Arctic Ice Rotten to the Core

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


What is driving that natural force?

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Wow! You must write to the Journal then. You're a genius.

If you don't have a brain, can't use it, and you are completely ignorant on the topic it is not my fault...

I even showed that in the article they CLEARLY state that there are contradictions on what they supposedly found in that study with what other evidence says...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
What new research? Has it now been shown that the ice caps are not less extensive

... Read the article... I gave an excerpt and a link to it... Do you also need someone to chew your food for you?...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
It says nothing of the sort. It says it was probably warmer in the MWP than it was 60 years ago. But that does not mean it was warmer then than it is now.

Temperatures since the 1950-1960 until now have NOT increased 1degree Celsius... Not to mention that this study was on one area of the Canadian Arctic. Other research states temperatures were even warmer in other areas...

Just like the ongoing Climate Change temperatures around the world ARE NOT UNIFORM... In some areas it is warmer than others... And people like you forget the fact that not only have warm records been set but also many COLD records have been set...

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Really? What proof do you have that it is the sun?

Even thou you are directing that question to someone else read the links I gave which state and proves the Sun's activity had been increasing during the time of the warming in the ongoing Climate Change.

In fact, here is part of the evidence which shows how the Sun['s activity has been increasing despite some people and scientists claiming it didn't.

It is known that the Sun has been more active during the ongoing Climate Change than about the last 1,000 years, and this activity has been ongoing for about 100 years until at least 2002 when Wilson's research ended.

Before posting that info, let's try to inform you as to some facts...

Variations in Total Solar Irradiance
The ACRIM I instrument was the first to clearly demonstrate that the total radiant energy emanating from the sun was not a constant, and varied in proportion to solar magnetic activity. However, the sun’s output changes so slowly and solar variability is so slight (less than 0.00425% of the total energy per year on time scales of days), that continuous monitoring by state-of-the-art instrumentation is necessary to detect changes with climate significance. Scientists theorize that as much as 25% of the 20th century anticipated global warming of the Earth may be due to changes in the sun’s energy output. Systematic changes in irradiance as little as 0.25% per century can cause the complete range of climate variations that have occurred in the past, ranging from ice ages to global tropical conditions. For example, scientists believe the "Little Ice Age" that occured in Europe in the late 17th century could have been related to the minimum in sunspot activity (and a correlated minimum in total solar irradiance) that occured during the same period.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...


Now let's read Wilson's research.

March 20, 2003 (date of web publication)

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
...
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

...
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
...

www.nasa.gov...

The above study by Wilson covered only 24 years, from 1978 until 2002, and the trend he found is that the Sun's activity had been increasing.

Now Wilson is not the only one who has been studying the Sun's activity, we know that even before 1978 the Sun's activity was also increasing.

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
...
But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.
...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Dr Solanki obviously wasn't aware of Wilson's research which is why Solanski claims that since about 1984 the Sun's activity has been constant, but in fact it hasn't.

I have also posted and proved in the past that even after 2002 the Sun's activity had been increasing, until suddenly it slowed down to a crawl which caused temperatures worldwide to dip around the end of 2005-2006.

You see, our Sun's activities are linked together in a way that when one factor is increasing, such as the Sun's magnetic storms, it means that others such as it's irradiance is increasing as well.

Major Magentic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria

...
Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

If you look at the above link, and graph you will find that the Sun's activity had been increasing until the end of 2005 when it suddenly slowed down to a crawl.

What this means is that the Sun's activity had been increasing for over 84 years to 100 years, if not longer, which means that the Sun has been one of the mayor sources of warming during the ongoing Climate Change.

Not only that but you seem to forget that when the Earth warms the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, and water vapor is 10 times worse, molecule by molecule, than CO2, not to mention that it is a lot more abundant than CO2 is, and 99.999% of it is NATURAL.

Water vapor exists in our atmosphere from 1% - 4%, but the average is 1% of the atmosphere's gases, meanwhile CO2 is 0.039% by volume. Water Vapor is far more potent than CO2, and more abundant.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Saying carbon credits are being used as an excuse to promote global warming is also silly.

First, you got it wrong, AGW is being used as an excuse to promote a corporate business known as carbon credits... I gave several links showing how they are making money from this hoax... Second, your claim that this is silly has got to be one of the dumbest excuses I have heard or read... Not to mention that you are in total denial...

Originally posted by nixie_nox
...
The most that could ever hope to be made off of carbon credits is $50 billion. As GW increases, so will the disasters and other nasties that go with it, and you will see that cost go up significantly.

The money made from carbon credits is not being used to pay for disasters... That first. Second, no matter how much money they squeeze from brainwashed people like yourself, this money is not going to stop NATURE, the Solar System, and the Universe from affecting what happens on Earth...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I have also posted and proved in the past that even after 2002 the Sun's activity had been increasing, until suddenly it slowed down to a crawl which caused temperatures worldwide to dip around the end of 2005-2006.

Since the last solar maxiumum was around 2001-2002 the fact that solar activity declined after that is no surprise.

But TSI (as well as sunspot activity) has been declining overall since 1980 while global temperatures continued to rise.



Please note that Wilson's study was talking about TSI during solar minimum and that his results are not universally accepted. Please note that TSI during solar maximum has been decreasing significantly more than any change during solar minimum since 1980.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Your article in this post is typical of the junk you through up hoping it will stick. The article talks about bow whales and villages, but cites absolutely no cases that back said claims how whales were carbon dated studied to determine how they got to where they were found, or provide any evidence to back claims made.

The article talks about Art Dyke, but I doubt seriously that Dyke wrote this article.

Here is a link to work that is from Dyke and his colleagues have published. Notice how much better the article has been written.

www.geotop.ca...

Fig. 1. (a) September ice trends and average minimum (September, red line) and maximum (March, green line) ice extents, 1979–2003 [Cavalieri et al., 2004]. (b) Distribution of bowhead whale bones dated 9.5 ± 0.25 and 9.0 ± 0.25 14C kiloyears B. P. White areas are ice sheets.
Foraminiferal Isotopes
Neogloboquadrina pachyderma left-coiled (Npl) foraminifera grow along the pycno- cline, where water density switches from cold, dilute, surface water to warmer, saline North Atlantic Water (NAW) in the Arctic Ocean.The δ18O values in their shells have negative offsets from isotopic equilibrium values ranging from -1‰ (Arctic Seas) to -3‰ (Canada Basin), although temperature gradients still result in predictable isotopic shifts [Hillaire-Marcel et al., 2004].The offset could be linked to rate of sea ice formation [Bauch et al., 1997]. Freezing isotopically light seawater produces ice and isotopically light brines that sink to the pycnocline. Mix- ing of these brines into NAW and export of surface water and sea ice to the North Atlan- tic maintain steady state conditions, thus resulting in an asymptotic isotopic offset value near -2.5 to 3‰ in Npl. From this view, the greater modern offsets in the western than in the eastern Arctic Ocean would reflect the differences in sea ice formation rates along the shelves.
These offsets were maintained in the Chuk- chi Sea during most of the Holocene (Figure 2b), with possibly larger offsets early on, which can be inferred as continuous sea ice forma- tion and the greatest brine production in the early Holocene.The record illustrates some decoupling between surface-water conditions, as reconstructed from dinoflagellate cyst assemblages, and conditions prevailing in the NAW, as indicated by the size-dependent 18O- gradients in Npl (Figure 2b).The 9000–8000 year interval depicts a large offset between small and large specimens, suggesting much warmer conditions in the NAW than in the sur- face water [see Hillaire-Marcel et al., 2004]. However, between 7000 and 6000 years B.P., these size-dependent gradients nearly van- ished, suggesting a weakening of the pycno- cline.This likely resulted from a higher surface salinity and less sea ice, as also indicated by the dinoflagellate cysts.
Implications for Future Warming
The history of sea ice shows strong region- alism. Marine animals that depend on sea ice survived the early Holocene by adapting and migrating.At the height of the warmth,which was but three degrees warmer than now, the Pacific and Atlantic bowhead whales could visit each other through the Northwest Pas- sage. Future Arctic warming is expected to be considerably warmer than this, and the free passage of biota and ships is certain.

Now this is from data collected in 2004, 8 years ago. Guess what, that Northwest passage opened this year.

www.alaskadispatch.com...

You have been disproved on my first effort, and it really wasn't worth my time.

It looks like new evidence that past warming periods were also caused by rising methane levels.

www.iol.co.za...

“The pre-industrial time was not a natural time for the climate - it was already influenced by human activity,” she said. “When we do future climate predictions we have to think about what is natural and what did we add. We have to define what is really natural,” she said.

The scientists, in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, the United States and France, noted a second rise in methane in Medieval times, coinciding with a warm period from 800 to 1200 that also saw Europe's economy emerge from the Dark Ages.

What the evidence seems to be showing is that methane levels might be a bigger factor than CO2.

And how much was methane being released after ending ice ages and these other warming periods during increases in the population of people and domestic animals.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


It makes it really hard to respond to you when you use up all the characters.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Variations in Total Solar Irradiance
The ACRIM I instrument was the first to clearly demonstrate that the total radiant energy emanating from the sun was not a constant, and varied in proportion to solar magnetic activity. However, the sun’s output changes so slowly and solar variability is so slight (less than 0.00425% of the total energy per year on time scales of days), that continuous monitoring by state-of-the-art instrumentation is necessary to detect changes with climate significance. Scientists theorize that as much as 25% of the 20th century anticipated global warming of the Earth may be due to changes in the sun’s energy output. Systematic changes in irradiance as little as 0.25% per century can cause the complete range of climate variations that have occurred in the past, ranging from ice ages to global tropical conditions. For example, scientists believe the "Little Ice Age" that occured in Europe in the late 17th century could have been related to the minimum in sunspot activity (and a correlated minimum in total solar irradiance) that occured during the same period.earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The little ice age wasn't an ice age at all, just a three century cooling period in Europe, that also has half a dozen other causes considered, including volcanic activity.
If the sun was "heating up", there would of been climate events all over the world, not just Europe.
Common sense would tell you that if the climate was driven by a moody sun, lt would be so turbulant that life couldn't exist.


But like a good poster, I will keep this short and sweet. Since you haven't provided any evidence more recent then 2007.
BTW, as the other poster pointed out, long complicated responses full of useless information is a form of trolling.

They found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per square meter during a solar minimum, than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. (Currently, the sun is in the midst of Solar Cycle 24, with activity expected to ramp up toward solar maximum in 2013.)

livescience

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

the new york times

Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.

skepticalscience.com

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Saying carbon credits are being used as an excuse to promote global warming is also silly.

First, you got it wrong, AGW is being used as an excuse to promote a corporate business known as carbon credits... I gave several links showing how they are making money from this hoax... Second, your claim that this is silly has got to be one of the dumbest excuses I have heard or read... Not to mention that you are in total denial...

It is called a carbon CREDIT. Of course they make money off of it. *laughs* That is the incentive.
For countries or companies that lower their output below emission standards, they get the credits, for which they sell on the international marktet.

And the only one in denial is the person still hanging onto the 1980s idea from a misinterpreted report that the Sun is causing gw.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
...
The most that could ever hope to be made off of carbon credits is $50 billion. As GW increases, so will the disasters and other nasties that go with it, and you will see that cost go up significantly.

The money made from carbon credits is not being used to pay for disasters... That first. Second, no matter how much money they squeeze from brainwashed people like yourself, this money is not going to stop NATURE, the Solar System, and the Universe from affecting what happens on Earth...

YES, I am denial but the whole solar system is now against us!! Whatever was I thinking?!?!

Carbon credits and carbon tax are two sides of the same coin. Industries will never be willing to reduce their emissions. They are effective tools for lowering emissions around the globe without affecting the economy. It worked so well, that we no longer have acid rain. The horrors!

You have conveniently ignored over and over the economic and social concerns that both the private sector and the governments have over problems caused by GW.


And thread after thread after thread, you have ignored my single question, what is driving the natural force?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
What new research? Has it now been shown that the ice caps are not less extensive

... Read the article... I gave an excerpt and a link to it... Do you also need someone to chew your food for you?...

No, but maybe you do? The article you posted makes no mention of the Baffin Ice Caps.

You're attempting once again to prove that oranges are pears by providing evidence that bananas are yellow. And then wondering why people get frustrated with you.

Here is an article that many might see as alarmist, but in fact might be understating the matter.

truth-out.org...

For some reason I can't copy any parts of the article to post here.

The claim is that Arctic ice conditions are at present where they were predicted to be, just 10 years ago, in a hundred years. This means that global warming is happening 10 times faster than predicted only ten years ago.

Another point the article makes is that all the climate models from as recently as 2007, just 5 years ago, are completely wrong.

At this point in time, science has little to no understanding of how fast, or how much our climate will change in the next couple of years, let alone the next couple of decades. Loss of The Arctic ice sheet means that during the summer, the dark waters of the Arctic ocean will be absorbing a great deal of heat from the sun. A loss of Arctic ice in the summer could double the already high rate of GW.

Vast increases in the Warmth of Arctic waters means vast increase in the release of methane.

The climate is about to go nuke on our hiny's!

Not to be out done, the oil ICs are firing back with their own nuke plans. Damn the methane, full speed ahead. Oil ICs are moving as rapidly as possible to tap those Arctic oil reserves.

What I wonder is how will GW effect all those dormant caulderas. Will they re-awaken?

Antarctica land prices might soon see an enormous increase soon. There might not be any place to run and hide.

This is a very slow train wreck. The next big thing to watch is how late in the season will Arctic ice start to form again. This will be the next big factor to watch, as this will be the big factor on what we can expect next summer.

reply to post by poet1b


Aye, when those who argue against AGW point out that past computer computations have been wrong, by suggesting more rapid warming, they ignore the inconvienent truth that they have also been wrong in their projections of Arctic sea ice melt.

Computer projections are wrong.

The future may not be as bad as predicted.

The future may be worse than predicted.

Gamble?

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Aye, even the global warming alarmists are under estimating the rate of global warming.

Keeping a weathered eye on the horizon is about all we can do right now.

I don't think the political will exists to do anything about GW, and won't exist until it is too late, if it isn't already too late.

It looks like we are about to be blown to where the seas will carry us, and the only thing we can do is speculate as to where that will be.

People come here talking about 2012 and other end of the world predictions, but this is the real thing.

I don't understand why any intelligent person would not be looking at this clear physical change that is going to dramatically affect all of our lives, and the lives of our children.

Changes that we are seeing in climate.

www.examiner.com...

Drought conditions in recent years have been severe, but regional tree-ring records indicate that there have been substantially stronger megadrought events during the past 1,000 years. The strongest of these occurred during the second half of the 1200s, and more recently in the late 1500s.
The team has projected that such megadrought-type forest drought-stress conditions will regularly be exceeded by the 2050s. The study indicates that forest drought stress during more than 30 percent of the past 13 years, including 2011 and 2012, matched or exceeded the megadrought-type levels of the 1200s and 1500s. It is anticipated that during the second half of this century, about 80 percent of years will exceed megadrought levels.

www.summitdaily.com...&ParentProfile=1055

“America's western forests now see seven times more very large fires over 10,000 acres in an average year,” Kenward said. “Over that time, temperatures have increased dramatically.”

Originally posted by Phage

Since the last solar maxiumum was around 2001-2002 the fact that solar activity declined after that is no surprise.

But TSI (as well as sunspot activity) has been declining overall since 1980 while global temperatures continued to rise.

Please note that Wilson's study was talking about TSI during solar minimum and that his results are not universally accepted. Please note that TSI during solar maximum has been decreasing significantly more than any change during solar minimum since 1980.

edit on 10/4/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Wrong... You are using the data that Wilson proved to be wrong, and btw Wilson is the principal investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments... so who will know what data is wrong, or good? the main investigator for NASA's ACRIM experiments?... Or Phage, who makes up his own research with not real proof to back his claims?...

I even showed that Solar Magnetic storms had been increasing until about 2005-2006 or so, this constant increase also supports Wilson's research, because when Solar magnetic storms are on the increase, and stronger, it means the overall activity of the Sun has been increasing.

reply to post by poet1b


An opinion from a Blog striking the truth?... Kind of doubtful as they don't present any evidence and it is all conjecture, exagerations, and lies...

reply to post by poet1b


For crying out loud...changes in climate doesn't prove your religion... When are you, and others like you going to get that through your thick head?... The climate is ALWAYS changing... There have been faster, and worse changes in climate in the past than the ongoing Climate Change...

I am amazed that the same people who laugh at other people for having religious beliefs are themselves believing in a religion which has been proved to be wrong, their scientists have been caught lying, and making up false data as well as using any tactics to try to stop research that contradicts the AGW religion, and call anyone who doesn't BELIEVE in their AGW religion a "climate denier"... As if anyone could deny the climate changes when in fact what these people mean is "you are a denier of our religion/belief that mankind is the cause of Climate Change even thou all the REAL evidence proves it is NATURAL"...

AGW is the religion of many in the 21st century...

Originally posted by poet1b

People come here talking about 2012 and other end of the world predictions, but this is the real thing.

I don't understand why any intelligent person would not be looking at this clear physical change that is going to dramatically affect all of our lives, and the lives of our children.

Maybe because we are smarter than you and would rather accept the real evidence, and the word of the real scientists instead of the religious lunatics who have been caught lying, fudging the data/research, and publishing false information to PUSH governments and people to accept their AGW agenda...