|
|
Post by graywolf on Jun 27, 2013 11:36:30 GMT
Ho Hum, You're funny icefisher.....
Well let's all wait to see what jan 12th brings us eh?
With a VEI5's worth of comet dust ( and every year after?) being deposited into the upper strat maybe the 'recoveristsa' will get their wish?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2013 18:48:27 GMT
Ho Hum, You're funny icefisher..... Well let's all wait to see what jan 12th brings us eh? With a VEI5's worth of comet dust ( and every year after?) being deposited into the upper strat maybe the 'recoveristsa' will get their wish? Comet dust! LOL! Warmism is rapidly deteriorating into UFO territory! The only truth here is we know nothing about comet dust or much of anything else about the atmosphere. And on that topic, what we know about the oceans is even worse. Fact is if there were not a grand convection loop in the oceans like is known to exist in the atmosphere, the ocean bottoms would be warmer than the surface. Of all the geophysical features on this planet, it seems to me the Arctic sea ice cap is the most significant feature in the oceans that would be capable of moderating and creating variability in a the grand convection loop. Probably the second most significant feature is precipitation over the arctic sea and precipitation runoff into the sea. Dr Syun Akasofu has it right, we need to understand natural variability in order to understand anthropogenic effects. But the politics of warmism has actually blocked a lot of research into natural variability. Scientists see the political polarization and don't comment on it as their paychecks are tied to political goodwill. Honest scientists were fired by Al Gore when he took office and that froze up free thinking on the topic every bit as much as the Pope putting Galileo under house arrest. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 28, 2013 4:45:47 GMT
Has anyone noticed temperature is no longer an important metric for Arctic ice melt? I have. That is, that sea surface atmospheric temperature is not it. The air is not where heat cones from that matters in melting this ice. The heat of most relevance involves solar irradiance in the arctic (this energy goes predominantly into the water up there), but it substantially augmented by heat in the water coming up from the south. Air temps are not a big factor, due to physics. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 28, 2013 7:03:08 GMT
Has anyone noticed temperature is no longer an important metric for Arctic ice melt? I have. That is, that sea surface atmospheric temperature is not it. The air is not where heat cones from that matters in melting this ice. The heat of most relevance involves solar irradiance in the arctic (this energy goes predominantly into the water up there), but it substantially augmented by heat in the water coming up from the south. Air temps are not a big factor, due to physics. Hope this helps. Check! Got that! The air does not substantially melt the ice. So the extra solar irradiance to melt the ice must be from fewer clouds. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 28, 2013 7:08:24 GMT
Has anyone noticed temperature is no longer an important metric for Arctic ice melt? I have. That is, that sea surface atmospheric temperature is not it. The air is not where heat cones from that matters in melting this ice. The heat of most relevance involves solar irradiance in the arctic (this energy goes predominantly into the water up there), but it substantially augmented by heat in the water coming up from the south. Air temps are not a big factor, due to physics. Hope this helps. Have you got a reference to show that the energy of the sun goes predominantly into the water? Ice and snow only reflect a subset of the suns total energy mostly in the uv and visible light region, and the sun is low in the sky and more high energy wavelengths will be reflected than low energy wavelengths I would have thought?? Are there any studies to quantify the amount of energy from various sources received by various objects in the arctic? I think there is probably a significant lack of science on the topic to really be confidant what goes on up there. |
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jun 28, 2013 17:47:54 GMT
So none of yuz is up to speed on what NASA have to offer on our passage through the tail of Ison from Jan 12th ( and following week)?
We already know the importance of 'cosmic dust/Meteor debris on the formation of Noctilucent clouds and we know of the impacts of oxidising CH4 in the upper strat. to produce the H2O to allow the clouds to form?
Ison is currently dropping 120.000lbs of dust a minute whilst out beyond mars orbit so by the time she gets into our orbit ( and beyond for the dust blown back on the solar wind) we can only guess at the amount of debris we will encounter as we sweep through the tail over the week follow Jan 12th? As an aside it unprecedented that we should have such a 'global ' coverage with both the dust following the comet and the dust blown back by the solar wind hitting us at the same time.
So if large terrestrial eruptions can cause 'cooling' from the impacts of dust in the upper atmosphere them what of this little doozy? ( and are we in for a yearly treat as with other 'meteor showers'that are generated by comet debris?)
On the 'meteor shower' meme, why shouldn't we also encounter larger fragments that ablate from the comet's core as she sweeps in for her sun graze ( and those after her 'close encounter'?). Could we see such a shower , over that week mimic the ejector re-entry after a larger terrestrial impact and warm the atmosphere?
|
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 28, 2013 20:34:22 GMT
Has anyone noticed temperature is no longer an important metric for Arctic ice melt? I have. That is, that sea surface atmospheric temperature is not it. The air is not where heat cones from that matters in melting this ice. The heat of most relevance involves solar irradiance in the arctic (this energy goes predominantly into the water up there), but it substantially augmented by heat in the water coming up from the south. Air temps are not a big factor, due to physics. Hope this helps.
Thank you for your helpful help!
And thanks for your insightful insight in letting us know that "air temps are not a big factor, due to physics."
Man. The things you learn when you're a PhD. Amazing.
A question if I may: I know you're the "Arctic Amplification" guru around here. Does the term "Arctic Amplification" never include air temperatures?
One more question: If Arctic air temps were ABOVE normal (rather than below normal where they have been for a good number of weeks), THEN would air temps be a "big factor?" You know, due to physics? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 30, 2013 3:04:19 GMT
I have. That is, that sea surface atmospheric temperature is not it. The air is not where heat cones from that matters in melting this ice. The heat of most relevance involves solar irradiance in the arctic (this energy goes predominantly into the water up there), but it substantially augmented by heat in the water coming up from the south. Air temps are not a big factor, due to physics. Hope this helps.
Thank you for your helpful help!
And thanks for your insightful insight in letting us know that "air temps are not a big factor, due to physics."
Man. The things you learn when you're a PhD. Amazing.
A question if I may: I know you're the "Arctic Amplification" guru around here. Does the term "Arctic Amplification" never include air temperatures?
One more question: If Arctic air temps were ABOVE normal (rather than below normal where they have been for a good number of weeks), THEN would air temps be a "big factor?" You know, due to physics?throttleup, The relevant physics here are about a phenomenon known as heat capacity. (Actually throttleup, I learned this very basic physics in high school). But, whatever, we can gather that you never took any course in physics at any level, fair enough. Nevertheless, the heat capacity of water is much higher than the heat capacity of air. I suggest that before you go spouting off to the forum about physics, you get your basic facts straight. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 30, 2013 3:11:29 GMT
To elaborate, most of the heat in the climate system is contained in the oceans (>90%). Most of the heat being added to the climate system by global warming is going into the oceans. Most of the melting of the Arctic is due to this addded heat.
Arctic amplification also plays a role.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 30, 2013 3:20:50 GMT
To elaborate, most of the heat in the climate system is contained in the oceans (>90%). Most of the heat being added to the climate system by global warming is going into the oceans. Most of the melting of the Arctic is due to this addded heat. Arctic amplification also plays a role. You need to parse that into components of the "climate system" Tstat. We have the sun and the air, anything else? Its hard to see any elaboration in your statement as we have already covered both. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 30, 2013 3:21:50 GMT
To elaborate, most of the heat in the climate system is contained in the oceans (>90%). Most of the heat being added to the climate system by global warming is going into the oceans. Most of the melting of the Arctic is due to this addded heat. Arctic amplification also plays a role. You need to parse that into components of the "climate system" Tstat. We have the sun and the air, anything else? Its hard to see any elaboration in your statement as we have already covered both. Or am I mistaking revelation for obfuscation? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 30, 2013 3:44:39 GMT
So, whatever, we get to the end of June 2013 and people wonder what is up with the Arctic Sea Ice. Excellent question. Answer is time will tell. How much ice is up there? How much heat is in the water? From current data, www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm the ice just melted a whole bunch, look at teh numbers, "http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv" |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 30, 2013 5:40:33 GMT
To elaborate, most of the heat in the climate system is contained in the oceans (>90%). Most of the heat being added to the climate system by global warming is going into the oceans. Most of the melting of the Arctic is due to this addded heat. Arctic amplification also plays a role.
Thank you for the kind-hearted insult. I probably deserved it.
Questions:
a) How can you differentiate "global warming heat" from 'regular heat' (or whatever the correct technical term is). How do see, track and measure "global warming heat" as it goes into the oceans?
b) If most of the melting of Arctic ice is due to warm oceans, then what do you mean when you say "Arctic amplification also plays a role."? Yes, the heat capacity of water is much greater than air. You are correct. But what is "Arctic amplification?"
It apparently isn't air. Air is a bit player. You said so.
It apparently isn't warm oceans as you seem to indicate Arctic amp. is a different physical process than that.
It wouldn't be solar irradiance as that's just normal everyday stuff.
So what exactly is this Arctic amplification? Your answers seem to indicate it ain't air; it ain't water... and it ain't the sun.
Is this some sort of 'thermal ether'?
Physics is hard! Thanks for your help! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 30, 2013 5:46:09 GMT
So, whatever, we get to the end of June 2013 and people wonder what is up with the Arctic Sea Ice. Excellent question. Answer is time will tell. How much ice is up there? How much heat is in the water? From current data, www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm the ice just melted a whole bunch, look at teh numbers, "http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv" I would expect thin ice to melt faster because well its thin! With global temperatures we look at "average" temperature. Why not ice? If we look at "average ice extent" we see no change since 2007. There must be an explanation for this. A proper analysis of these kinds of variables is not just look at "favored" metrics like the ice is thinner and the summer extent is lower, but look at the entire system for all seasons and try to tease out if warming continues or the thin ice is a result of past warming that has disappeared, or if extremes in diurnal and seasonal temperatures are widening when all we know about greenhouse gases is they are supposed to block sunlight, block even more IR and presumably make those temperature excursions fit into a tighter oscillation, even if the general direction might be towards warmer. Seems to me fitting to look at all fits in the data, provide explanations for why Jan to Jun ice extents are on the increase, while summer ice lows are decreasing. Confidence is not foster and suspicion is bred when all variations are not addressed logically, openly, thoroughly, and transparently, The last thing society needs is a bunch of not a very nice persons feeding them select statistics. Or as Judith Curry effectively says to Michael Mann. . . ."Man Up You Limp Wimp and give me everything you got if you got any!" |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 30, 2013 8:04:07 GMT
Thermostat
I did not notice your reference for your claim of more heat going into the water via the sun?
As i said there probably is no reference but if you have one to this basic physics it would be nice to see it.
The real world is a funny old place. Nobody can really know what will happen until we do experiments.
All part of the scientific method of course.
Do you have that reference please?
|
|
