Arctic Ice Melt Seen Doubling Risk of Harsh Winter in EU
By Stefan Nicola
Oct 26, 2014 2:00 PM ET
The decline in Arctic sea ice has doubled the chance of severe winters in Europe andAsia in the past decade, according to researchers in Japan.
Sea-ice melt in the Arctic, Barents and Kara seas since 2004 has made more than twice as likely atmospheric circulations that suck cold Arctic air to Europe and Asia, a group of Japanese researchers led by the University of Tokyo’s Masato Mori said in a study published today in Nature Geoscience.
“This counterintuitive effect of the global warming that led to the sea ice decline in the first place makes some people think that global warming has stopped. It has not,” Colin Summerhayes, emeritus associate of the Scott Polar Research Institute, said in a statement provided by the journal Nature Geoscience, where the study is published.
To reach their findings, they had performed about 200 computer simulations of the global atmospheric circulation using a model based on two distinct settings for Arctic sea-ice concentrations.
Arctic Ice Melt Seen Doubling Risk of Harsh Winter in EU – Bloomberg
Sea ice extent in the Barents and Kara Seas is normal. More expensive taxpayer funded fact-free science from the team.
Never let actual evidence get in the way of “scientific” theory. Observation, measurement, all that are meaningless if you are trying to prove something that simply doesn’t exist. The globe is cooling. The sea level is not rising. Ice caps are growing. But that doesn’t matter to the AGW “scientists”. In second grade, we were part of an experiment called Introduction to Physical Science. One of the primary scientific methods was “observation”. That has, apparently, gone out the window in the modern “scientific” world.
Steven, I saw a NASA post that was very interesting. CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum back to Earth. That is supposedly what is causing the “greenhouse effect”. But, if it does that, does it not also reflect the same wavelengths of EM energy from the sun back into space? My link to that post no longer works.
It emits radiation equally in all directions. However, I have heard that most of the absorbed energy is lost kinetically to adjacent molecules, rather than radiated.
That’s fine, it sure loses energy via collisions, a fraction at about 6.5 micron is re-radiated.
I don’t care how much is re-radiated.
I need somebody to tell me how a warming lower atmosphere, losing heat by radiating to a cooling upper atmosphere, will not increase the heat transfer rate because the temperature difference widens. This happens over all thermal radiant wavelengths.
Thus if CO2 doesn’t cool the atmosphere I don’t believe thermodynamics anymore. The effect is undoubtedly imperceptible within natural variation
No, Brian, CO2 re-emits IR in the 9u and 15u bandwidths. 9u is completely saturated by other constituent gases (mostly H2O). At 15u, only a portion of that band is not already saturated, but 15u is equivalent to -80C … There is only 1 place on this planet that could be capable of being warmed by -80C, and that is the center of Antarctica in the middle of winter. CO2 does NOT radiate in the 6.5u band. Look it up!
Here is a comment that was left here back on January 25th, 2014 (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/history-repeats-itself-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312874). I think this pretty well says it all:
I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.
Sorry I meant to say 9 not 6. Water vapor will increase nocturnal temperatures, the heat will dissipate, and this is not a greenhouse effect.
I think the warming lower atmosphere mainly loses heat by convection. All you have to do is look at the cumulus clouds and see it happen for yourself.
Morgan, you are correct. Surface cooling (and lower troposphere) is not accomplished through radiative processes. Cooling by radiation is extremely slow and inefficient. Simply take a look at how long it takes the moon to cool (about 360 hrs). The surface of the Earth (and lower troposphere) is NOT cooled by radiation, but as you indicate, almost solely by convection. Water vapor does nothing but moderate thermal dissipation, holding latent heat once the sun’s radiation subsidies for the day. During the day, water vapor acts as a coolant and moderates maximum temperature (both can be seen by comparing deserts to tropics).
Heating by DWLWIR (down welling long wave infrared radiation) in ANY bandwidth is completely insignificant and cannot even be measured. You cannot get around the simple 1st Law of Thermodynamics that states that a cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still. Heat can only move from hot to cold.
Ted, it has nothing to do with reflection. It’s absorption.
Well to Ted’s question, the incoming TSI does not contain the same amount of LWIR as outgoing, or as it is more often referred to as upwelling LWIR.
And, Steven, you look remarkably like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz!
I’m the little furry one in the photo.
Yes, he is the one who told us to pay attention to the Mann et al. behind the curtain!
Apparently ice “lost” 7 years ago still causes cold winters in the EU. Ice, like CO2, has amazing properties that defy natural laws.
CO2 emitted today can change the Temps decades ago.
Tony, I have to say “thank you!” Your data analyses, and especially the technique of bringing back the warmists’ earlier arguments to show their idiocy, has been invaluable in teaching my kids and colleagues about the great lie. Your posts are changing minds.
It’s funny, there seem to be a lot of “counterintuitive” effects of global warming at the moment.
The Wizard of Oz works many wonders. Ice=warmer weather and no ice=very cold weather when you are a wizard.
DEja vu but keep hammering away eventually it might get through but only after the US government changes im afraid ….
You think we are going to miraculously get people into the US Government with brains?
After more than 50 years of heading in the opposite direction?
Where did you read this?
Hey Ivan! I will respectfully disagree with you. We do not have stupid people running the US government. (Sure we have guys like Rep Johnson http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp but I suspect that he just votes like he is told, but doesn’t actually control much.) We have very bright people in charge! How bright? So bright that when they do something bad, people are still convinced that it was accidental stupidity instead of evil done for their own purposes.
Jason, I believe there is a mix. There are certainly many idiots in our government. They are simply used as pawns. I would refer you to a few examples, Nancy Pelosi, Charley Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Jack Murtha, Barbara Lee, Patty Murray, Jim Moran, Robert Byrd, Mark Udall, Tom Udall (anyone named Udall), George Voinovich … and on … and on … and on
I believe the stupid to “bright” ratio is about 10:1, but it is the small number of “brights” that are ultimately pulling the strings, doing the plotting and destroying our country. Presently, the ratio of progressive “brights” to constitutional conservative “brights” is, unfortunately, about 4:1 … until (or if) this ratio changes back in favor of constitutional conservatives, we are completely screwed. In my humble opinion, we have already past the point of no return. We will never see a Representative Republic again. We are in fact, precipitously heading to a full-blown socialist state, as we are currently firmly planted within a Democracy (which our founders warned us about). You hear these socialists tout it all the time “we are a Democracy .. blah, blah, blah” … Unfortunately, we were never intended to be a “Democracy”, quite the contrary. A “Democracy” is nothing more than mob-rules (that is, the mob will rule the people), whereby, 50% +1 can enslave the other 50% -1 … The reason why the socialists embrace the term “Democracy” and the reason why our founders tried to create a Representative Republic. Unfortunately for us lovers of Liberty and Freedom, we have not been a Representative Republic for many decades. Woodrow Wilson’s administration started the ultimate demise of said Republic with the “enactment” of the 16th Amendment (was never properly ratified, and was modified by several of the states, a wholly illegal and unconstitutionally imposed amendment). To add insult to injury, in 1919 the 17th amendment came along and ensured we would never again be a “Representative” Republic, as it turned Senatorial appointment into “Mob-Rules” with a popular vote for Senate seat. Without the 17th amendment, we would not need to impose term limits for Senators, but as it is, even if we had term limits for Senators, we would still continue to suffer great harm from the 17th amendment. Term limits cannot correct the damage of the 17th amendment. The several states are left without legislative representation. As long as the 17th amendment is in power, we cannot have a “Representative Republic”.
Every republic is, by definition, a democracy. Re publica = “public thing” or “public matter”, which implies that every citizen has an equal vote on, at least, the adoption of a constitution.
Instead of “representative republic” (which is really very similar in meaning to “representative democracy”), the term you’re looking for is “constitutional federal republic”, which allows for the requirement that important issues require a supermajority of the people, and/or a majority of member states in order to be agreed on. But in all republics, by definition, the constitution can be replaced by a simple majority of support from the people. What makes the system somewhat immune to the tyranny of the majority is not that it isn’t democratic. It is the fact that the system makes it very difficult to assemble a convention with a majority of delegates who will vote to replace the constitution. This trait is still democratic, but the “constitutional” and “federalist” elements make it very hard for the will of the people to be enacted when that will is at odds with codified constitutional law.
The alternative view of what a republic is, is a very recent invention, and totally at odds with what the term meant at the founding of the United States. Frankly, when I see forces reinvent terms to mean practically the opposite of what they originally meant, and then use almost hysterical publicity tactics to spread the idea and try to bury the original sense, and try to shame people for having the audacity to stick to the original meaning of the word, I can only call this propaganda.
I support democracy, just not unbridled democracy. The alternative is to simply trust a minority group with all power, but history shows that such a group ultimately turns against any individual who remains true to simple principles of equity under the law. That is the problem which democracy was invented to try to address. Without legitimate democracy, the U.S. would be indistinguishable from the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
Hey Squid! hey Richard!
Both of you make good points. While I am sure that we disagree on some fine points, I suspect that semantics is most of what we could argue about.
I wish either of you two were running things instead of the crowd we currently have…
Thanks Jason. I agree with you. You would also make a much better leader than the folks we have now.
I just happened to remember that the Greek city states, or at least some of them, used to select their senior leaders by lot rather than popular vote. It was considered an act of treason to refuse to serve if your number came up. But the oversight was still conducted by simple majority vote, in some cases of all the citizens rather than a representative body. This system was surprisingly effective for a very long period of time, and was ultimately defeated not from within, but by conquest of an invading Rome, which itself practiced a system much closer to our own than to the ancient Greek system. Ironic, is it not?
“ suck cold Arctic air”
Never trust a sucker. There’s a climate scientist born every minute.
I know of 5 people who work with Mori who think global warming is a pile of shit. So out of 6 people, we here from only one. Why is that? Well, it is because Stefan Nicoila knows absolutely nothing at all.
So they say it’s been the hottest year ever…
Then surely a bit of snow is welcome, though it is a bit early in the year –
“Premature” snow in Greece.
Up to 80cm (31.5inches) of snow this week in Switzerland.
Bulgaria – Heavy snowfall leaves 50 villages without power.
Romania – Snow up to 10 centimeters (4 inches).
And more snow forecast to arrive in the coming week.
From – http://iceagenow.info/
“To reach their findings, they had performed about 200 computer simulations…”
These aren’t scientists, they are gamers.
IPCC UNFCCC meeting should be restricted to ComicCon & GameCon assemblies to hold down costs and allow greater access to the latest CliFi material to the target audience.
It’s amazing how clowns like Betts et al claim that their models are not fit for making public policy but are fit for sucking in public money.
They don’t know what caused the late 20th century warming and they don’t know what stopped it. They don’t know why the Arctic ice was on the decline, and they don’t know why the Antaractic ice was either. They don’t know why hurricanes are becoming less frequent they don’t know why the most intense rain in the rainiest storms is getting more intense.
In other words … they don’t know f**k
The BS continues to pile up. Up is Down, right is wrong, east is west, 2+2=5, Good Grief! and 47% of the population would walk of a cliff if a liberal asked them to.