THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max,
Yep, that’s really what it all boils down to; a computer model, (Gameboy if you will), programmed ahead of time to achieve a desired result that just so happens to “prove” that increased industrial progress and lifting humankind out of poverty and “desperation” will harm the planet.
A computer generated scenario that allows politicians to use as “evidence”….. to transfer the proceeds of economic activity from the people to themselves with the ultimate goal being that everyone conducts their lives as they do……excuse me……as they say we should do.
After all, Al God……I mean Al Gore, created us all in HIS own image and likeness.
Hi Peter,
There you go again (1586) with your statement that “the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion would disagree with” me. This is a silly statement for at least two reasons:
1. You have no list of climate scientists, which supposedly represent this “overwhelming majority” that “disagree with me”. Disagree with me about what? Please provide this list (exclude computer scientists and programmers here and just bring qualified meteorologists or other climate scientists) and identify specifically what you feel they disagree with me about.
2. Science (even the more dicey “climate science”) is not based on consensus. One study based on physical observations (Spencer on clouds, 2007), which validates an earlier hypothesis on negative cloud feedbacks by a single scientist (Lindzen) can cancel out a whole series of GIGO computer model outputs (IPCC 2007) involving hundreds of “scientists” (plus computer jockeys) which showed a positive feedback from clouds. Poof!
Now you want me to agree to, “Can I just confirm that you are agreeing that one small upturn in the ever decreasing zig-zag graph of Arctic sea ice is insignificant?
Would you say that the 670,000 sq km gain in Arctic sea ice from August 2007 to August 2008 was more or less significant than the loss of 1.5 million sq km from August 2006 to August 2007?”
Peter, you ask for my opinion on the significance of the past two years’ Arctic sea ice fluctuations. I believe that the entire discussion about recent Arctic sea ice developments as an indicator of AGW is insignificant until (as the good Dr. A. has said) we can identify what caused the major early 20th-century warming and ice melt (which we know for sure was not caused by AGW) and eliminate this factor (or these factors) as the cause for the recent warming (and ice melt).
(And BTW, the August 2006-August 2007 loss was not 1.5 million sq km; it was 1.15 million sq km; when you quote figures, you should make sure you’ve got them right.)
Now to your last (pardon the expression, but that’s what it is) rant: “You really aren’t interested in the science. You’re just interested in peddling what can at best, and at a stretch, and to stay within blog rules, may be described as half-truths.
Can something like this be the beginning of the end for contararian web sites?”
Peter, this is an extremely irrational, emotional and juvenile statement. Try, if you can, to stay objective and on topic and avoid these “rants”. They really only make you look silly.
Regards,
Max
September 12, 2008
New Scientist: Sea Ice Increases Due to Global Warming
James Lewis
You gotta hand it to the global warming crowd. They have mind-bending gall.
New Scientist, which used to be a good pop science magazine, now quotes a NASA scientist saying:
“The Antarctic wintertime ice extent increased…at a rate of 0.6% per decade” from 1979 to 2006, says Donald Cavalieri, a senior research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. … Since 1979 … the average year-round ice extent has risen too.”
Let’s see, that would be 27 years, so a total increase of about 2.0% in the extent of sea ice in the Antarctic. That’s a lot of frozen daiquiris.
Millions of tons of increased ice in the Antarctic sounds colder rather than warmer, no?
But the Eye of Gaia has a different way of spinning these facts. New Scientist begins the article with:
“The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts say.”
You see, when it gets hotter it proves global warming. And when it gets colder it also proves global warming.
They get you coming and going.
And these people think creationism is unscientific?
Don’t they ever feel embarassed? And why are all the other scientists in the world not rolling on the floor laughing at these silly twits?
Max,
“until (as the good Dr. A. has said) we can identify what caused the major early 20th-century warming”
And do you have any ideas on how we can go back to the 1930’s to do this?
Methinks you are not interested in ‘identifying’ this at all. It’s got be mainly a solar effect but you prefer a mysterious factor X, and to which you can also incorrectly attribute the late 20th century warming. We do have good measurements to show the sun has hardly changed in the last 50 years.
Brute,
I was just wondering how it felt to be living in the United Socialist States of America these days? Your government has made more progress in the nationalisation of banks, and big financial institutions in the last few days than the Australian and British Labor Parties ever did in decades of trying!
If things keep going the way they are, you’ll soon be looking forward to the issuing of regular five year plans. In a few years, instead of all those billboards advertising Coca Cola that you have over there, they’ll be showing pictures of heroic peasants and factory workers inspired by great and wise leaders of the revolution. If it works for the Chinese…….
I hope you’ve got someone to check on Dr Hansen’s monthly expense claim. You never know, he might have included his recent UK trip!
Hi Peter,
To my reference to Dr. Akasofu’s study raising the question of what caused the early 20th century rise in Arctic temperatures (and sea ice melt) you wrote (1597), “Methinks you are not interested in ‘identifying’ this at all. It’s got be mainly a solar effect but you prefer a mysterious factor X, and to which you can also incorrectly attribute the late 20th century warming. We do have good measurements to show the sun has hardly changed in the last 50 years.”
Peter, it’s nice what “methinks” (but it just doesn’t prove very much). Dr. Akasofu simply states (quite logically) that until we know what caused the early 20th century Arctic warming (and ice melt), we cannot claim to know what caused the late 20th century Arctic warming (and ice melt). This makes sense to me.
Can you find a flaw in this logic? Please explain.
I would very much hope that we can truly identify both, so we can get off of the silly notion that the latter was caused by human CO2 emissions (while we have no earthly notion what caused the former).
Regards,
Max
“Can you find a flaw in this logic?” Yes
“Please explain.” Well I’ll do my best.
Say observation A accurred at time Y, then again at time Z
Technology at time Y is not as developed as it is at time Z. Therefore there is some uncertainty as to the cause..
Does this now mean that it is therefore impossible to determine, to a much better degree of certainty, the cause of the same observation at the later time when technology is much improved?
No it doesn’t.
Peter Martin 1589:
I [Bobbo] currently only have time to respond to your first paragraph!
I PASTE what you wrote in part in 1589:
So, let’s get this right; you “THINK” ……….
OK; Would you care to also think about the following:
(DATELINE 1990): Winds of change thinned the arctic ice (<Google This)
EXTRACT: …ICE covering the sea north of Greenland thinned by about 80 centimetres between 1976 and 1987. But the thinning was not a result of ice melting as the greenhouse effect warmed the world, says Peter Wadhams, the director of the Scott Polar Research Institute. Instead, he links it to a change in wind patterns that pushed sea ice away from the northern shore of Greenland…”
(DATELINE 2004): Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (<Google This)
EXTRACTS: “…[Winds] not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say…”
“…The melting in places was extensive even where local temperatures were colder than normal. This was the case in the summers of 2002 and 2003 for Alaskan coastal waters…”
(DATELINE 2007.10): NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007 (<Google This)
EXTRACT: “… Nghiem [JPL] said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” [~2000?] Nghiem said…”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Various links for the above and also Anthony Watt’s comments may appear next, subject to spammo.
Please take note of the NAO and also it’s overlying LFO.
Bob_FJ
Well if its OK to quote NASA once again how about?
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
( Just put ‘http://’ if front of the above)
“The map reveals that the greatest warming has been in the Arctic and neighboring high latitude regions. Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observed record low Arctic sea ice cover in September 2007.”
TonyN: Seem to be having more trouble with links these days. And your filter seems to know which are the pro-science links too! :-)
Hello Peter, and pardom me if I comment on your exchange with Brute over “nationalization” here in the States. Maybe you don’t get the in-depth news over there (or is it ‘down under’) that we get here, but just to clear things up a bit for you: The recent “seizure” of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, both quasi-independent corporations, was hardly a “nationalization”. These two gigantic organizations package and resell as securities home mortgages here in the States. Their financial difficulties resulted in their being forced into receivership and a reorganization, not “nationalization” in the Euro-collectivist traditional definition. It basically bankruptsy, while they are reorganized. For sure, the US taxpayer will be ‘on the hook’ for tens of billions of dollars, but that’s OK, we can afford it.
Yes, the US taxpayers are footing the bill for a bailout fo Bear Stearns, but not Leyman Bros or Merryl Lynch. The former declared bankruptsy, and the latter was bought out at firesale prices by the Bank of America (a private bank).
I’m not certain why Bear Stearns got a bailout offer but not Leyman Bros, but the situation was, apparently, different.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Re my post above: Obviously, “bankruptsy” is actually spelled “bankruptcy”. It was early and I hadn’t had my coffee yet…
I apologize for the error.
Hi Peter,
You explained how we know today what caused recent Arctic warming despite the fact that we do not know what caused similar warming in the 1930s.
“Say observation A accurred at time Y, then again at time Z
Technology at time Y is not as developed as it is at time Z. Therefore there is some uncertainty as to the cause..
Does this now mean that it is therefore impossible to determine, to a much better degree of certainty, the cause of the same observation at the later time when technology is much improved? No it doesn’t.”
This is a wonderful hypothesis. It assumes that we now have better means of determining the root cause of Arctic climate changes than we did in the 1930s.
Now I do not dispute that we have more sophisticated means of measuring these changes (satellites, etc.) than we had then, but I would dispute that we have significantly better means of determining the root cause of the changes.
I will cite just one example. A NASA study concludes that the warmer temperatures in the Arctic may be attributed to changes in the ocean currents rather than to global warming, yet the root cause for these decadal reversals in Arctic circulation patterns is unknown.
http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/arctic-ocean-circulation-goes-into.html
This is exactly Dr. Akasufo’s point (and I would think that he probably knows what he is talking about, having studied Arctic climate patterns for years). We do not know how much of the change is caused by which natural factors today, any more than we know what caused the equally rapid warming of the 1930s. Since there was very little change in atmospheric CO2 at that time, we can eliminate AGW as a possible cause then, but we cannot pinpoint the causes. Once we can identify all these causes, we can eliminate them and their effect and see what’s left to “blame” on human CO2 emissions.
As evidence of root cause I would concentrate on physical observations and exclude computer models specifically programmed to put the “blame” on human CO2. This is no “evidence”.
Sorry, Peter, your hypothesis does not hold water.
Bring specifics rather than nice, unproven hypotheses. We’ve got enough of these in the whole AGW saga. What is lacking is specific physical evidence (as Dr. A. pointed out).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Looks like this got stuck in the spam filter, so will send link separately.
You explained how we know today what caused recent Arctic warming despite the fact that we do not know what caused similar warming in the 1930s.
“Say observation A accurred at time Y, then again at time Z
Technology at time Y is not as developed as it is at time Z. Therefore there is some uncertainty as to the cause..
Does this now mean that it is therefore impossible to determine, to a much better degree of certainty, the cause of the same observation at the later time when technology is much improved? No it doesn’t.”
This is a wonderful hypothesis. It assumes that we now have better means of determining the root cause of Arctic climate changes than we did in the 1930s.
Now I do not dispute that we have more sophisticated means of measuring these changes (satellites, etc.) than we had then, but I would dispute that we have significantly better means of determining the root cause of the changes.
I will cite just one example. A NASA study concludes that the warmer temperatures in the Arctic may be attributed to changes in the ocean currents rather than to global warming, yet the root cause for these decadal reversals in Arctic circulation patterns is unknown.
(See link posted separately)
This is exactly Dr. Akasufo’s point (and I would think that he probably knows what he is talking about, having studied Arctic climate patterns for years). We do not know how much of the change is caused by which natural factors today, any more than we know what caused the equally rapid warming of the 1930s. Since there was very little change in atmospheric CO2 at that time, we can eliminate AGW as a possible cause then, but we cannot pinpoint the causes. Once we can identify all these causes, we can eliminate them and their effect and see what’s left to “blame” on human CO2 emissions.
As evidence of root cause I would concentrate on physical observations and exclude computer models specifically programmed to put the “blame” on human CO2. This is no “evidence”.
Sorry, Peter, your hypothesis does not hold water.
Bring specifics rather than nice, unproven hypotheses. We’ve got enough of these in the whole AGW saga. What is lacking is specific physical evidence (as Dr. A. pointed out).
Regards,
Max
Link to post #1605
http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/arctic-ocean-circulation-goes-into.html
Hi Peter,
Since our exchange on Arctic sea ice and temperature fluctuations seems to have gotten stuck without any real conclusion, I’d like to propose a change of topics, namely that of false claims by IPCC that sea levels have recently been rising more rapidly due to (you guessed it) AGW.
There are some basic problems with the IPCC claims on sea level, which I will list below.
IPCC 2007 SPM claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods (pp.5,7). “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.”
(Link 1 posted separately)
The actual measured record based on tide gauges shows significant up and down swings in rate of change (from positive to negative), but an overall slowing down instead of an acceleration, with the rise in sea level in the second half of the 20th century significantly lower than the rise in the first half.
(Link 2 posted separately)
This report concludes: “Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (?1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.”
Another 2003 study concludes, “In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration.”
(Link 3 posted separately)
In other words, an acceleration in sea level rise as suggested by IPCC is not supported by the tide gage record.
Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gage record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods. IPCC throws out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration. To compare one set of results using one method covering one scope over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method covering a different scope over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an acceleration trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method and covers the same scope for both periods and shows no acceleration is ignored.
A more recent study using satellite altimetric data entitled “Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993-2004” concluded that the increase over this period was 1.6 mm/year (or around one-half the rate reported by IPCC and slightly lower than the average for the entire 20th century). It did conclude, however that “systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change” and the [satellite] “database is insufficient to compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming”.
(Link 4 posted separately)
Despite the reservations stated above, the impression is given by IPCC that satellite altimetry provides a more accurate methodology for measuring sea level trends than the older tide gages, “These estimates are based on improved satellite and in situ data now available.”
Based on the evaluation of the scientists directly involved in satellite altimetry to measure sea levels, it appears that the above-stated reservations on the accuracy of this method are well founded and the IPCC statement referring to “improved satellite data” is a bit of a stretch.
A report by one of the NOAA scientists directly involved casts serious doubt on the validity of satellite altimetry for measuring sea levels, concluding, ”every few years we learn about mishaps or drifts in the altimeter instruments, errors in the data processing or instabilities in the ancillary data that result in rates of change that easily exceed the formal error estimate, if not the rate estimate itself.” “It seems that the more missions are added to the melting pot, the more uncertain the altimetric sea level change results become.”
(Link 5 posted separately)
All in all, it appears that IPCC is on very weak ground in its claim of accelerated sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods.
A more correct conclusion would have been, “Observations show large oscillations in the rate of sea level rise, with an underlying trend of -1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr over the 20th century and a slight reduction in the rate of rise in the latter 20th century as compared to earlier periods. New satellite altimetry measurements promise another source of data, but this methodology is still in its infancy for sea level measurement, and unable to provide accurate trend data today.”
That would have been a true and honest statement.
Peter, what do you think about all this? Do you seriously believe that IPCC is correct in its assessment that sea level rise is accelerating as a result of AGW, or do you agree with me that this is a false claim?
Regards,
Max
(Link 1, post 1606)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
(Link 2, post 1606)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
(Link 3, post 1606)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-49C5G0W-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d471cc450145c491b716051f36f61df5
(Link 4, post 1606)
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
(Link 5, post 1606)
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
Pete,
Artic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over, ice up over 9% from last year
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/artic-sea-ice-melt-season-officially-over-up-over-9-from-last-year/
I wish the stock market was doing as well……………and the CO2 Level rises…..
Hi Brute,
Well, yippee, the Arctic Ice is the only the second worst year on record!
If Arctic Ice was was really behaving like the stock market it would be back to its 2004 or 2005 level, which at the time would have been an all time record high. And, yes, we might indeed still be worried that an ice age was imminent!
I notice that once again you decline to link to the NSIDC directly, even though you have mentioned them by name, but instead choose hearsay evidence.
This is what the NSIDC themselves do actually say: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This is the 9.4% figure in its full context:
“Despite overall cooler summer temperatures, the 2008 minimum extent is only 390,000 square kilometers (150,000 square miles), or 9.4%, more than the record-setting 2007 minimum. The 2008 minimum extent is 15.0% less than the next-lowest minimum extent set in 2005 and 33.1% less than the average minimum extent from 1979 to 2000.”
Is there any particular reason why you and Anthony Watts cherry picked the 9.4% figure but omitted the others? Is he so short of webspace that he couldn’t squeeze in the full paragraph?
Max,
“That would have been a true and honest statement.”
Well yes we know that you are a stickler for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You never selectively cherry pick data, you never quote a single year’s temperature change nor a single year’s change in the sea ice data but always present graphs to show the long term change. So, I can imagine how upset you must be that someone has given what you consider to be less than a full and honest statement!
I haven’t studied changing sea levels sufficiently. But there does seem to be a measure of uncertainty about what is happening. The first thing to say is that the melting Arctic ice will make little if any change to overall sea levels. It is likely that increased global temperatures will lead to increased precipitation which may temporarily thicken the ice mass in Antarctica. I know the IPCC do include these factors that into their assessment of sea level change.
I know it is a cliche but the melting Arctic Ice really should be considered the canary in the coal mine. While the canary, and maybe Polar Bears too, might die, we’ll still live for a while longer. However if we ignore the canary’s death ………
Peter Martin 1602, (In response to my 1601?)
I don’t know what you are trying to show with your latest divertimenti, (resorting to GISS 2007 stuff, which does NOT even mention air-flow), but putting that aside, I wonder if you can see any similarity between Hansen’s Figure 4b and Polyrakov’s previously discussed Antarctic data? There is also, for instance, Chylek et al (2005?) wherein they concluded that Greenland was warmer in the early 1900’s than recently. (But of course this was TOTALLY ignored by the IPCC, even though Box, a lead author in that relevant chapter was fully aware of the data!)
No matter! YOU can simply IMPLY that these data are false. (Because they conflict with your dogma)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me comment to you on some of my direct experience of how wind flow patterns can dramatically affect “the weather”, let alone the dynamics of sea-ice drifting on water.
A) You may from time to time have noticed how Melbourne can achieve T’s around 38-43C; much hotter than in the tropics or in Brisbane where you live. Here’s a teaser question for you….. Have you got any idea why that might be?
Choose one of the following maybe:
1) Melbourne has more CO2 than Brisbane
2) Some other REGIONAL VARIATION effect
B) Back in 1982/1983, I was working in Windsor, Canada, just across the Detroit River from Detroit, one April when it was unusually hot, more like July said the locals, and they were water skiing etc on the great lakes and the river. The adjacent year, same month, April, it was unusually cold, and bitterly windy, (I even suffered bad injury to my arm as a heavy Hotel glass hinged door slammed into it from the wind). The Detroit River had truly spectacular sheets of ice.
Here’s a teaser question for you….. Have you got any idea why that might be, just 1 year apart?
Choose one of the following maybe:
3) There was more CO2 in one year than the other
4) Some other REGIONAL VARIATION effect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my 1601, I give three references reporting @ 1990, 2004 & 2007 over three different periods from different respected sources, all saying that unusual loss of Antarctic sea-ice was primarily caused by unusual winds and NOT Global Warming. As far as I’m aware, the sources that you prefer, (and the IPCC) pay no attention to this influence.
I WONDER if you have:
5) Actually read the three accounts, and followed-up on any leads
6) Simply assumed that they are false because the do not support your dogma
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When you say:
7) So, I guess you are reiterating that the sea-ice loss that can be fairly well measured since ~1979 has been caused by global warming, and that you dismiss the evidence that unusual airflow blows the drifting ice into warmer zones.
8) By ‘high latitude regions’, and ’Polar stuff’ I guess you mean that this effect only applies to the northern high latitudes, because obviously there must be more CO2 up north than in the southern equivalent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, this is addressing just on your ramblings in Paragraph 1 only of your 1589!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sheez!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, just another quicky. If there is a wind blowing from the north, do you admit that it might cause any sea-ice over which it blows to respond dynamically by drifting south?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s all I have time for now.
Pete,
Well, as usual, your comment reeks of pessimism.
You may as well have written:
“Last year I made $1,000,000.00. This year I ONLY made $1,100,000.00.”
Things are terrible.