A Well Mixed Bunch Of BS …… Sigh, Ice Cores And CO2 Levels ….. Again

So, I’m reading WUWT and I see this ……

Problems with Statistical Tests of Pre-1958 Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Data

It’s a fairly technical post, and to be sure, it does illustrate some problems.  But, I want to focus on what I believe should be more obvious problems. 

To give you some insight to the gravity of this, I’ll quote a paragraph from the post……

Most researchers who have examined pre-1958 relations between GHGs and temperature have used Antarctic ice core data provided by Etheridge et al (1996) (henceforth Etheridge). Etheridge measured the CO2 concentration of air trapped in the ice on Antarctica at the Law Dome, using three cores that varied from 200 to 1200 meters deep.

And, this is true. 

But, there’s a problem with this.  Well, there’s lots of problems with this.  First of all, we have to pretend all of the ice moves uniformly in lock-motion with all the other ice in the Antarctic.  If we don’t pretend this, then all of the chronology of the ice cores are of no value. 

Another problem we have is that our surface CO2 levels vary greatly, and seems to have no particular relationship with the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Here’s a graph of CO2 levels at 29 meters ……..

image

source

Notice the decline in the more recent years?  That’s converse to what we’re told our atmospheric CO2 levels were doing.  And, that’s at 29 meters high.  The ice cores are samples of surface CO2 which got trapped in the ice.  It isn’t related to atmospheric CO2.

Worse, at what point did people decide to pretend CO2 levels in the Antarctic were representative of global CO2 levels?  It isn’t.  In spite of what the pinheads model and spew, our CO2 isn’t well mixed. 

 

Watch the lower part of the screen in the vid. 

There’s a better video out there which demonstrates the diverse CO2 levels about the globe, but, I couldn’t find it so, we have this one.  Still it demonstrates the Antarctic CO2 levels are significantly different than Mauna’s. 

But, nutters and, sadly, some skeptics simply conflate the numbers as if they represent the same thing.  THEY DO NOT!!!!

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to A Well Mixed Bunch Of BS …… Sigh, Ice Cores And CO2 Levels ….. Again

  1. on some years, when are big bushfires in Australia = Antarctic gets more CO2; some years not many big fires = no CO2 on antarctic – nothing to do with the ”global level” of CO2.

    2] analyzing in 100m dept in the ice and ”presuming” that is 1200y old ice, is very, very stupid. Ice is melted from below by the geothermal heat, by a meter and more a year, and as much is created on the surface, by freeze-drying the moisture from the air. Therefore: if is 1km thick ice, the last meter on the bottom is only 1000y old – give or take few years, because ice on the bottom is very compacted. BUT, for the shonky ”researchers”, the ice on the bottom is 600 000y old. Therefore: data from that ice regarding any gas is completely wrong. Probably they know that; the only reason they are using that data, is to justify their expenses – AND as fodder for Anthony WUWT’s mushrooms…

  2. Latitude says:

    I’d like to say that CO2 history is the biggest scam out there…..but it’s head to head with temps

    ..what’s amazing is that people are still talking about this crap….not one bit of it makes any sense at all

  3. Jim Masterson says:

    I remember arguing about ice cores back before 2000. Then it was known by those arguing (both for and against ice cores), that Greenland ice cores were invalid for measuring CO2 concentrations. There was some historical modification of the Greenland glacier that made any estimate of age and CO2 concentrations invalid. It seems that this information (about bad Greenland ice) has been forgotten in recent years. I occasionally see posters trying to use CO2 concentrations from Greenland.

    In any case, there is some probability that water in the firns can exist in liquid form at extremely low temperatures–super-cooled water. Any liquid water in the firn region during pinch-off invalidates CO2 concentration measurements in those regions.

    Jim

    • suyts says:

      Jim, it goes to the earlier post about precision vs accuracy. I’m sure their measurements are precise. But, they don’t know what they don’t know.

      To me, there’s few things more silly than looking at some gas trapped in an Antarctic ice core and presuming (a the core is chronologically valid, and (b it’s representative of something globally.

      • Jim Masterson says:

        >>
        suyts says:
        August 30, 2014 at 8:42 pm

        Jim, it goes to the earlier post about precision vs accuracy. I’m sure their measurements are precise. But, they don’t know what they don’t know.
        <<

        I like the stomata method for measuring past CO2 concentrations. The method can be calibrated for various levels of CO2 and fossilized leaves often show stomata. The precision of the method was about ± 35 PPM (if I remember correctly). It’s not as good as the ice core method which claims a precision of ± 0.5 PPM or better. (Some try to argue that its the “accuracy” of the entire method.)

        I always pointed out that the claimed ice core precision (not accuracy) only refers to the final step of measuring a gas concentration in a test tube. It says nothing about the entire process from firn pinch-off, compression, drilling, selection, etc. I think that the precision of ice cores is at least as poor as the stomata method and probably far worse. In other words, ice core gas concentration measurements are essentially useless.

        Jim

    • Jim and James,they are 100% wrong – you are 50% wrong.
      The truth: example: in 1944, few american aircraft going to war in Europe, got lost and landed on the Greenland’s ice – few years ago those aircraft were discovered, 74m below the surface of the ice (by now they are 80m below the surface) In 70y, sunk 80m – because 1m a year ice is melted on the bottom – that ”geothermal heat” is not much, but is protected from the unlimited coldness in the air by the 1km thick ice, which is perfect insulator – so is melting and similar amount is renewed on the top, by freeze-drying the moisture from the air (like the fridges used to build up ice for defrosting. Antarctic and Arctic have that ”geothermal heat” same as any other continent ( miners can tell you: when they get 1km deep down, is 40C temp.)

      Therefore: if they drill 80m deep on Antarctic / greenland – that ice for them would be 25000y old, instead of 71 years = they make mockery of science, and are supported by most of the ”skeptics” (soon they will start discovering plastic bottles on 50m deep ice on Greenland and declare that the Vikings were using them 1000y ago…

        • ”landed in Greenland in World War II have been found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice”

          For 46years planes gone SUNK down 260 feet, that’s 1,5m a year = in 50y from today = discarded sunglasses and mobile telephones they will be finding on Greenland and Antarctic,in 50y, 70m deep down…. for them AND MOST OF THE SKEPTICS, 70m deep down in the ice represents 2500 years… did Cesar had a mobile? the ”proof will be in the ”ice cores” for both camps…Com on Anthony What’s Mushrooms (AWM)

      • suyts says:

        Stefan, I’m not sure how we can be 50% wrong when I stated that the ice doesn’t move uniformly.

        Yes, in many, many places in the Antarctic, as well as Greenland, geothermal heats the bottom of the ice sheet. In other places, where the underlying terra is elevated, it does not. So, the ice moves to and fro, and up and down. All at varying speeds, at varying areas. But, with or without the geothermal heat, the ice would still move at varying rates, up and down, to and fro.

      • suyts says: Stefan, I’m not sure how we can be 50% wrong when I stated that the ice doesn’t move uniformly”

        G’day James; yes, the ice doesn’t move uniformly, plus, ice constantly splits and in crevices fresh ice gets in, to fill up the gaps = you are spot on, correct on those 50% ( they did know that; reason they give for drilling in the ”MIDDLE” of a flat country)

        Now, the other, the big 50%: #1: in the past, on Antarctic they were drilling to 75m and to 100m deep – now they are drilling much deeper, I hope they will get to the bottom, BUT: ”the ice core data” comes from the 75m drilling – booklet written by a doctor / forgot his name.
        #2: Kim has found genuine proofs / experiment of nature on Greenland; it says: ”For 46 years planes SUNK down in the ice, 260 feet” There is no Warmist & Skeptic’s manipulation – just a 24 carat proof, please read it, Antarctic is similar: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html

        #3:from the 75m drilling ”ice core data” under the normal / honest criteria – on THE seventy-sixth meter, the ice is / was : about 60-70m old, not 15000 old. b] geothermal heat exist and is a fact that, that heat melts the ice from the bottom. c] by freeze-drying / crystallizing the water in the atmosphere is replenished by similar amount. (because is no clouds / rain / snowing on Antarctic = the shonks believe that ALL ice is very old, which is wrong – I have being trumpeting on the subject for the last 3 years. Therefore: on places where the ice is 2,5km thick, the oldest ice on the bottom is 2500y old, NOT 600 000 years, as contemporary warmist &Skeptic’s science / mythology promotes. Therefore: Climatologist are proven wrong = would be left only on one leg standing!!!

        BUT: to make it really pathetic – when I ask a ”skeptic”: -” how do you know that 7200 years and 2000 years was warmer the WHOLE planet, even on the S/H”?!
        The answer with full; confidence is: -” plenty evidences in the Antarctic’s ice cores!!!” That answer you would get from 95-97% of the ”Skeptics” = they are shielding the Warmist criminals from getting exposed.

        If the ”ice core data” is demolished = Warmist would be left with one leg – ”Skeptics” with no legs and no ground to stand on… Because: Ian Plimer’s mountain of crap – used by Anthony Watts to feed his mushrooms / called skeptics is the only protection the Warmist have. they cannot have any real proof, because isn’t going to be any GLOBAL warming. Unfortunately, the active ”Skeptics” are spooking the people on the street that; ”the WHOLE planet gets warmer / colder at a drop of heat” it’s tragic, it’s tragic…:

        • suyts says:

          I see. Stefan, sometimes I think you have the wrong impression of me.
          I’ve known about the sinking planes in Greenland for a very long time. As I recall, I noted it from the news release. I remember it quite well, because it affirmed what I knew, already …… the ice moves, always. Which is one of the points of the post.

          There’s nothing in your last comment which I disagree with.

          I do agree that one of the many problems with the AGW issue is supposed “skeptics”, who don’t think things through, and accept, as fact, some of the pillars alarmists use to prop up their lunacy.

          Why accept as fact some of the things they say when one disagrees with many other things they say? I don’t. I allow that somethings they say could be true, but, are probably not, because. some of the other things they say are demonstrably untrue.

          As my post stated, we have to “pretend”, else the chronology is untrue.

        • philjourdan says:

          Also, if you accept their parameters and then beat them (easy enough to do), then they are doubly defeated. And that is why many “skeptics” take the ice cores off the table – not because they have a great deal of faith in them, but to argue the meat of the issue – by accepting the alarmists claims.

  4. Pops says:

    Whenever anyone mentions CO2 levels, and how we’re all going to fry, starve, die, etc., I like to show them the following; it adds a little perspective:

    Taken from here:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    Scroll down to the bottom of that page and read “Our Future Written in Stone.” The money quote.

    • kim2ooo says:

      Good Read! Thank you 🙂

    • James, obviously; our friend Pops had his thermometer reaching all over Pacific and the Antarctic ”ice core data”’ for millions of years…. = Pops is a perfect example why the Warmist are lounging all the way to the bank… tragic…tragic…

      The truth: before Darwin published his book, it was: if you don’t pay 10% tax to the bishop and are too many teenage pregnancies -.> St Peter will sand hailstorms droughts and floods!
      After Darwin – the shonky scientist to discredit god – they went into overdrive: any anomaly they discover in a few cubic meters of soil / most of it was in the Colorado canyon = they were declaring that was GLOBAL events. instead of admitting that those sediments only tell the amount of rainfall upstream. b] the other 50% of the lies sprung from England – any anomaly found in England was declared as GLOBAL… Today the ”skeptics” cannot notice that england is only 0,5% of the planet – the ”globe” is not spinning around england.
      So, the shonky ”researchers” concocted the past truckloads of ”GLOBAL” warmings and ”GLOBAL” coolings, and ”GLOBAL” cycles -> that ALL became ”skeptic’s gospel / quicksand = they are stewing themselves in those lies/ Pops is the best example…

      How can a ”skeptic” prove that is not going to be GLOBAL warming in 2100, by LYING about avalanche of past PHONY GLOBAL warmings/ ”precise past average temp”’?! BUT: if proven the truth that: earth’s temperature self adjusting mechanism is perfect / overall GLOBAL temp is always the same = Marxist warmist would be finish in few months

      Unfortunately, when i try to explain the truth to a ”skeptic”, that the past localized temp fluctuations were never global / laws of physics don’t permit that – it’s as talking to a fence-post…. because his brains have being cooked by the Pagan beliefs, that the overall GLOBAL temp goes up and down as a yo-yo.. look at their PAST GLOBAL temp charts = they are the biggest con / lies since Homo Erectus invented language!!!!..

      • suyts says:

        I see some of the problem, here, Stefan. Please allow me as to be so bold as to offer you some insight.

        There is no validity in the notion of a “global temperature”. But, if you think about it, you already know this. Heat and energy comes and goes to and from the earth, and to and fro, on and in the earth. There are no measurements which could even conceivably measure the earth’s temperature. What would we be measuring and where?

        That said, we all know how many people perceive a “global temperature”. While we know the notion has no validity, there are people who believe a given temperature at a given plane about the earth does hold some meaning. Of course, at any specific plane on or in or above the earth, would have a variance of temperatures from time to time. If it did not vary from time to time, atrophy would ensue, and from there, death. And, so, at a given plane, or planes, of course, it occurs like a “yo-yo”, it cannot do otherwise. However, it doesn’t change the total makeup of the “global” temperature, what ever that means.

        • DirkH says:

          I would phrase it like this:

          Even if there’s a change in average global temperature it likely comes about through pulse width modulation. (A chaotic steam engine that wants to shed excess energy by moving it to upper atmosphere and then to space will simply increase its oscillations or change the pulse width of the oscillations )

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Dirk! “A chaotic steam engine that wants to shed excess energy etc.”

          Ooooh. Good one, yes, that makes sense — at least on the span of human lives. Long term, the system will eventually hit some combination of variable values that flips the system into another quasi-stable state with a new combination of frequency and pulse widths.

          This is related (distantly) to what I think is a small scale example of the same concept. As a child, I used to always wonder why, when looking at clouds, I would see periodic chains of very similar cloud bits. For instance, I might see a train of five or ten smallish cumulus clouds, all with similar size and shapes. It took a long time for me to realize that this type of formation was part of the cloud forming process. An open field (with some particular shape), might warm up from the sun and build up a layer of hot moist air until the air mass became buoyant enough to rise up in a thermal, cool down a bit and form a cloud. If insolation, wind speed, ground temperature, moisture, etc., were all absolutely stable, then this process would puff off an endless series of near identical clouds. But of course, all those factors are NOT stable — and in fact, some of them are changed by the cloud formation itself drying out the soil or cutting off some of the sunshine, or by the earth’s rotation bringing the sun to a different angle in the sky. These factors change the cloud spacing (frequency) and the cloud size and shape (pulse width). Eventually, with enough change, the cloud formation switches to some different mode or ceases entirely.

          “A chaotic steam engine…” Nice concept!

        • DirkH says:

          Chaotic systems can have several strange attractors (each such attractor being a semistable orbit – a circular chain of states that are visited one after the other); each such attractor is therefore a stable regime of the system. Extra energy input might lead to the chaotic system switching from the attractor it is in to another. Each attractor has a characteristic orbit time.

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Extra energy input might lead to the chaotic system switching from the attractor it is in to another. Each attractor has a characteristic orbit time.”

          Yes, multiple attractors — and each attractor usually composed of multiple “sub-attractors” in a more-or-less tightly grouped bunch. “And little attractors have lesser attractors, and so ad infinitum.” Remember, though that we are speaking about a chaotic system that has MANY different dimensions, and energy input (while perhaps the most powerful single variable) is not the only variable. I realize that I am doing a little hand waving here, but it should be very possible that one could get similar state changes for many differing reasons or groups of reasons. For example, suppose that a diminished solar constant was a potential (and pretty likely!) cause for a flip into global glaciation. It should be possible that a concatenation of other less powerful variables could equally well trigger the same glaciation. Perhaps a change of ocean currents combined with an odd resonance with long term tidal effects with a touch of plankton bloom caused by mineral run-off from a newly eroded vein of iron ore…and you end up with the same glaciation which a reduced solar constant would have caused. The point being that chaotic systems — especially those which respond to many different variables — will have multiple semi-stable states around multiple-attractors, and the specific cause of flipping from one attractor to another may be obvious in retrospect but almost impossible to forecast with any high certainty ahead of time. Extreme sensitivity to initial state is Nature’s way of saying “you will never guess what I have in my hand!”

        • Jason Calley says: “Extra energy input might lead to the chaotic system”

          Jason, any connection to Sir Humphrey from the ”yes minister show”?
          You managed to put enough crap in your comment – what takes others to do in 7-8 comments… Trying to confuse the confused, backfires… you confuse yourself even more

          The truth: the ”Self Adjusting Temperature Mechanism” {STAM) is brilliant / perfect and SIMPLE: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

        • DirkH says:

          Stefan; we see two different quasi stable regimes during the ice age (which has not ended as long as there is ice at the poles) – glaciation and non-glaciation.

          We also see that an ice age can end (no ice at the poles some time in the past) and we enter hothouse earth.

          We know that the flips between non-glaciation and glaciation came about quickly – within years or decades.

          So there is evidence for different quasi-stable regimes. And that is typical for a chaotic system. In my opinion the flips between the regimes are mostly controlled by Solar influence. But I can’t prove that.

          If the Earth climate system comes close enough to the possible flip section even a tiny influence like CO2 could trigger the flip. In my opinion this is impossible to predict with our climate models as it hinges on microscopic events; like a coin toss.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Stefan, I read your posting that you linked to. Here are two bits from it.

          “the only way one part of the planet can get warmer is: if other part gets colder, simultaneously! Same as the children’s ‘’see-saw plank’’ the higher one side goes up – simultaneously, the other side goes down. Both sides cannot go up, OR down, simultaneously!”

          and

          “THE BOTTOM LINE: to understand better regarding the ”increasing cooling” and ”increasing warming” for prolong period; for example: if the earth starts orbiting slower around the sun – say; year becomes 370day long -> planet will get warmer.(it will travel trough less of that ”cold nothingness b] if the year gets shorter, 360 days in a year – which means: the planet travels faster trough that cold nothingness -> the planet will get colder.”

          After reading your post, I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand what DirkH and I were discussing.

          And Dirk… You have some great ideas. Thanks for sharing!

        • Jason Calley says:

          Oh, Dirk! One last thing. I just ran across this comment by rgbatduke over at WattsUpWithThat. It is well worth reading.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/past-temperature-in-greenland-adjusted-to-fit-new-theory/#comment-1727802
          Many of the points that he stresses follow along with what you and I were both saying.

          Thanks again for your thoughts! 🙂

        • DirkH says:

          I’ve been running economic models (Genetic algorithms) to develop trading strategies for at least half a decade so I’ve been looking a lot into nonlinear operators, DSP filters and all that. You want a quasi-intelligent behaviour from as few parts as possible, and you can only do that with nonlinearity, feedback and such. See also BEAM robotics, the Robosapien etc. Very efficient exploitation of resonance and feedback.

        • DirkH says: ”Stefan; we see two different quasi stable regimes during the ice age (which has not ended as long as there is ice at the poles) – glaciation and non-glaciation”

          Dirk, sun NOT GUILTY!!!
          2]Not to be ice on the poles…? Dirk. on the poles gets far BELOW MINUS -70C. ”The heat/sun”. to melt the ice on the polar caps; the temp on the planet must get warmer by 71C, which means: on the equatorial regions the temperature would be 106C, that’s 6C above WATER BOILING POINT. Did Anthony Watts confiscated your thinking hat?

        • DirkH says:

          Stefan; now you assume that if the planet gets warmer, it will get warmer by the same amount everywhere on the planet at the same time?
          Why would that have to be so? Wouldn’t that be rather extraordinary?
          And why do you think I agree with Anthony Watts on anything?

        • DirkH says:

          BTW my argument concentrates on the principal incapability of climate models to make long range forecasts of any value. Not an argument that Anthony Watts makes; as you could have noticed.

  5. cdquarles says:

    Like water, carbon dioxide concentrations are subject to local kinetics. There are major sources and sinks for carbon dioxide, yet even knowing this, people want to elide over that and claim ‘well mixed’. Okay, then, define well mixed, when you don’t have a clue about the kinetics of the sources and sinks.

    I think what’s happened is a bit of newspeak. Like LTE, well mixed seems to have different meanings depending on who and what’s being studied. Okay, if well mixed means something akin to LTE, then it only applies to a defined air column, just as LTE only applies to a defined, usually small, volume within a system. If that’s true, then you can’t claim ceteris paribus without listing the number and kinds of defined conditions.

    Shining an IR beam with the proper frequency into a flask with a defined partial pressure of carbon dioxide with a spectrograph, you will see absorption on the spectrogram and warming with a thermometer in the sample. What you can’t do is jump from A to B, the open atmosphere, without showing how the two must work in the same way, ceteris paribus; when it is obvious that conditions are not only not the same, they can’t be controlled to be the same.

  6. philjourdan says:

    The benefit of taking a weekend off is that I can read the article, the source, and the comments. A lot to think about. But let’s allow that what has happened is a metric has been assigned an arbitrary scale – and that scale has been graphed on to actual data (a favorite of Mann and Briffa).

    The value of the co2 readings is relative. We can see how things change, but we cannot as yet measure them (that will require some future people measuring it and comparing it to current accurate readings – if we can keep NASA away from monkeying with the data). We cannot know what the global levels were 2000 years ago in relation to today, but we can know how they changed.

    As for dating the ice, that has a limit of 50,000 years (the half life of CO2). Whether the ice is 200 or 2000 feet deep, the depth should not be the time indicator. The amount of C14 is the metric.

  7. DirkH commented: ”Stefan; we see two different quasi stable regimes during the ice age (which has not ended as long as there is ice at the poles) – glaciation and non-glaciation.
    We also see that an ice age can end (no ice at the poles some time in the past) and we enter hothouse earth. We know that the flips between non-glaciation and glaciation came about quickly – within years or decades”

    Dirk, ”we see” what we are told to see; unless you have your own crystal ball…? I stopped believing in the pagan beliefs long time ago..The shonky ”experts” made lots of extravagant climes, to make it interesting BUT: for any anomaly in the past, there is a legitimate explanations, AND there are the phony proofs that you warship. a]Present polar caps were without ice in the past, because the polar caps at that time were on different places.
    b]Point the finger at ONE pagan proof, any proof- I will point to you the legitimate explanation and you will see the difference between the mythology the ”skeptics” believe and the reality

    • suyts says:

      Stefan, thanks for another good comment! I don’t wish you to take this in the wrong manner, so I’ll explain a bit.
      I believe the commentators here are very exceptional. This, of course, includes you. But, I’ve never seen where exceptional minds completely agree on things.

      Certainly, I don’t speak for Dirk, but, reading what your wrote, …… Dirk, ”we see” what we are told to see; unless you have your own crystal ball…? …… doesn’t that go both ways?

      Truly, none of us have been there during the time the Arctic may have been ice free. What does your crystal ball say?

  8. suyts commented: ”Truly, none of us have been there during the time the Arctic may have been ice free. What does your crystal ball say?”

    James, if you believe in the ”normal laws of physics”; it’s like traveling in time; because those laws of physics were same then as they are now, and they will be same in 100y from now!!!

    Arctic was ice free many times, for many different reasons. b] the time I presume you people think, from 24000-12000 years ago – Arctic was ice free because was TOO COLD, not too warm!!!
    Which means: moisture that replenishes the ice regularly there, was intercepted south in europe&usa and was building much more ice than normal = then was no ”raw material” left for replenishing the ice on the north pol – I have given it a name: ”Ice Doughnut Effect” Europe had 100m of ice / north USA had up to a km, arctic and alaska close to zero.

    Which means: Arctic was like permafrost – permafrost is desert in a cold country. (do you know what part and why siberia is permafrost? A: because raw material for ice is intercepted far away. b] permafrost area is colder than on greenland where is one km thick ice!!!

    3] you have to acknowledge first: #1: ice on arctic is constantly melted by the salty water currents; FROM BELOW, NOT from the top. #2: it need regular replenishing, OR: ice is gone!
    #3: you have to acknowledge first that: that ”raw material” for replenishing the ice, is created IN THE WARMER LATITUDES =”warmer water than normal”= more ”raw material” for ice created!!!
    #4: you and Dirk experiment::: put in one freezer 1litre bottle of water – in another freezer put 15 bottles of water = in two days, the second freezer will have 15 times more ice than the first freezer, that’s 1500% more ice. b] in both freezers the temp is -17C – average temp on Arctic is twice as cold than in your freezer = if there was enough moisture, would have produced another 30km of ice on the top of the existing one ==== then reverse: if moisture is intercepted in europe & canada = no moisture left for arctic = arctic becomes ice free BECAUSE: it was ”COLDER” south and didn’t produce enough raw material for creation of ice PLUS: because was TOO COLD in europe&usa, moisture was building extra ice there = nothing left for Arctic and Alaska

    bottom line: amount of ice on the polar caps doesn’t represent the amount of coldness! if you pump moist hot air from Singapore to antarctic -> you can build 30km thick ice b] as long as you are manipulated by Anthony Watts = you will be always back to front and will be making the Warmist rich and powerful…. cheers!

    • DirkH says:

      Stefan; I have myself many times stated that the amount of ice is an integral of the temperature anomaly, i.e. 90 degrees phase-shifted in all frequency ranges.

  9. DirkH commented ”Stefan; now you assume that if the planet gets warmer, it will get warmer by the same amount everywhere on the planet at the same time?”

    Wrong! I don’t assume, I know the planet will NOT get warmer! B] but if she did, the heat is created in tropics & subtropics and spread to the poles – if the phony GLOBAL warming gets even more inebriated and warms on one pol, then skips the tropics ans subtropics and that heat goes direct to the other pol…? maybe will drill trough the earth and avoid warmer climates. ”Wouldn’t that be rather extraordinary?” yes!
    2]then you ask: ”And why do you think I agree with Anthony Watts on anything?”

    A:because he lies that: the amount of ice on the polar caps depend on the temperature there.

    THE TRUTH: the amount of ice on the polar caps depend on many factors BUT, definitely not on temp getting warmer / colder there!!!
    A] on Arctic few places gets for few days up to 4C, that’s 4C above melting BUT: 5kg of ice in your cool box keeps the beer chilled in temp of 30C all day = therefore: Arctic the warmest 4C is very cold and ice stays frozen, plus ”she has more than 5kg of ice” to protect itself; if you don’t believe me, ask Anthony.

    factors affecting the amount of ice on the polar caps:
    #1: most Russian rivers drain into Arctic / big rivers – some years produce more ”FRESH” water, others not. When is more; a] that freshwater spreads on the top of the heavier salty water and protects the ice from the salt, b] from freshwater ice is created saltwater eats ice, c] ice sacrifices a bit of itself to create buffer between itself and the saltwater – BUT because the currents take away that freshwater created -> ice must sacrifice more and more of itself = it DEPENDS ON THE STRENGTH OF THE CURRENTS – they speed up or slow down for different reasons

    #2: when is less freshwater from those rivers -> more salty / warm water comes via Bering from north pacific, to accommodate the tides, b] ice reacts different to freshwater and salty / warmwater

    #3: via Bering straights currents go via north pol and splits to Norwegian and Labrador currents and got to Mexican gulf, then to Mediterranean = less water Danube and Nile rivers supply, high evaporation in Mediterranean = increases the speed of those currents, to compensate fore evaporated water deficit

    #4: Siberian permafrost doesn’t have ice or snow, because is TOO FAR FROM ”WARM” seawater, ”warmer seawater produces more raw material for renewal of the ice / snow. HOW?:: B] Greenland is wedged between warm Atlantic and cold arctic / intercepts moisture that comes from south. reason where Greenland has 1km thick ice – on same latitude in Finland potatoes are growing – on same latitude far east is permafrost, because ”WATER VAPOR” doesn’t get there. (water vapor is that thing what the warmist and Anthony demonize) therefore: if sahara had more water / as in the past instead of dry heat – would have affected the arctic’s ice differently)

    #5: the dry / HEAVY air on the polar caps is getting picked up by the earth’s centrifugal force and puled towards the subtropics – to avoid vacuum -> low moist air from the subtropics moves to the polar caps and brings moisture / ”raw material” for ice renewal – the coldness freeze-dries that moisture and increases ice BUT: when Sahara increases production of dry heat -> it kills the moisture created in North Atlantic; that moisture belongs for Arctic’s renewal of her ice = different direction winds Sahara get = affects arctic’s ice on different way on individual years

    #6: even though it gets on few small places on arctic up to 4C, that’s on the ground – moisture is 4-5km up (even in Germany is snowing sometime when on the GROUND is 5-6C)

    #7: if THE experiment: in SAME coldness deep freezers can have in 2days 1500% more ice in one freezer than the other= should be enough proof that: ”the amount on the polar caps doesn’t depend on the phony warming planet, BUT on the amount of raw material for renewal the ice and speed of the currents below the ice.

    #8: on antarctic, when is El Nino year – side of antarctic exposed to east pacific and Chile gets more ice -> Skeptics instantly start beating themselves in the chest: look look more ice BUT on the other side not renewed the ice -> warmist go in overdrive. Then La Nina comes -> side of antarctic exposed to australia and indian ocean gets more ice, but not the side closer to Chile -> instant noise from both camps: look, look, no ice yes ice, more ice, start comparing with ” hundreds of thousandths of years ice core”…(welcome to loony farm) On Antarctic the HOTTEST it gets on few spots is minus -4C = that’s 4C BELOW ICE MELTING POINT!!!

    in the past, before south and north america joined, via that gap lots of water was flowing from Mexican gulf into pacific – current was coming there as fast river from arctic = arctic didn’t have any ice because of it. (as they talk, if they cut a canal for direct physical contact gulf/pacific = would be the end of Arctic’s ice. Unfortunately, nobody cares about reality… Because most of the ”skeptics” say: -”we seeee only what we are told by Anthony to seeeeeeeeeee!!!”’

    if I was you, I would have returned that crystal ball back to Anthony and get your money back

    cheers!

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