Listing The Consequences Of The Record Arctic Minimum

List begin

List end

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Listing The Consequences Of The Record Arctic Minimum

  1. Eric Barnes says:

    NSIDC administrators will be able to squawk loudly about how full funding of their mission is vital to our existence when budget talks come up in the cesspit that passes for our federal government.

  2. Andy DC says:

    The sun is going mad!! We are all going to DIE!! But since everyone dies sooner or later, that is hardly a profound statement.

  3. tckev says:

    Funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding…

    That is the major consequences of the record Arctic minimum.

  4. bernardb says:

    For something of no consequence you sure do talk a lot about it.

  5. Didn’t someone comment here a while back that the missing sea ice would cause freaky unnatural anthropogenic storms “somewhere in the north.” Maybe those need to be added to the list…

  6. bernardb says:

    Instead of name-calling, why don’t you own up to the fact you were wrong? When for example you said around August 9th the melt season was over.

  7. LLAP says:

    @Steve: I was in the process of making my post and didn’t realize you had spammed the guy until after I clicked the “post comment” button. Sorry about that.

  8. Eric Simpson says:

    Warmist Revkin accuses warmist Kolbert of “gross Arctic hyperbole” in tweet:

    .@NewYorker Kolbert asks why candidates won’t address global warming? http://nyr.kr/QjBKBS Good theme but marred by gross Arctic hyperbole.

  9. Ben says:

    Consequence #1: Morons will come on the site, and attempt to deflect or obfuscate your point, causing you to state the obvious.
    Consequence #2: Others will come to your defense, but in doing so will attribute words to you that were never spoken, causing you to ask them not to do that.
    Consequence #3: Eventually you will get back to the Antarctic ice extent, which doesn’t fit the catastrophic meme, which will receive deafening silence from Walt, Julienne, and Mark.

    • So you’re claiming that a drop in extent from approx. mid August to mid October by a couple of % enhances the greenhouse effect by 10% globally. Incredible how sensitive the climate system… we must be really cooking by now.

    • David Appell says:

      No, that’s not what I’m claiming.

      Try to read it again.

      • Sorry David, I stand corrected. I read your stuff too quickly sometimes because it is so utterly silly. Your actual point was that if all the sea ice melted both in winter and summer at both poles (a physical impossibility) then the green house effect would be approx. 10% stronger. I incorrectly assumed that nobody would make such an utterly absurd point given the fact that it can’t happen.

    • suyts says:

      David that’s either very disingenuous or incredibly stupid.

      In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting faster than Antarctic sea ice is increasing, with the Antarctic currently having about 53% of total sea ice. In the last 10 years, Arctic SIE has decreased by 7.3% relative to the 10 years before, while Antarctic SIE has increased by 2.3%. Total SIE has decreased by 2.5%, and the trend of total SIE extent since the satellite era -38 Kkm2/yr. (It’s -47 Kkm2/yr over the last decade.) This net melting changes the Earth’s albedo, and it absorbs more energy. If S is the solar radiation incident on a piece of sea ice of area A, and it melts, the net energy absorbed is……

      First of all, the Arctic is all sea ice. Tell me again about the ice coverage in the Antarctic? Oh, you didn’t bother to mention that. When considering earth’s albedo, sea ice is only a small part of the calculation. Yes, the antarctic has only 53% of the sea ice. Quit pretending you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.

      How much is the land ice extent? You’re talking percentages instead of actual land coverage. I’d rather have 1% of a dollar than 10% of a penny.

      Then, of course there is the time consideration. The arctic only has less ice momentarily. Which leads us to the angle of incidence. But, you don’t seem to mention that. There’s so many more considerations that your posit is simply sophistry. What are your credentials, again? You need to ask for your parents money back.

      Lastly, did the momentary decrease of sea ice in the arctic change the color of the globe? You know what decreases albedo? Green does. You twit!

    • Sparks says:

      I read that post and William’s comment, you’re both talking about hypothetical energy budgets and assuming some very major variables as minor constants, Where does the extra radiation come from? It can not come from the lack of sea ice reflecting energy, that’s preposterous, you’re basically arguing that low arctic sea ice contributes more energy based on Ice reflecting energy back into the atmosphere directly above and then being reflected back down and then back up again, then you say because the energy does not get reflected back up to the atmosphere, the energy is greater than when it was being reflected into the atmosphere simply because it is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, ten fold (or some sort of gibberish like that). When energy is being dissipated (lost) through a substance such as frozen sea water (Ice) it melts, once it melts how do you suppose it cools and refreezes while absorbing and also reflecting equal amounts of energy and also contributing a considerable amount of more energy back into the atmosphere that it actually inhibits the cooling and contributes to warming on a global scale.

      Yes I’m paraphrasing somewhat, well if you can multiply the effects of atmospheric CO2 by first using Ice and then multiply the effects further with less ice, I think you need to be called on it!

      • Even so I think this misses the bigger picture. Let’s assume the IPCC’s best estimate of 3.5C of warming by 2100 is correct and let’s be generous and assume the north and south poles loose all their sea ice cover for half the year. Again all fairly implausible stuff.. but just sip the Kool-Aid with me for the sake of the argument… Do a quick back of the envelope calculation and assume David is correct in all his numbers and what’s the actual global impact on temperature? Probably around 0.17C global increase, but realistically it would be half that or less. (Honestly the numbers are all so dodgy that you can come up with different results but either way the result is still going to be minuscule.)

        The reason why David didn’t carry his calculations to their logical conclusion was that doing so would refute the very point was trying to make.

    • chris y says:

      I almost posted a comment here on The Appell’s sea ice forcing yesterday, but thought it just a cheesy transparent way to try and lure eyeballs over to his whispering gallery blog.

      Well, I see at least three issues with The Appell’s estimate.

      1- The Appell’s estimated TSI is too high for 80 deg latitude. For example, at 71N, NREL provides monthly measured values of TSI in W/m^2 as follows-
      Jan thru Dec: 0, 13, 67, 154, 196, 204, 188, 108, 54, 21, 0, 0
      The average is 83 W/m^2 at 71N, lower than The Appell’s 125 W/m^2 at 80N/S. This is incident power on a horizontal surface, not absorbed power. Near grazing incidence, the absorbed power will be considerably less.

      2- The 10% calculation compares sea ice albedo loss forcing to annual anthro CO2 forcing. But, once all the sea ice is lost, that’s the maximum forcing available. It doesn’t accumulate the way CO2 forcing is claimed to accumulate.

      3- Open polar oceans will result in large heat loss (compared with ice-covered ocean) once winter sets in. The Appell does not even consider this large negative forcing.

  10. Sparks says:

    Will Nitschke says:
    September 29, 2012 at 1:39 am

    “Again all fairly implausible stuff.. but just sip the Kool-Aid with me for the sake of the argument…”
    lol no-problem!!
    ——

    “The reason why David didn’t carry his calculations to their logical conclusion was that doing so would refute the very point [he] was trying to make.”

    David has to be intelligent enough to know what his mistakes are? It seems odd to me that David has an interest in the environment and believes in something to a point where he knowingly lets logic fly out the window. between you and me Will, I think he visits Stevens site to get a dose of reality. 🙂

  11. NoMoreGore says:

    Steve, I’d like to congratulate you on a thorough and comprehensive list.

  12. Stark Dickflüssig says:

    3- Open polar oceans will result in large heat loss (compared with ice-covered ocean) once winter sets in.

    Wait, you mean David Appell thinks that ice acts in an insulating capacity when the sun is up, but suddenly doesn’t when the sun goes down? I wonder if David Appell has ever lived in a place that gets snow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s