|
Post by thermostat on Sept 24, 2012 4:41:28 GMT
Magellan,
Regarding the question of albedo, do you agree or disagree that increasing the extent of open Arctic Sea Ice water adds heat to the Arctic system, or not?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2012 4:51:58 GMT
Regarding the question of whether arctic sea ice melting would create a negative feedback, physics indicates the opposite. ie. increased arctic melting results in a positive feedback. Its clearly a mix of positive and negative feedbacks for which many feedback loops exist consisting of processes of indeterminable lengths. Short term feedback can be different than longterm feedback. You might look at some of the work Dr Roy Spencer has been doing in this area. One can certainly identify both positive and negative feedbacks. The idea that it all nets to a positive feedback is a proposition for which no evidence exists at this point in time so it stands today as pure conjecture . This should be apparent to anybody willing to do any reading that there is no scientific consensus on this topic as hard as some people try to invent one. Warmists haven't yet resorted to book burnings on the matter but they have tried just about everything short of that. Actually the best evidence of no consensus on a political charged issue is the fact that there is no legally sanctioned professional association of professional physics practitioners. Legally sanctioned associations exist for doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, building contractors, electricians, plumbers, and a lot more. Each of these professional associations arose due to support for the associations from the practitioners themselves and a political view that the work of these people was critical to the physical and financial health of their clients. Both ingredients are necessary. First there needs to be agreement that financial/physical health risks exist and second there needs to be a clear understanding in the profession that standards and people knowledgeable of those standards are identifiable. If the professionals themselves do not agree on standards, that means either standards are unimportant/undesirable or that standards are presently too difficult to define, or both. And if the professionals see the issues as unneeded/undesirable or undefinable who the heck would set the standards? Netiher ingredient currently exists in climate science. Yet you seem to disagree. Perhaps you could explain why you feel compelled to invoke a phony concept of consensus climate physics? Is it because you don't respect your own opinion? Is it because you are afraid? Is it because you are a PIM fairy? Or are you another kind of fairy known as a troll?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 24, 2012 5:03:20 GMT
Regarding the question of whether arctic sea ice melting would create a negative feedback, physics indicates the opposite. ie. increased arctic melting results in a positive feedback. Its clearly a mix of positive and negative feedbacks for which many feedback loops exist consisting of processes of indeterminable lengths. Short term feedback can be different than longterm feedback. You might look at some of the work Dr Roy Spencer has been doing in this area. One can certainly identify both positive and negative feedbacks. The idea that it all nets to a positive feedback is a proposition for which no evidence exists at this point in time so it stands today as pure conjecture . This should be apparent to anybody willing to do any reading that there is no scientific consensus on this topic as hard as some people try to invent one. Warmists haven't yet resorted to book burnings on the matter but they have tried just about everything short of that. Actually the best evidence of no consensus on a political charged issue is the fact that there is no legally sanctioned professional association of professional physics practitioners. Legally sanctioned associations exist for doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, building contractors, electricians, plumbers, and a lot more. Each of these professional associations arose due to support for the associations from the practitioners themselves and a political view that the work of these people was critical to the physical and financial health of their clients. Both ingredients are necessary. First there needs to be agreement that financial/physical health risks exist and second there needs to be a clear understanding in the profession that standards and people knowledgeable of those standards are identifiable. If the professionals themselves do not agree on standards, that means either standards are unimportant/undesirable or that standards are presently too difficult to define, or both. And if the professionals see the issues as unneeded/undesirable or undefinable who the heck would set the standards? Netiher ingredient currently exists in climate science. Yet you seem to disagree. Perhaps you could explain why you feel compelled to invoke a phony concept of consensus climate physics? Is it because you don't respect your own opinion? Is it because you are afraid? Is it because you are a PIM fairy? Or are you another kind of fairy known as a troll? Icefisher, The issue is scientific substance.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2012 5:23:38 GMT
Icefisher,
The issue is scientific substance.
that was the point I was making the scientific substance of climate science is insufficient for standards. . . . an opinion obviously held by both the public and the practitioners.
Of course there are a few outliers lying around here and there. . . .nutcases and whatever.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 24, 2012 5:36:08 GMT
Icefisher,
The issue is scientific substance. that was the point I was making the scientific substance of climate science is insufficient for standards. . . . an opinion obviously held by both the public and the practitioners. Of course there are a few outliers lying around here and there. . . .nutcases and whatever. Does Arctic warming cause the earth to cool? What causes what? Good question.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2012 9:22:34 GMT
Regarding the question of whether arctic sea ice melting would create a negative feedback, physics indicates the opposite. ie. increased arctic melting results in a positive feedback. Physics indicates no such thing. A person has to be capable of knowing what the typical sea ice conditions are like, and be able to do the necessary calculations and then make many assumptions and come up with a theory as to what might be possible if all their guesses are correct.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2012 16:57:18 GMT
Regarding the question of whether arctic sea ice melting would create a negative feedback, physics indicates the opposite. ie. increased arctic melting results in a positive feedback. Physics indicates no such thing. A person has to be capable of knowing what the typical sea ice conditions are like, and be able to do the necessary calculations and then make many assumptions and come up with a theory as to what might be possible if all their guesses are correct. Thermostat thrives on poetic gibberish, then makes grandiose statements and expects nobody notices his lack of references or explanation. Common sense is that when the ice is broken up from a storm as happened in 2007 (unusual winds per NASA) and again in 2012, heat is released. The sun at this time of year in the Arctic does not warm the water. So where does the heat go? Back into the ocean? I don't vote in these Arctic ice guesses, but I'd be willing to bet next year's ice extent won't be less than 2012. Thermostat, you have no idea what the physics are. Repeating the blathering opinions of Mark Serreze and other soothsayers with no evidence is just an example of appeal to authority fallacy. The following appears to be a negative feedback or at most a wash from diminishing Arctic ice. Please point out the error of their ways so we can benefit from your immense knowledge of atmospheric physics. www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051251.shtmlArctic sea ice cover has decreased dramatically over the last three decades. Global climate models under-predicted this decline, most likely a result of the misrepresentation of one or more processes that influence sea ice. The cloud feedback is the primary source of uncertainty in model simulations, especially in the polar regions. A better understanding of the interaction between sea ice and clouds, and specifically the impact of decreased sea ice on cloud cover, will provide valuable insight into the Arctic climate system and may ultimately help in improving climate model parameterizations. In this study, an equilibrium feedback assessment is employed to quantify the relationship between changes in sea ice and clouds, using satellite-derived sea ice concentration and cloud cover over the period 2000–2010. Results show that a 1% decrease in sea ice concentration leads to a 0.36–0.47% increase in cloud cover, suggesting that a further decline in sea ice cover will result in an even cloudier Arctic. It is the NAO and AMO to watch in order to view a glimpse into the future of Arctic ice behavior. When both move into the negative (cooling) phase as the PDO has done, rest assured the ice will follow suit just as it did in the Bering Sea last winter. In another ten years the focus will shift from the Arctic to the Antarctic and we'll have to endure another decades long wailing by the polar doomsdayers stuck on stupid who still won't know how the earth's climate works. I can find quotes by one Arctic "expert" saying diminishing ice cools the earth, and another "expert" saying just the opposite. "Experts" said Europe would continue to warm (winters would be a thing of the past), except when it did the opposite, so the fraudsters went into CYA mode and blamed the last several cold/snowy winters on missing Arctic ice. They make it up as they go along. So it amounts to which of the ignorant scientists one chooses to believe. Graywolf, where are the monthly Cryosat updates we all looked forward to and you guaranteed would validate PIOMAS?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2012 13:13:09 GMT
Via Throttleups interesting report on methane hydrate eating microbe colonies, I found this from the same site. www.geomar.de/en/news/article/eiszeit-an-der-oberflaeche-warmzeit-in-der-tiefe/A warmer Arctic Ocean during ice age times The sea ice in the Arctic is the top layer of the ‘halocline’, a 200-300 m thick layer of low salinity. The low salinity in this layer is due to repeated annual melting and freezing processes as well as freshwater input from the large rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean, particularly from the Siberian continent. But the halocline is also very cold, close to -2° C. In contrast, below the cold halocline the water is about +1° C due to warmer and more saline waters flowing into the Arctic Ocean from the North Atlantic.
researchers reconstructed the intermediate and deep Arctic Ocean temperature history during the past 50,000 years using geochemical proxy techniques and sediment cores from across the central Arctic Ocean. They have utilized tiny microfossils
Results show that in the last ice age, within the time span from about 50,000 and 11,000 years ago, the central Arctic Basin between 1,000 and 2,500 m water depth was occupied by a water mass that was 1–2° C warmer than in the modern Arctic
The researchers concluded that the Arctic Ocean has previously unrecognized sensitivity to climate changes over multiple timescales. This is surprising because “only 20 years ago people thought of the polar glacial ocean as a cold and perennially ice-covered region but with rather stable environmental conditions. “ says Dr. Bauch.
There is growing evidence now from marine sediment records of the Nordic Seas that “the deep water temperature in that North Polar region was actually warmer than today during a glacial period”
“our reconstructed temperatures indicate an increase over the last 150 years” Related to this there was a widely discussed and supported theory in the 1950's called the Ewing-Dunn theory that the arctic ocean was warmer during ice ages, which then caused increased snow fall and glaciation and eventually enabled the arctic Ocean to rebuild ice. The theory supposedly failed because fossil evidence did not support a warmer Arctic at any point in the last one million years.
|
|