters. Meaning that the amount of CO2 has no effect on IR as you claim it does.
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
Basic spectrometry.
Where does that absorbed radiant energy go? Do you thing that it just disappears?
And, what is the relevance of WHERE the IR energy is absorbed with respect to the consequence of its not being re-radiated into space?
No wonder you're so far off base; you're reading junk science!
Simple, you say adding more CO2 traps more IR and hence radiative forcing is why carrbon is so bad for the environment, but, CO2 levels have zero discernable effect on the atmosphere's IR absorption.
Nope, it's the full results of your pet radiative forcing when applied to supraIR and CO2. So now what aspect of the IPCC claims are you going to go with to prove your point?
To say that the IR energy is "convected away" avoids admitting that the thermal energy is still present, warming its surrounds.
You are a charlatan, employing sophistry for lack of erudition.
Difference is convection is exactly how the excess energy escapes to space, where your Radiative Forcing is a complete lie.
Excalibur is correct; you really are a charlatan.
You and Excalibur are the same person so your support is moot. However, your point of reradiation is valid with one caveat.
More CO2 does not increase the amount of energy trapped by the atmosphere as proven by the basic priciples of climatological spectrometry.
Now as for convection, when the CO2 absorbs the energy being a gas it expands and becomes lighter than gasses that don't as readily absorb the same energy like NO2 and O2. The CO2 then rises as dictated by thermodynamics. As the CO2 rises it releases the energy into the surrounding colder higher atmospheric gasses. This continues to occur until the energy reaches the upper troposphere at which point in time the molecules are either excited enough to leave the atmosphere and glide off into space carrying the energy with them, or they release the energy in the form of IR and other wavelengths. The IR is radiated fairly evenly in all directions, which at the troposphere will be mainly into space.
Convection is the correct answer.
I have been unable to find any references to climatological spectrometry on the internet, can you tell me what the basic principles are?
I have no degrees so I hope you can help me understand.
I%u2019m having a few problems with you explanation of convection. If lighter gasses rise as dictated by thermodynamics why doesn%u2019t all the oxygen with a molecular weight of 16 and nitrogen with a molecular weight of 14 float off into space leaving all the carbon dioxide (molecular weight 22) behind?
Also why is the top of the troposphere cooler than the bottom if that is where all the warm CO2 is?
Otherwise known as radiative forcing. Basic explanation:
When sunlight hits the earth it is absorbed and re-radiated as infrared. Certain gasses will absorb frequencies within this band, collectively known as black body radiation. When this energy is absorbed by the molecule then the molecule excites, like giving a 5 year old a glass of sugar rich cola. Since all molecules will attempt to shed excess energy and reach the lowest possible stable state this energy will be re-radiated until the molecule reaches stable equilibrium with it's surroundings.
The premise of greenhouse gasses are that they capture black body radiation and keep it within our atmosphere, which is accurate. I am not saying the greenhouse effect does not exist, for if it didn't we wouldn't be here, the Earth would go from extreme heat to extreme cold much like the moon or other planets.
Now CO2's absorption potential in our current atmosphere is exhausted at about 10 meters according to empirical data and experimentation results. That means that within 10 meters of origin, in this case the ground we're standing on, all the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 has been absorbed by CO2. So basically about head level of an average adult standing on the third floor of a building.
Where the IPCC and the actual definition differ is here. The IPCC suggests that adding more CO2 will trap more IR when the truth is adding more CO2 shortens the distance at which IR is completely absorbed.
Since our baseline is 10 meters and CO2 has a logarithmic IR absorption ratio then doubling CO2 would cut the distance in which total absorption occurs to 5 meters. Doubling it again to 2.5 meters. And again 1.25.
Now conversely if you cut CO2 in half the distance changes to 20 meters, up from 10. In half again 40 meters.
Now the Earth is located 16 km deep in the troposphere. So 16000 meters. If our current co2 content is about 290 ppm then in order for IR absorbed on CO2's wavelengths to escape the troposphere we would have to reduce CO2 levels of the Earth to 0.28 ppm or less.
Here's the problem. Human CO2 contribution to the Earth's atmosphere is estimated as low as .023% and up to 3%. That means that at a high estimate we are responsible for 8.4 ppm C02.
If the human race vanished today and all of the human driven causes for Co2 ceased to exist then the Co2 content would be between 271.6 and 281.6ppm
A drop in the bucket.
Now here's the kicker that environmentalists don't want you to know. CO2 is actually very, very good for the environment. Plants use it to grow, when faced with an abundance of it, they grow larger and become more productive. for example the megaflora before the last big ice age. With increased plant activity brings more ecological niches for species to develop.
In regard to the ocean and CO2. CO2 and calcium carbonate are in balance due to the alkalinity of the ocean and the acidity of carbonic acid. The more Co2 in the air the more calcium carbonate is created in the ocean as it sinks CO2 to reach neutrality. Calcium carbonate is the material that most marine life use to make their shells, for example snails and corals. So the snails and corals are taking more abundant calcium carbonate out of the ocean and multiplying, meaning there are even more snails and corals making the oceans more alkaline, allowing the ocean to sink more CO2. The animals that prey on those are faced with an abundance of food since now there's more calcium carbonate there's more snails and corals to eat, the fish eat those intermediary predators, we eat the fish. More fish, fewer hungry people.
Now seeing as a lot of our ecological and social woes are related to the great loss of marine life, the great loss of plant life, and the costs imposed upon the people by these new CO2 friendly practices does it really make sense to hamstring our ability to progress using naturally abundant fossil fuels if in restricting CO2 output we're doing nothing more than stroking our own green egos?
I'd say it's pretty stupid to do what a bunch of politicians operating under the guise of science say to do when there is no proof for their argument, and a lot of proof contrary to their argument.
Well in order to explain this you have to realize that there are a few factors at play. First of all being quantity. Our atmosphere is about 77% NO2, 20% O2, 3% CO2, and the rest is split up for methane, aerosols, other gasses. Basically, there is no where near enough CO2 to displace all the other gasses.
Also think of it this way, why does smoke rise? It's hotter. Why does CO2 rise, it can hold more energy than O2 or NO2.
The atmosphere is layered, if you go far enough into the atmosphere you'll find the temp rises, where in the stratosphere the heat can be as high as 2200 degrees. This layer of atmosphere is so thin that the energy is easily radiated off into space.
Because energy exchange between the troposphere and stratosphere is very, very rapid.
The majority of weather occurs in the troposphere. So as it rains and snows the moisture in the troposphere condenses, losing it's energy and falling to Earth. That energy is radiated up to the stratosphere and onwards to the higher layers of the atmosphere.
The temperature of the troposphere generally decreases as altitude increases. The rate at which the temperature decreases, %u2212 dT / dz, is called the lapse rate. The reason for this decrease is as follows. When a parcel of air rises, it expands, because the pressure is lower at higher altitudes. As the air parcel expands, it pushes on the air around it, doing work; but generally it does not gain heat in exchange from its environment, because its thermal conductivity is low (such a process is called adiabatic). Since the parcel does work and gains no heat, it loses energy, and so its temperature decreases. (The reverse, of course, will be true for a sinking parcel of air.)
Thank you for your quick response. I agree that 3 mins is not enough time to edit, by the time I realised that all my apostrophes came out as %u2018 it was too late to change them. So much for using Word to check my spelling!
You have given me a lot to think about, but I couldn't help noticing a few problems with the atmospheric composition you gave.
77% Nitrogen Dioxide would make for a very lively atmosphere considering the fact that it's toxic at levels below 1%. Also when you state 3% Carbon Dioxide I assume you mean 0.03%
I realise you responded very quickly so some mistakes were bound to slip through. I thought I would mention them before everybody else jumps on them and becomes abusive.
Any way, back to my studies ;-)
Ok, describe how it is a net gain.
The math is above, absorbing all the IR at 10 meters or at 9 meters makes no difference. And if there is total absorption within 1 percent of the troposphere then there is no net gain inthermal energy.
Your point doesn't make sense, could you explain how it's an increase and perhaps I'll understand where you're comming from.
Which would be exactly why all my several alt posters have posts in the same timeframe and I have from 1 to 3 5's as soon as my reply is posted.
More accurate measurements are around these numbers:
78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases
I checked a few sources on this and they're all about the same percentage-wise. My bad on that being NO2 rather than N2.
No it wasn't. Where is the extra energy comming from if CO2 is totally absorbing all available energy at 0.0038ppm
All different gases absorb radiation at different wave lengths,so none can absorb all the energy falling on them.They then DO NOT re-radiate this energy,they radiate it at a different wave length to which it was absorbed.
As the radiation is in all directions,only a small amount goes down to the surface,the rest goes up into space or heats the surounding gases that will accept that wawelength.That is why the IPCC "Greenhouse Gas" models predicted a "hotspot" at (I think) about 5 Km in the tropics as the tropospere temp was predicted to increase faster than the surface temp.
The IPCC admitted they could not find this "hotspot".
Also,any gas absorbing radiation and not radiating all the energy down means some incoming radiation does not reach the surface,thus causing possible cooling.
Just a thought from a non-scientist.....
That energy is re-radiated when an electron falls back to a lower ALLOWABLE energy orbit.
As the ALLOWABLE orbits are fixed, the wavelengths of the re-radiated energy are precisely the same as the absorbable wavelengths.
Since said radiation is omni-directional, precisely HALF ONLY is directed upward.
And, the "other gases" DO NOT ABSORB THE SAME WAVELENGTHS as is absorbed/re-radiated by CO2, as their allowable electron orbital energies differ from that of CO2.
Therein lies the problem.
Argument from authority? Where's your logic Mr. Spock?
There is NO EXTRA ENERGY.
The IR energy absorbed by CO2 is RE-RADIATED AS IR.
Ah yes, so if half is always being radiated upwards and no other gasses capture that reradiated energy then heat is in fact escaping the atmosphere. Right so more CO2 won't make a difference. Now you understand where I'm comming from, make sense now that you've argued against AGW?
Exactly right, that's why the IPCC non-scientists have zero credibility.
Sorry you don't get a pass that easy, no one mentioned the "Physical Laws of the Universe" (which BTW scientists still haven't totally figured out) you're bigoted statement was aimed directly at the fact that he was not a scientist, thereby employing the logical FALLACY of argument from authority.
I don't know why you just cant man up and admit to your mistake. Can't you handle someone pointing out the flaws in the logic of YOUR arguments?
To the contrary, EVEN LESS IR ENERGY WILL ESCAPE, as half of that absorbed by the increased level of CO2 will be re-radiated downward.
Which does nothing to add to the credibility of the scientifically ignorant here.
As for Logic, you've yet to demonstrate either any flaws in my statements, or employ it in support of yours.
BTW, the logical fallacy which you falsely accuse me of is not "argumentum ad verecundiam," but "argumentum ad hominem." Get your fallacies straight.
Unless you're suggesting that your statement meant something other than his arguments were false because he wasn't an AUTHORITY on the subject...in this case a scientist. Which we all know was indeed the case and therefore you're quite guilty of using the logical fallacy.
Challanging ones lack of experise is NOT argumentum ad verecundiam.
And, your claim was that I made exhibited bigotry toward him. That would be argumentum ad hominem.
In any case, your mention of such, while avoiding the Science here involved, or identifying any particular Logical or Scientific flaws in my statements, is red herring intended as diversion.
To his credit, and unlike youreself, Velanarris seems to at least be making an effort at understanding the Physics here involved.
Modernmystic, I don't see any valid argument in you comment about global warming.
How many years before the ice will be melted enough to cause extended damages, put New York and the East cost under sea level as well as many more very populated regions around the globe. The mega trillions on dollars at stake, the priceless costs of so many lives, the costs of migrations, the impact on nature, on the oceans temperatures would also cause the Antarctic melt to be un-stoppable (if it is not the case already).
Where did you hear that? For energetic changes of the type your describing (normally in the visible and higher energy levels) incoming photons can elevate an electron more that one (allowable) energy level. When it falls back to it's base state it can emit one photon (of the same wavelength as the incoming) or more than one (with the wavelength depending on the energy level(s) dropped. Even that is an extream simplification (it's been a few decades since my chemistry and nuclear physics classes) which can allow for what they call 'fine structure' and 'splitting'.
Just take a look at bright-line spectra for an example of this.
Not entirely correct. The emission of the excess energy can, and often is, at a lower frequency. So energy received as IR can be shed at microwave (or lower) frequencies. This is why visible and UV radiation are absorbed by the earth's surface and reradiated in the IR spectra.
The emission frequency will be determined by the mode of absorption. IR is normally turned in to kinetic motion, the exact same mechanism as when you boil water. In this case the frequencies absorbed or emitted depend on the molecular bond lengths. This also means that other compounds with bonds of they same length/strength are going to absorb at the same wavelength. Add to this that some atomic species are radicals (CO , O3-, etc.) the absorptions under different curcumstances (at night or during a solar storm) are different.
Already addressed. This easily demonstrated to be false. If you look at the simplest specta (Hydrogen) you will easily find 3 spectral lines. If you want a simple explanation try:
http://hyperphysi....html#c1
and
http://hyperphysi....html#c4
1) Other gases do absorb and re-radiate as CO2. Even CO2 will emit at multiple wavelengths. One study of CO2 absorption found around 140 lines between 9230/nm and 9520/nm. This site (http://brneurosci...o2.html) shows the absorption of O2 O3, CO2, and H2O from microwave through ultraviolet.
2) Reradiation will not be uniform. The higher altitude CO2 will end up radiating more to space since anything going towards the ground will come back to it (sooner or later.)
3) I think the point Velanarris is trying to make is that, if the path is long enough it dosen't make much difference the concentration of CO2 is. Once it blocks the IR from getting to the far end any increase in the concentration has minimal effect (I'd say no effect but Murphy like me too much...).
That is exactly correct. Using the AGW approved method for determined retained heat energy the math supports equilibrium above 0.0038ppm CO2, meaning unless we eradicate all plant and living material on the planet, we will not be able to make a substantive difference in thermal energy trapped by CO2.
Find a new culprit for AGW, stop taxing people unnecesarily, and reduce power and business costs.
The AGW movement may be right about AGW existing but their logic and suspects are invalid up to this point. Simple past environmental conditions prove it, and making up reasons to ignore that data is tom foolery.
Like I said, I'm not saying AGW doesn't exist, I'm saying it has not been proven, and the current knee jerk reactionary measures are harming the planet more than they help.
I don't see that happening. The antartic land based ice sheets are becomming thicker overall due to increased precipitation over the past decade. The ice sheets of the artic and other water based or sea ice are melting at an extraordinary rate. Yes there are a lot of glaciated regions recording retreats in glaciers but there are also many advancing ice packs world wide. I don't see sea level rise being as drastic as that of Al Gore's predictions. Even the IPCC scientific panel has begun taking on a more conservative estimate of sea level rise due to their refinement of models in recent months.
A lot of the ice that's melting is already supported by the ocean, and like an ice cube in a glass of water, it won't cause a sea level rise as the ice is already displacing the mass of the water.
It is time you do some homeworks, West Antarctic is meling and this is very scary. I am glad you raise the point. It is a very important matter.
Here's why:
http://wattsupwit...tic-ice/
Yay plate tectonics. Wasn't it you who said that wasn't accurate? Looks like AGW is not the cause.
One cause for global warming, another for antarctica to melt, and oh! by the way, other reasons as well for California to become warmer and the arctic to melt. all this is quite complicated. I prefer Co2 as a common cause since there is a very very strong correlations between all of these. But you are free to think differently if you need a 99.999999999% confirmation that Co2 is the cause while, and if, you are happy with some odd theories about multiple un-related causes for all the different effects of global warming.
Which simply means that the possible wavelengths of the re-radiated photons are the same as those of the absorbable photons. You've simply re-stated my rebuttal of mikiwud.
Read CAREFULLY and you'll see that I said "absorbABLE," not "absorbed."
Wrong; microwave is a HIGHER FREQUENCY, i.e SHORTER WAVELENGTH.
Irrelevant to the specific matter at hand, i.e. the absorption and re-radiation of IR by CO2.
Irrelevant, as we are discussing the absorbtion & re-radiation of IR, at the wavelengths absorbed/re-radiated by CO2, not other wavelengths to which CO2 is transparent.
And, to the extent that any other molecule might absorb/re-radiate at a wavelength precisely equal to that of CO2, then it has the same effect as does CO2.
The RE-radiation of any given CO2 molecule will be omnidirectional; it will NOT show a directional preference based on altitude. Claims to the latter effect will require stingent proof.
Were it the case that IR were not re-radiated, then there would be a level at which true saturation is reached. Howver, as there is re-radiation, then any increase in the CO2 level results in a marginal additional amount of IR energy being absorbed and re-radiated Earthward rather than into space.
Past causes and effects prove nothing re. causes of current effects; current causes are NOT constrained to being any of those past.
Even worse is carefully selecting data that is, on its face, invalid owing to its being rebutted by known and fully understood Physical Laws.
Claims of data that violates said Laws is known as Junk Science.
That would cast every paper that the IPCC reviewed and included as source work in their first and second reviews due to the fact that wild claims of temperature increase based of modeling with no experimentation were taken as fact rather than creative data extrapolation.
Well trying to claim man made CO2 is the culprit when there are far more probably disjointed reasons is a far weaker stance as the observations, data, and past precidence strengthen my arguments, and the science of IR re-radiation, natural albedo, and sea level rise modeling weaken your stance due to their lack of substantial evidence.
I've based my stance on fact, you've based yours on supposition and computer generated modeling using falsified and estimated varibles.
But by saying there isn't an equal amount that is re-radiated towards space that otherwise wouldn't be ignores omnidirectional re-radiation.
Not to mention that you're ignoring the convection and condensation mechanics.
Microwave is at a lower frequency (longer wavelength) than IR, Visible, or UV. Energy absorbed from higher frequencies can be reemitted at the same or lower frequencies.
Any other gas molecule that absorbs the same frquency will appear the same. The heavy ones will need to absorb more IR energy to reach the same temperature as CO2 would but, like centripedal accelleration and gravity, they will be pretty much the same.
I agree the re-radiation will be omnidirectional. Looking at the issue from a physics prespective, you add heat to the system. As it gets hotter it also radiates more. Any energy reflected back in to the system will also add to the radiation leaving the system.
This rates 2 responses:
1) At night, with no IR coming in, there will be increased radiation in to space of what was absorbed. Atmosphere motion will carry the cooled air around the world very rapidly.
2) There is still a saturation level at which the incoming and outgoing energies balance. Otherwise how did the earth cool down from when the CO2 levels were around 1800ppm? What were the day and night time temperatures? How did it recover from the irreversible greenhouse effect?
Data without an adequate understanding of the underlying physical principles is not knowledge.
Even worse is carefully selecting data that is, on its face, invalid owing to its being rebutted by known and fully understood Physical Laws.
Claims of data that violates said Laws is known as Junk Science.
No, it was not.
To the contrary, you've based your case on carefully selected data, and a mis-understanding or un-understanding of the relevant Physics.
That claim assumes facts not in evidence, and is quite false. All of my statements are derivable from the Laws of Physics themselves. None rely on either computer models or data of the sort here under discussion.
Once again you ignore the fact the CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. are NOT TRANSPARENT to IR. Therefore, less than 100% or the re-radiated IR reaches a level where even 50% of it can be re-radiated into space.
Firstly, such is irrelevant to the issue of radiative forcing.
Secondly, your claims re. such mechanisms serving to counter-balance radiative forcing require of the carrier gases a most peculiar property, i.e. that they absorb IR at low altitudes only, and re-radiate such at high altitudes only. I look forward to your both 1) identifying this mysterious mechanism, and 2) providing proof that such exists.
However, Earth's equivalent black body temperature is such that virtually all of the energy re-radiated by it is in the IR band.
Relevance? If they absorb any wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, they contribute to radiative forcing.
That which is reflected back into the system is NOT wholly re-radiated out of the system. By way of analogy, take a look at resonant circuits, such as LC tanks or antennae, and see how they behave at other than their resonance frequencies and/or under impedance mis-matches.
Whether the body is wholly or partially illuminated, is or is not rotating, is irrelevant to radiative forcing.
Saturation and equilibrium are 2 entirely different things.
As the level of saturation of "greenhouse" gases rises, the radiation balance changes due to radiative forcing, the radiated body's temperature increases, and the amount of energy re-radiated by that body increases. IF the reflectivity of the body remains constant, AND IF the influx of radiation is constant, AND IF the level of radiative forcing is less than 100%, THEN the body will eventually reach a new & higher equilibrium temperature.
That past periods have shown CO2 and temperature levels that appear to defy radiative forcing owes to the fact that neither the influx of solar energy nor Earth's albedo have remained constant.
But, the influx of solar radiation is NOT increasing, and has not been increasing for some time.
Yet another false claim, one that ignores the positive feedback loop between radiative forcing, the resulting rise in temperature, which results in increased thawing of tundra, thus releasing CH4 & CO2, along with increased melting of snow & white ice, thus decreasing the amount of short wave radiation reflected & the atmosphere's transmissivity to IR, thus increasing radiative forcing, ad infinitum.
You waited that long to post this?
Especially seeing as you're fond of tossing "radiative forcing" around with little knowledge of how it actually works.
Uncalled for, funny, but uncalled for.
No that's not true. My stance on radiative forcing goes by the definition of what it is.
Radiative forcing is the net gain or loss of energy at the tropopause measured in Watts per square meter.
Your definition appears to be:
The net change in thermal average caused by gasses in the troposphere measured in degrees Celsius.
Your definition is how the process is described by the IPCC and it's only 1/2 of the equation. It ignores all physical processes that generate energy loss at the tropopause by stating that "something" happens in the upper atmosphere that makes human based positive feedback occur outside of the norm, when the truth is and change made in the troposphere can be measured at the tropopause. As heat contained goes up so must heat lost at the tropopause otherwise you'll observe a runaway heating effect that would be measured in degrees C per day, not per year or per decade due to how intense the effect would occur.
If you look at the charts supplimenting the first and second IPCC reports, (it's the fancy one that shows net irradiance caused by GHGs) they ignore the negative feedback loops propsed by the chart due to the presence of aerosols and supplant that humans are causing a 13 degree C change in net irradiance.
How exactly does one cause a change in net irradiance and then measure it in degrees C? It's a huge leap and it shows that the equations are not being used appropriately.
Ex, you're a smart guy from what I've seen, even you know that a lot of the figures touted by the supporters of AGW are off base.