Arctic waters not freezing

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a trace of a trace of a trace......

CO2 is ~4% of total greenhouse gas.....

Mankind contribution to the 4% total greenhouse is 3% (2014 EPA report).....

3% of 4 is 1 tenth of 1 percent....or 0.1%.

Put more glue on that chit, maybe just maybe something will stick to the wall.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

First, as I've already pointed out, mankind is responsible for about 30% (not 3%) of the CO2 in the atmosphere. In pre-industrial times, it was about 280 - 290 ppm; it's now about 405 ppm and still rising rapidly. There is absolutely no doubt that this rise is a consequence of human emissions.

Second, as we have already discussed, water vapour is indeed the main greenhouse gas but, critically, its concentration is an immediate function of temperature. As soon as it cools, it condenses out as water. CO2, on the other hand, remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years after its release. The upshot of this is that water vapour effectively amplifies warming (or cooling) due to other causes. It is a not a forcing agent, and it makes no sense to consider it as such.

litesong wrote: The warm western component now is on the U.S. Dakotas & Montana, & extends northwest, increasing powerfully in Canada, Yukon, northern Alaska, & onto the southern Arctic Ocean north of Alaska & eastern Siberia.....The eastern warm component has shifted to northeastern Canada, & onto the Davis Strait, & southern Greenland, chasing the Greenland Ice Sheet cold front to the shores of North & East Greenland shores, the Greenland Sea, Svalbard & Iceland. Forecasts indicate the FAB

& the previous Ice Sheet cold should continue to battle. Some warmth from the south may take over one footing of the cold on Iceland.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Now, about the mankind CO2 contribution 30% you claim-I have found 3% 6% 11%, however, I don't see 30%. My 3% quotes Dept of Energy. I don't care what that number is, what I find interesting is the massive amount of calculations that, I admittedly will never be able to do, going into this discussion. Yet the "experts" are still arguing about the raw numbers. Does that raise any level of concern in your mind?

Surface Detail wrote: The concentration of CO2 remained at about 270-280 ppm for the last 8,000 years or so, but has suddenly shot up to 405 ppm over the last 150 years or so. The only possible explanation for this sudden rise is emissions from human industrial activity. Therefore humans are responsible for about (405 - 275) / 405 = 32% of the current CO2 content of the atmosphere. It's a very simple calculation.

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: The warm western component now is on the U.S. Dakotas & Montana, & extends northwest, increasing powerfully in Canada, Yukon, northern Alaska, & onto the southern Arctic Ocean north of Alaska & eastern Siberia.....The eastern warm component has shifted to northeastern Canada, & onto the Davis Strait, & southern Greenland, chasing the Greenland Ice Sheet cold front to the shores of North & East Greenland shores, the Greenland Sea, Svalbard & Iceland. Forecasts indicate the FAB

& the previous Ice Sheet cold should continue to battle. Some warmth from the south may take over one footing of the cold on Iceland.

Warmth DID take over Iceland & the past cold front on the Greenland Ice Sheet is thinned & jammed on eastern & northern shores of Greenland. The western warm component has thickened at its northeast end north of eastern Siberia, extending toward the North Pole. The warmth that spans from Scandinavia to western Siberia, appears to extend toward the North Pole region, too. But so far, the Present High Arctic Berserker or PHAB or FAB

appears NOT to be strengthened.
Also, west of the western warm component (which extends to north of eastern Siberia on the Arctic Ocean), a west coast Canadian cold front is developing (which formed from previous cold that was over the western U.S.) & may align along the western warm component.
Wow! This might continue, i understand.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Now, about the mankind CO2 contribution 30% you claim-I have found 3% 6% 11%, however, I don't see 30%. My 3% quotes Dept of Energy. I don't care what that number is, what I find interesting is the massive amount of calculations that, I admittedly will never be able to do, going into this discussion. Yet the "experts" are still arguing about the raw numbers. Does that raise any level of concern in your mind?

The experts are not arguing about the numbers, at least not when it comes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is of human origin. You'd have to be very gullible to believe that everything you read on the internet is the work of an expert.

The concentration of CO2 remained at about 270-280 ppm for the last 8,000 years or so, but has suddenly shot up to 405 ppm over the last 150 years or so. The only possible explanation for this sudden rise is emissions from human industrial activity. Therefore humans are responsible for about (405 - 275) / 405 = 32% of the current CO2 content of the atmosphere. It's a very simple calculation.

Now, how about you give a link to the source of the data on which the graphic you posted is based. Where, exactly, does this supposed 3.2% figure for man-made CO2 come from?

GasGuzzler wrote:
I'll say 10, you say 30, I'll meet ya in the middle at 20% man contribution to total CO2 and re figure.

spot wrote:If you have really spent as much time studying this as you claim you would know its the pre-industrial baseline.

spot wrote:
275 to 405 is microscopic?

spot wrote:
If you have really spent as much time studying this as you claim you would know its the pre-industrial baseline.

It's the frigging basics.

spot wrote:
If you have really spent as much time studying this as you claim you would know its the pre-industrial baseline.

It's the frigging basics.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I'm not denying increased CO2, I'm saying that mans actual contribution to any actual warming is microscopic.

GasGuzzler wrote:
...and this.
[img][/img]

litesong wrote:The western warm component has thickened at its northeast end north of eastern Siberia, extending toward the North Pole. The warmth that spans from Scandinavia to western Siberia, appears to extend toward the North Pole region, too. But so far, the Present High Arctic Berserker or PHAB or FAB

appears NOT to be strengthened.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:
If you have really spent as much time studying this as you claim you would know its the pre-industrial baseline.

It's the frigging basics.

Ha Ha! This is funny, got an email on my phone about a construction project budget, and promptly typed in my response right here.

Ooops! (new home 275K) The answer does make me look like quite the baffoon!

Yes Tim, that is the angle I'm trying to swerve into, just can't get there. I'm not denying increased CO2, I'm saying that mans actual contribution to any actual warming is microscopic. There are those on here that would shut down the entire global economy (oil) for one degree. The thermostat in your home is + - 1 degree! (but tens of millions are already dead!)
Like Tim said, just a nicer day for some.

spot wrote:
I don't really understand how all this is so confusing to you, unless of course you are being deliberately obtuse.

The reason CO2 started to increase at that time is because there were fossil fuels used at that time. It was the hallmark of industrial period, before that fossil fuels were hardly used. I don't know if you did history but there were railways and steam ships and factories at that time. Coal when burned gives off CO2.

If you have a better explanation as to why CO2 levels started to rise at that time I am sure we would all love to here it.

climate scientist wrote:
See here for an interesting article about what is happening in the Arctic this year:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/why-sea-reluctant-freeze-arctic-climate-weatherwatch

To summarise, the average temperature at Barrow in October 2016 is only -1 deg C, whereas the long-term average in October is around -8 deg C. Data show that in September 2016, the sea-ice matched the 2007 record for being the lowest sea-ice extent on record.

Very low summer sea-ice in the Arctic seems to have implications for northern hemisphere winter weather patterns, owing to a shift in the polar vortex. See this article in Nature Climate Change here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3136.html

The late winter (February) polar vortex has been shifting away from the North American continent and closer to the Eurasian continent over the past three decades. The authors found that there is a larger polar vortex over Eurasia and a smaller polar vortex over North America during very low Arctic sea-ice years. This has likely led to increased snowfall over the Eurasian continent over the last three decades, and has implications for future Eurasian winter weather, given that the September sea-ice minimum in the Arctic is predicted to decrease further.

Wake wrote:
Since this is one of the coldest periods in the last 100 million years why wouldn't you normally expect the Earth to rewarm?

You clearly have a lot to learn. You could start by googling "ice age".

litesong wrote: I had predicted that FAB

could reach 150 straight days of over-temperatures. Well..... if NOT for one questionable day, FAB

would now be 153 straight days long. With that one day in consideration, the FAB

is still 138 straight days long.

Wake wrote:

You clearly have a lot to learn. You could start by googling "ice age".

You are perfectly welcome to teach me. But that doesn't mean you referring me to something you don't understand in the first place.

litesong wrote: so far, the Present High Arctic Berserker or PHAB or FAB

appears NOT to be strengthened.

litesong wrote:.... THOUGH a warm front approximately towards the North Pole.

litesong wrote: The cold front has bored a 300 mile(?) long, 100 mile(?) wide cold passage THROUGH a warm front approximately towards the North Pole.
THAT is interesting!!

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: The warm western component now is on the U.S. Dakotas & Montana, & extends northwest, increasing powerfully in Canada, Yukon, northern Alaska, & onto the southern Arctic Ocean north of Alaska & eastern Siberia.....The eastern warm component has shifted to northeastern Canada, & onto the Davis Strait, & southern Greenland, chasing the Greenland Ice Sheet cold front to the shores of North & East Greenland shores, the Greenland Sea, Svalbard & Iceland. Forecasts indicate the FAB

& the previous Ice Sheet cold should continue to battle. Some warmth from the south may take over one footing of the cold on Iceland.

Warmth DID take over Iceland & the past cold front on the Greenland Ice Sheet is thinned & jammed on eastern & northern shores of Greenland. The western warm component has thickened at its northeast end north of eastern Siberia, extending toward the North Pole. The warmth that spans from Scandinavia to western Siberia, appears to extend toward the North Pole region, too. But so far, the Present High Arctic Berserker or PHAB or FAB

appears NOT to be strengthened.
Also, west of the western warm component (which extends to north of eastern Siberia on the Arctic Ocean), a west coast Canadian cold front is developing (which formed from previous cold that was over the western U.S.) & may align along the western warm component.
Wow! This might continue, i understand.