Umm
If they are becoming more common, then surely they are no longer extreme. And didn’t the IPCC just say that they couldn’t identify any increase? Or is this IPCC report no longer the trusted Bible of the alarmist camp?
Same argument as the birdwatcher who wishes to see unusual species and bemoans that there are so few of them. That is exactly the point!
The new behavior of WordPress has yet again caused just confusion as it did by changing the name shown on the previous post.
Chris,
Of course it’s global.
If you’re trying to discount the importance of evaporation and convection, just consider what the daytime surface temperature would be without these things.
And it’s nonsense to suggest that an increase in surface temperature would not, at least on average, increase the differential with the overlying air
Gary,
Dr. Curry’s statement is misleading from the perspective that the sea ice is pretty much exactly where it was on March 18th, and so really hasn’t “continued to increase”. It simply hasn’t started it’s spring melt yet. The the only two major areas that are showing a significant greater than average extent (the Bering and Okhotsk) are pretty much exactly where they were. The most accurate thing to say is the spring melt hasn’t really started yet, but the NH Sea ice certainly hasn’t continued to increase since March 18th as it is pretty much right where it was after having declined a bit after that date and then come back up a bit.
And again, this short-term late season bump up in the Bering and Okhotsk is of course very thin ice, which will melt rapidly once melt season really starts,
I will agree with others that it is a bit less exciting right now in the climate science community but maybe thats a good thing.
I heard of the ozone paper elsewhere (but like others have not read it) and I thought of a guy in Australia named Earl Happ who has a blog that looks at how the sun affects climate due to changes in strataspheric ozone, particularly at the poles and high latitudes. He seems to be an amatuer in this game but I think there is insight that can be built upon that is consistent with the ozone paper. He’s looking at the problem of how changes in the sun might affect the atmospheric pressure at the poles. Most people are aware that the top of the atmosphere or thermosphere reached a minumum altitude in late 2008, early 2009 that was associated with the deep solar minimum. When the sun’s activity picks up more solar wind interacts with the upper atmosphere particularly over the poles, it provides a means to increase the atmospheric pressure at the poles, leading to the cold polar air spilling into the temperate latitudes and a high amplitude jet stream with blocking highs. I don’t know if Earl has it right but it seems this solar affect on the upper atmosphere should be studied. It also does not make sense to me that galactic cosmic rays are the culprit here. Weak solar activity is certainly associated with their increase but it makes much more sense that both the changes in upper atsmospheric ozone and changes in GCR’s are both a consequence of changes in the solar activity. They may provide two independent mechanism for how minor changes in the sun can have profound consequences on our weather.
It is normal for Arctic Sea Ice to go away, as in the Medieval Warm Period and cause the snow that took us into the Little Ice Age. It is during the warm periods with open Arctic that provides the snow to rebuild the Glaciers.
Normal and Healthy
mike, you were assigning an alarmist tag to me, which is not true when all I say is there will be 3 degrees warming and preparation is needed. “Alarming” is something you decided that was. I am not going to ride a bicycle to work, or turn off my winter heating, but I would pay a carbon tax which is something that would be effective. You seem to have trouble with them university types and people who pursue rational scientific thought in general which puts you at a disadvantage because then all your learning is coming from blog posts by random people. You might want to consider different ways of learning, such as books or blogs by actual university scientific professors. It seems this would be a whole new world to you, and you could impress your friends with actual knowledge rather than made-up things.
Dave,
“Human beings are complicated.”
Agreed. And, as you say, humans are often very good for reasons and ideas that don’t resonate in our neurons.
I linked to the paper on the modern effect of sea ice. Small. It doesn’t of course mean it is always small.
Have you not understood where I have said that unlimited increase in CO2
would be heroic?
Myrrh wrote to me:
> You know nothing about science from your response, let alone the physics of matter and energy.
Well…let’s see. I had a 4.0 GPA when I got my bachelor’s in physics from Caltech; I then went on to get my Ph.D. in physics from Stanford (1983). I of course did all the requisite hands-on lab work as a student. I’ve also worked for pay on some very large-scale, real-world experiments. I’ve earned various patents on computer and satellite-communication systems. I have worked with forms of electromagnetic radiation ranging from microwaves through UV and on to gamma rays.
And your own experience in physics consists of…?
Does the fact that I truly am an expert in physics and you most certainly are not prove that I and other physicists are necessarily correct and you are wrong?
Well… there certainly are academic disciplines – I have in mind theology and post-modern literary theory – in which being an expert consists mainly of studying other experts and getting their approval and certification, without any necessary validation by external reality.
But, physics is not like that. We create, design, and *build* stuff based on our knowledge of the physical world, amazingly useful stuff that actually works. You use a great deal of that stuff in your daily life – just to give one small example, the lasers used in CD and DVD players are based on physicists’ understanding of the interaction of radiation and matter, knowledge towards which you have expressed the utmost contempt.
Now, I know that you are articulate enough to respond with another eruption of verbiage about how you are still right and we physicists are all nincompoops.
But, have you considered the possibility, just the possibility, that just maybe we really do know something you do not know, that just maybe we have proven this through very practical, empirical successes, and that, before you treat our hard-won knowledge with such contempt, you might actually consider learning some of what we know about the physical world?
Just a thought.
And, by the way, if you want people who actually have real, verifiable scientific knowledge to take you seriously, you might try being polite to them.
Just a suggestion.
David H. Miller, Ph.D. (Physics, Stanford, 1983)
You are speaking complete nonsense. The Hawaiians have two forms of birth certificates, a short form and a long form. But they do not have a paper birth certificate on two different pieces of paper (one on security paper and one of black print on white paper). I don’t know where you are getting your misinformation, but someone is lying to you.
stefanthedenier wrote to me:
>Dave, you talk as climatologist; not as somebody who knows about Physics.
You are mistaken: I have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford University, 1983.
As to the rest of your post, may I suggest that if you wish people who are far, far better educated than you to respond seriously to your posts you might try learning to be polite?
David H. Miller, Ph.D. (physics, Stanford, 1983)
.
Note Pierre Latour’s response to Roy Spencer ….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-42208
Just an excerpt …
So your assertion: “Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space.” is proven FALSE.
The above analysis clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases do not reduce the Earth’s ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or straw-man arguments will be able to get around this fact.
.
.
physicistdave | April 1, 2012 at 1:28 am
Myrrh wrote to me:
> You know nothing about science from your response, let alone the physics of matter and energy.
Well…let’s see. I had a 4.0 GPA when I got my bachelor’s in physics from Caltech; I then went on to get my Ph.D. in physics from Stanford (1983). I of course did all the requisite hands-on lab work as a student. I’ve also worked for pay on some very large-scale, real-world experiments. I’ve earned various patents on computer and satellite-communication systems. I have worked with forms of electromagnetic radiation ranging from microwaves through UV and on to gamma rays.
And your own experience in physics consists of…?
Dave, thanks for your very genteel yet overwhelming response to Myrrh. Unfortunately, in my experience you’re wasting electrons on him. There’s not many folks whose posts I simply skip over, I figure I can learn from just about anyone, and if not, perhaps they might learn something as well.
But after many attempts by many people including myself to get through to Myrrh, I gave him up as just another lost egomaniac. These days, I just skip right over his claims that he has the inside track and is smarter than every physicist on the planet.
It’s actually quite freeing to just skip his nonsense. It leaves me much more time, I don’t waste effort, and it doesn’t raise my blood pressure.
Because it’s true what they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you’re not gonna get him to do the backstroke …
All the best,
w.
Yeah, you’re probably right, Willis. But I seem to have this ineradicable urge to *try* to communicate with people who are willfully ignorant of science. I admit is has never succeeded. But hope springs eternal!
The funny thing is that I have long been outspoken in criticizing some of the excesses of the “consensus” climate scientists, pretty much along the lines Judith herself has discussed in this blog. And, of course, that gets me labeled as a “denialist” by the anti-scientists on the other side of the debate!
At any rate, all of this is an instructive exercise in studying human psychology.
Dave
So let me see if I have got this now : cooler bodies can radiate heat to warmer ones. But that doesn’t mean they warm them, because the warmer ones radiate back an even greater amount.
Very interesting details you have observed , regards for posting . “Women have been trained to speak softly and carry a lipstick. Those days are over.” by Bella Abzug.
Re: Svensmark & Forbush decrease
Now included
Arctic
Equatorial area
Antarctica
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm
