Arctic hits record low

I have to agree with Sawyers main point that Warming events,record highs and so on, are very commonly attributed as evidence for the following:

Climate Change (which is funny since climate changes, whether it is warming or cooling)

Global Warming (Which is funny because it is NOT GLOBAL at all since at least 1979,as it is a Northern Hemisphere warming)

AGW conjecture (Which is adequate for the CO2 molecular IR interactions,but a dismal failure at the Atmosphere level)

The Media,along with numerous Environmentalist oligarchies,have this bad habit of being a warmist bigot.

 

People will tend to do this on both sides, but the data points to warming around the world. We're talking about average temperatures.

Accept it. There is no reason for you or I or anyone outside of the oil industry to resist the science. We need to acknowledge the facts so that we can deal with them adequately. It would be stupid to destroy our planet because of what short-sighted sociopaths in the worlds of business and investment want us to think in order to safeguard their profits.

 

Accepting that there is an identifiable warming trend is not the same as accepting all the other claims, the most tenable of those being that humankind plays a causal role in that trend.

The additional propositions that they are demanding we accept are:

the catastrophic conditions predicted to result from the trend,

that those conditions can be averted by the political process,

that the cost of averting those conditions is less than the cost of the conditions themselves.

The debate on those questions has not even begun, but we're supposed to swallow all of it whole with the first proposition, which we're supposed to take on faith because there is a consensus based on what is known in science as quasi-experiments.

After that, we are expected to put our faith in what the overwhelming majority of us agree are the most self-serving, dishonest, despicable types among us, politicians, who work for the biggest polluters on the planet, governments, to see whatever "solutions" they come up with through to fruition.

 

Look at your graph again. The medieval warm period warm period warmed the planet by .3 C over 400 years which is .075 C per decade. Our current warming is 1.2 C over 400 years which is .3 C per decade, and .8 C was in the the last 100 years which is .8 C per decade so we are warming more than 10 times as fast as during the medieval warm period.

I already responded to this. Basically CO2 isn't the only thing to consider about temperature and there are many short-term trends like ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, etc. Just like in your area even though the the sun is warming things up gradually from January to July, that doesn't mean that we will see a constant increase in temperatures every day. Short-term variations will mean that sometimes the temperature will actually go down for a while. It is better to look over the long-term and see the long-term trend.

Since short-term factors eventually reverse themselves (definition of short-term) and the long-term CO2 heating will keep increasing then even though CO2 will be overpowered by short-term factors when they are lowering temperature, it will overpower them in the long term when they increase temperature and add to the long-term temperature increase from CO2.

Actually it was .2 C warmer. Now it is 1 C warmer than the medieval warm period.

Actually it was .2 C or less cooler than 1900.

Notice that most of your examples of extreme warming are from Europe. This is because most of the planet didn't even warm during the medieval warm period and almost all of it was in Europe. So average global temperatures only went up modestly. And just because nature warmed the planet before doesn't mean humans aren't doing it now. Its like claiming that because nature started fires before humans, that all fires are natural and not started by humans.

 

We also have measured increase in CO2 in land and sea, and we know that we are outputting it in great volume, and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Seems to me like you would have to deny the obvious to deny (very probable) human causation.

I think it's best to focus on responsible solutions that are fair and economically viable rather than continue debating the basic premise that humans impact the environment.

 

Distraff writes,

"Notice that most of your examples of extreme warming are from Europe. This is because most of the planet didn't even warm during the medieval warm period and almost all of it was in Europe. So average global temperatures only went up modestly. And just because nature warmed the planet before doesn't mean humans aren't doing it now. Its like claiming that because nature started fires before humans, that all fires are natural and not started by humans."

Your selected comment is not true, since there are good evidence of the MWP in the Southern Hemisphere too,as shown here:

Medieval Warm Period Project

LINK

 

Not that much since Human CO2 emissions is around 3% of the total yearly amount released.Nature does the other 97%

The Human effect via CO2 is very small at the 400 ppm level,which is in basic agreement among most scientists,it is the Positive Feedback that is missing, to make the AGW conjecture become viable. Since the THREE specific per decade warming trends from the mid 1800's are similar,the Satellite data doesn't show much warming at all since 2001. There is nothing unusual temperature wise going on, since the end of the LIA.

The IPCC reports since 1990 have projected much bigger warming than recorded,less than half the rate has showed up.

CO2 logarithmic curve is explained in this chart:



Modtran results show a similar curve. CO2 Molecule by itself adds little to the heat budget,as even most warmist scientists agrees on. It is the POSITIVE Feedback loop that is being depended on to bolster the big warming trend into the future. So far it hasn't showed up,in fact it is a growing failure as times passes,since Satellite data shows it is barely warming at all.

The best solution is to stop wasting money on mitigating a trace gas,with a known small warm forcing effect by human emissions, doesn't threaten the life on the planet. Better to spend the money on cleaning and protecting the Environment instead.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)


So what’s going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much – and are now soaking up slightly more.

Ocean sinks
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Climate Myth...
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).



Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

 

Agreed that CO2 is higher than usual,in part at least due to Human emissions. But that doesn't really help the AGW conjecture much since as already explained to you,the warm forcing effect of the CO2 molecule is very small. The much talked about per decade warming rate has never matched up with the CO2 emission rate well.

It is a weak position to say that because there has been at least 120 pmm increase since the late 1800's, it MUST be something to worry about,when historically we are currently in some of the lowest level of CO2 in the atmosphere, in over 500 Million years.

The rest of my post you didn't answer at all.

 

From YOUR link:

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year,/..."

Evidently my claim stands.

Again you and GP Wayne fail to show why the increase is a concern............

 

Evidently you ignore information that you don't like. That very same sentence continues: ... it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009).

 

I think we all agree the earth has been warming since the little ice age ended, where we disagree is why. Warming in and of itself proves nothing so I really don't see what your point is.

 

"The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."

Yet over the last decade where this phenomenon has grown exponentially, the earths temperature has failed to keep pace and in fact has not warmed at all or very little depending on who you believe. It's a real world AGW test and it's a huge fail

 

Nope. We're getting warmer as CO2 increases. It's just that it doesn't always and constantly translate into universally higher (ground level) atmospheric temperatures. It goes into the oceans as well, into melting polar ice and permafrost..

You're among those denying the reality in front of our faces because some wealthy people want you to. The same people who listen to these rich people complain about George Soros..

I'm tired of all this ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

I was talking about yearly EMISSIONS as shown here, "Not that much since Human CO2 emissions is around 3% of the total yearly amount released.Nature does the other 97%"

Your link supported my statement with this, "Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year,/..."

Didn't dispute the rest of your post that I lifted the quote from.Try not to accuse me of ignoring information,as I didn't dispute it in my reply. I have been in this debate for over 25 years now,very aware of the main discussion points.

 

I find it amusing that you suddenly degenerate into into being unpleasant.

The CO2 molecule by itself, has done most of the warm forcing it can do by the 400 ppm level.The Modran results show this as well as numerous sensitivity claims made by scientists on both sides of the debate. Posted a chart as an example of the CO2 Log curve,that is approximately what it can do.

The current debate actually centers on the proposed Positive feedback loop,to create the big warming per decade trend,which so far has fallen well below the projected rate as published in the IPCC reports,and the failure for the Tropical Troposphere "hot spot" to show up.

The Positive Feedback Loop,so far hasn't showed up,probably never will because it never has in the last 500 Million years.

 

The AGW cult has split into two sects on this issue. One refuses to admit there has been a "pause" in warming while the other acknowledges that but says the heat is just hiding somewhere. Now we know which sect you are in.

 

This is interesting, but I can't find real numbers on it. Searching on this subject is a pain, 'cause you have to wade through all the political tripe to find anything useful.

 

This warming, what is it with respect to? What are we supposed to make of this,
for example?

 

What can it ever mean in physical sense .... and where did you get this idea and terms?

 

I guess it should mean that scientists live thousands of years and have a good record of process of ice formation in relation to other factors in Greenland. And somehow we should take fantasies about medieval warming and ice age as something related to physical reality.

 

Meanwhile...in the real world and back on topic....

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.
(source - National Snow and Ice Data Center)

 

You know what I can make by zooming in on the front-end of any one of those warm spikes? A hokey-sick!

 

Because you are not a scientist. Scientists who made this graph can make anything out of anything, even out of nothing. Your imagination is quite limited.