Re: Arctic sea ice

And thre 2008 melt season is not yet over.

As it was during the Medieval Warm Period.

...Jim Thompson

Well, you were there to measure the icepack. I wasn't.

Lets see your evidence for global temperature variations, ice pack and glacier extents, weather, etc. to support your claims.

What will lend credibility to one argument or another is to take the limited anecdotal data taken from residents around the north Atlantic regions and run them through some atmospheric and ocean models to see if the data fits either a regional anomaly or a global trend.

Are liberals dense, or just obstinate?

Do you deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period? I know that liberals are consistently either ignorant of history, or maybe it's denial (and that's not a river ;-)

How do you explain Greenland (aptly named at the time) used to support raising cattle and growing grapes?

Trick question for leftist wusses: What percentage of daily atmospheric energy is man-made?

...Jim Thompson

Are you truly THAT ignorant?

It applied to the whole world, but recorded history is somewhat limited to what is now Europe, because that's all that was populated by semi-intelligent beings at that time... note the "medieval"!

Sheeeesh!

You got it, Chester.

I say parts per million also.

Paul, What is your degree in? What university? I want to keep my descendents away from there. They must teach rigid adherence to the AGW "faith".

...Jim Thompson

Was that a global phenomena, or just something confined to the North Atlantic?

You ar using the same tactics as the AGW people do: That is, publish a map with the regions showing temperature rise highlighted and the rest conveniently coded 'no data available'.

Change in the flow and/or temperature of the Gulf Stream. What was going on around the rest of the world?

Parts per million, at best. But what percentage of the solar radiation has been retained as atmospheric energy due to the CO2 added by man? I'm surprised you even asked that question here. Most of us have college degrees and understand the theory behind the greenhouse effect, whether or not we agree with the measurements. The 'global temperature rise due to waste heat' argument is one designed for morons who listen to Rush.

Others would disagree:

Just keep them out of school. Make good little right wing-nuts out of them.

The mass of the earths atmosphere is 5.270E18 Kg (PI*D^2*Pa) where D =

CO2 is 0.038% of the atmosphere and Carbon is 27.3% of CO2 by weight, so

The mass of the earth's atmosphere's carbon is 5.46E14 Kg

From various sources

crude oil production for fuel: 2.822E12 Kg coal: 4.575E12 Kg natural gas: 1.592E12 Kg ----------- 8.989E12 Kg

which is 8.989E12 Kg / 5.46E14 Kg = 1.65%

We are adding 1.65% additional carbon to the atmosphere per year. What was that about parts per million?

Where did you go to school and why can't you do simple back of the envelope figuring?

ne

ic

Neither Jim, just educated. You should try it.

Nobody does. It was pretty much confined to Europe and the North Atlantic - it doesn't show up at all in Tasmanian tree ring data - and doesn't have much relevance to the global warming we ae seeing at the moment.

Greenland was never all that green - there were some green patches along the southernmost coast during the MWP - but the Viking spin doctors who were out recruiting immigrants did gild the lily.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

=A0 | =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |

=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

And what is the official stance of MIT on the topic?

s one

rctic

er:

Jim gets it wrong again. The Medieval Warm Period isn't visible in the Tasmania tree-ring data. See

Here's a quote from the conclusion.

"5. The best example of near-global synchroneity in Holocene climate is the mid-Holocene climatic optimum, a time of widespread (but perhaps not ubiquitous) warm/wet conditions linked to precessional changes in solar insolation. Other events long held to be universal, such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, are in fact restricted to specific regions in terms of century-scale expression. There are some examples of near-global cooling with a persistence of one or two decades (such as the early 1600s and early 1800s). These may have their origin in nonperiodic forcing mechanisms such as volcanic aerosol loading. The latest Holocene climate variability is probably best characterized by region-specific, decadal-to- multidecadal precipitation and thermal (0.5 to 1.5=B0C) anomalies. Many of these oscillations are periodic or quasi-periodic and linked to large-scale atmospheric systems."

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The most MWP-showing study, paper, etc. mentioned here much is Loehle. That lacks recent decades, but it is easy enough to splice on global temperature trends where that leaves off. Loehle does not show MWP being warmer than we are now.

I have yet to hear anyone else claiming cattle or grapes, but wheat - and in spotty warmer coastal areas.

As for aptly named green - its icecap survived the MWP, and was not completely melted down by the previous interglacial period even with a fair amount of time largely considered/estimated to be 2-3 degrees C warmer than the 1930-1980 stretch (or was that the 1961-1990 stretch?) with some reconstructions showing a little spike 4-5 degrees C warmer.

As soon as we get warming at the Arctic enough to open the "good route" of the Northwest Channel a few years in a row, someone may farm wheat in Greenland again. This might be in only a matter of years to about a decade, now that the multidecadal oscillation is shifting warmth to the North Atlantic and the Arctic (and warming is slow to zero elsewhere in the world for now).

If that does not happen within a decade or two, then that may have to wait awhile - the multidecadal oscillation looks to me likely to be slowing global warming until about 2030, and in the first 15 years after

If the Arctic has warming not reversing after the most-Arctic-warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation, then we got a problem!

Little - on a daily basis most incoming is from the sun and goes back out.

The problem is increasing resistance to flow of the outgoing, and that (with help of positive feedback through more water vapor) melts sea ice and increases reception of the incoming.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Note that Jim Thompson's question was to what portion of atmosphere energy, and I somewhat remember the word daily. I think that a correct answer is that on a daily basis atmosphere energy outgo and income tend to be very close to equal at least averaged over a year, and humans aren't producing that much heat.

More for a good answer is how anthropomorphic effects chance resistance to outgoing heat flow and change reception of incoming heat flow so as to change the surface-level-temperature where heat flow is equal in both directions (or unequal by ppm per day or whatever to cause surface and lower troposphere to warm by tenths of a degree C per decade).

- Don Klipstein ) snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

I would go so far as to say how warm was the MWP even according to Loehle. His work widely cited here shows MWP but leaves off recent decades. It is easy enough to splice on, say for example, HadCRUT-3 where Loehle leaves off. That shows MWP peaking about where we were in the early or mid 1990's. The way the Milankovitch cycles are going, we should be cooling now, and we are not.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

It is only right wing political dogma in the US to deny AGW.

It was the Conservative party and in particular Margaret Thatcher (unusually a Prime Minister with a science degree) that championed the cause of AGW in the UK and around the world. There is pretty much all party consensus in the UK.

OK the Neofascists, Stalinists and Trotskyites and a few other fringe groups tend towards denial but that is about it.

Not at all. But you seem to quietly forget that prior to the MWP there was a nasty cold period where crops failed and famine stalked the land.

There are reasonable proxies for average global temperature available in the ice cores and fossil records based on stable isotopes.

"Greenland" was always a marketting stunt to get some poor suckers to live there. In good years they got some kind of grain crops enought os urvive the winters. AFAIK they never grew grapes that far north in medieval times. In the UK we now have commercial vineries in the same places as the Romans (possibly even some further north now).

These days they do grow bananas in Iceland with so much geothermal low grade waste heat available for heating greenhouses (and pavements).

The dominant factor by far in incoming solar radiation. We are modifying the escape path for that with CO2 and so influencing climate.

How many times will New Orleans have to be hit before Merkins wake up?

Regards, Martin Brown

Yes, that's parts per million. But it would be parts per million on an annual basis as well (think about it).

I also pointed out that it was a misleading question. Or it reflected a misunderstanding of the theory behind AGW. The energy produced by human activities isn't what is contributing to warming. Its the change in transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared region that causes heat (from the sun) to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, earth's surface and oceans.

This is the wonderfulness of pure democracy - it doesn't matter how wrong you are, as long as you've got a lot of company. >:-[

Thanks, Rich