Northwest Passage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have seen snow every month of the year in Alberta.

The trend is warming, we had a short term cooling after a strong El Nino.

you do realise we are just now entering a neutral from an El Nino phase right ?

Or do I need to provide the evidence as well.

[jackdale]

Did you notice the word 'summer'? You ste still cherry picking. What about Don Earerbrook's prediction of cooling from 2008 onward?

Originally Posted by newhaul

ten seconds

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ice-2016-melt

I know the second one is for 2 years later but it is the us navy .

And here is one that predicts by next summer

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/e...rt/2014/11/02/

That ain't gonna happen either

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you do realise we are just now entering a neutral from an El Nino phase right ?

Or do I need to provide the evidence as well.

We have an El Nino advisory.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...ensodisc.shtml

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you notice the word 'summer'? You ste still cherry picking. What about Don Earerbrook's prediction of cooling from 2008 onward?

its cherry picking because I didn't say what everyone knows
That they say ice free in summer ????????

Come on Jack that is about the weakest retort on these threads you have ever thrown out there

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We have an El Nino advisory.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...ensodisc.shtml

exactly we just are changing from El to neutral thank you we agree on this point.

And yes I get the updates every month .

https://youtu.be/EzMkEhAAAq8

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...


Reef, I'm going to share your uplifting video with folks in the US and Canadian Arctic. I'm sure they'll be reassured.

Just so you don't embarrass yourself, note that it's not my video just some random video on youtube. But I'm sure those folks will be uplifted nevertheless to find out that although they're warming twice as fast as everywhere else, they are actually only warming as fast as everywhere else.



Or you could just tell them to enjoy what's left of summer before the cold returns. Personally I'd find that more uplifting.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You can't prove that the moon attracts water with your bathtub and a shotput ball, yet I suspect you don't think tides are a fiction.

I can, because there is an established mathematical solution...


I just won't be able to observe the change because it will be too small and a tide as you envisage it is actually a tidal wave travelling at relatively high speed on open water which is why tide heights vary depending on geography and other factors. Basically the wave collides with land masses, meets currents or is affected by the shape of the sea bed.

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I certainly don’t want to argue with myself, is a full time job keeping up with you, newhaul and exile. [emoji3] however we are making significant progress. I believe you now realize that it is the number of atoms of CO2 that matter not the concentration of the CO2 with respect to non greenhouse gases. We also both agree that a small container of ordinary air doesn’t have enough CO2 to capture enough energy to move the needle much. In fact all of the measurement stuff would probably swamp out the effect. This was my point many posts ago. However, now take the container and stretch it 30 miles. Do you have a cylinder that is 1’ in diameter and 30 miles long with ordinary air. Gosh, now we have a ton of CO2 molecules!!!! Now put your heat in at the bottom of the cylinder and measure the energy that comes out the other side.... wow surprise surprise less energy is coming out the far end. Where did it go? It warmed all those massive numbers of CO2 molecules in the cylinder. Again the concentration doesn’t matter. If you can’t wrap your mind around my cylinder, use the universal gas law to calculate the number of molecules of CO2 in the cylinder and put that same quality in a small cylinder in the lab. I haven’t done the math, but you can mentally picture 150,000 times the CO2 concentration of original small cylinder at standard pressure. That is a lot of CO2 molecules. I think you have agreed that at that concentration we would see warming. Okay what do you think will happen when we double the concentration? More warming right?

Okay, you next argument will probably be there too much CO2 in the cylinder and the CO2 at the far end of the tube will not get any heat because all the CO2 lower in the cylinder absorbed it all. Nope, that would incorrect. Yes most of the initial energy would be absorbed lower in the tube, but what happens to that energy. Each of those molecules radiates in all directions where one of the directions is further up the tube, so the energy keeps moving up the tube. So no, there is not saturation but it also true that more Co2 molecules added will absorb more energy but not at a linear rate. This is where newhauls logarithmic comment fit into the puzzle.

No complicated experiment necessary. Do I think you are to agree with all this, probably not but if you read the science websites rather than wattsupwiththat it is all there. I do hope that others who are looking to understand read this and get curious enough the learn the science rather the spin (how about you exile???).

Btw I don’t want to argue about Venus either but I have seen the lame argument on skeptic websites that it is the pressure (PV=nRT nonsense).

You're so hung up on molecules (not atoms, btw) that you've totally missed the point that the "ppm" measurement of CO2 applies whether you're referencing 1mm3 or 1 Mm3 of volume at fixed pressure. It's proportional therefore there is no difference in results excluding other factors (e.g. weather). The total number of molecules for all gasses per unit volume reduces as pressure decreases for sure, but this is irrelevant because AGW isn't increasing the Earth's atmospheric pressure. You seemed very confused about this simple point to the extent that your arguments are making little sense.


Now back to basics. You keep explaining the mechanism but not providing the numbers. Why can't the level of temperature rise between 280ppm and 4000ppm (leaving plenty of scope!) of CO2 "atoms" in a specific volume of air at 1 bar with a specific heat input be physically demonstrated or, as LE kindly raised the subject of for gravity, calculated between two specific values even if not observed? Even you must agree that this would instantly quash significant skeptic arguments. So why?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But I'm sure those [Arctic] folks will be uplifted nevertheless to find out that although they're warming twice as fast as everywhere else, they are actually only warming as fast as everywhere else.

You really believe that?

there is an established mathematical solution...

Tides were a thing before Newton quantified gravity for us. Would you have avoided the ocean if you didn't have this spelled out already?

Now back to basics. You keep explaining the mechanism but not providing the numbers. Why can't the level of temperature rise between 280ppm and 4000ppm (leaving plenty of scope!) of CO2 "atoms" in a specific volume of air at 1 bar with a specific heat input be physically demonstrated or, as LE kindly raised the subject of for gravity, calculated between two specific values even if not observed? Even you must agree that this would instantly quash significant skeptic arguments. So why?

Cos it's not as simple a relationship as gravity, that can be so clearly quantified in isolation?


Also, it's not a terrible thing that some people doubt that CO2 is causing warming, but could they do us the favour of having a more plausible explanation with some backing?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

<some meaningless waffle>
...

...

</some meaningless waffle>

Also, it's not a terrible thing that some people doubt that CO2 is causing warming, but could they do us the favour of having a more plausible explanation with some backing?

With all due respect, I'm not doubting I'm saying show me the numbers. You and your "elk" don't appear to be able to do this.


Pretty simple. The ball's in your court and you keep asking me to serve.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

it's not a terrible thing that some people doubt that CO2 is causing warming,

I'm sure those doubters will be happy to hear they have your permission to have their doubts. But I'll be sure to tell them you don't approve of their voicing them, at least not too loudly. I know I sound like a broken record, but it seems like you're the one who keeps spinning the turntable around. Not sure about people generally, but which scientists doubt that added CO2 is responsible for at least some part of the additional warming? Or are we back to another all or nothing scenario that you've simply contrived?

AllenR -- I keep coming up with lots of specific questions from your debate with Reef, but maybe I should just ask more broadly. What exactly does the graph you posted from 50 years ago, along with your ensuing explanations, purport to demonstrate? Is it merely that there's a cause & effect between CO2 and warming generally? Is this the upshot of the science you referred to as having been established 100+ years ago? If so, can this be used to quantify the relationship between CO2 & warming in Earth's atmosphere or not?

Reef -- Are you saying that the relationship between CO2 & warming can only be proven in a laboratory, or is it that the relationship itself has never been proven? If it can't be proven in more realistic atmospheric conditions, then what exactly did Allen's graph & postings actually demonstrate?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ten seconds

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ice-2016-melt

I know the second one is for 2 years later but it is the us navy .

Both of the studies referenced in these two articles have as their lead author a Professor Wieslaw Maslowski. Both articles note that Maslowski's predictions are much earlier than that of most Arctic sea ice predictions.

From the BBC:

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.

and

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."....My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

And from the Guardian:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."

Originally Posted by newhaul

And here is one that predicts by next summer

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/e...rt/2014/11/02/

That ain't gonna happen either

You're certainly correct, it does not look like 2020 will be an ice-free year. However, this was not the projections of a formal, peer-reviewed study, but rather the lone pronouncements of a Professor Peter Wadhams. Other researchers took strong exception to Dr. Wadhams. From the article:

Wadhams' pronouncement was angrily challenged by one of the scientists modeling sea ice decline, but the elderly physicist stuck to his guns. He admitted he is predicting a very early opening of the Arctic, but this is "not a model".

So I would give Newhaul half-credit. Certainly some alarmist researchers have made wildly inaccurate predictions, but there have been a lot more researchers who, while predicting the relatively early disappearance of Arctic sea ice, are not yet predicting its imminent demise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not sure about people generally, but which scientists doubt that added CO2 is responsible for at least some part of the additional warming?

The revered scientist Reefmagnet?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The revered scientist Reefmagnet?

Not what I just read.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

With all due respect, I'm not doubting I'm saying show me the numbers.

I know you don't like how these threads go and feel there's nothing new a guy as smart as you can learn from them, but the least you can do is not misrepresent what others have written. Surely you can find a more effective way to disagree.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I know you don't like how these threads go and feel there's nothing new a guy as smart as you can learn from them, but the least you can do is not misrepresent what others have written. Surely you can find a more effective way to disagree.

The esteemed Reefmagnet wanted a demo. Either it's doubt, or it's trolling. I've been assuming that he's not trolling, but maybe that's been my error.

[SailOar]

Oops

Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming

A high profile scientific journal is investigating how it came to publish a study suggesting that global warming is down to natural solar cycles. The paper was criticised by scientists for containing “very basic errors” about how Earth moves around the sun.

The study was published online on 24 June by Scientific Reports, an open access journal run by Nature Research, which also lists the prestigious Nature journal among its titles....

The authors suggest that Earth’s 1°C temperature rise over the past two centuries could largely be explained by the distance between Earth and the sun changing over time as the sun orbits around our solar system’s barycentre, its centre of mass. The phenomenon would see temperatures rise a further 3°C by 2600, they say....

Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the paper contains egregious errors. “The sun-Earth distance does not vary with the motion of the sun-Earth system around the barycentre of the sun-Jupiter system, nor the sun-galactic centre system or any other purely mathematical reference point,” he says. He says the journal must retract the paper if it wants to retain any credibility.....

Scientific Reports says it has begun an “established process” to investigate the paper it has published. “This process is ongoing and we cannot comment further at this stage,” a spokesperson said.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Both of the studies referenced in these two articles have as their lead author a Professor Wieslaw Maslowski. Both articles note that Maslowski's predictions are much earlier than that of most Arctic sea ice predictions.

From the BBC:

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.

and

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."....My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

And from the Guardian:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."

You're certainly correct, it does not look like 2020 will be an ice-free year. However, this was not the projections of a formal, peer-reviewed study, but rather the lone pronouncements of a Professor Peter Wadhams. Other researchers took strong exception to Dr. Wadhams. From the article:

Wadhams' pronouncement was angrily challenged by one of the scientists modeling sea ice decline, but the elderly physicist stuck to his guns. He admitted he is predicting a very early opening of the Arctic, but this is "not a model".

So I would give Newhaul half-credit. Certainly some alarmist researchers have made wildly inaccurate predictions, but there have been a lot more researchers who, while predicting the relatively early disappearance of Arctic sea ice, are not yet predicting its imminent demise.

all of that bs just say you are correct or just don't post at all . I suppose it is just your nature to hear your own keyboard clicking.