FOOTNOTES:
{#1} Picking it up at 22:55, 1000frolly says:
"global circulation models forced by carbon dioxide, as they all are"
{Climate Models are scientific tools to understand various aspects of our atmosphere. To do that they MUST include the physics of CO2.
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
Gavin Schmidt | August 6, 2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.
Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect
Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect
Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated
Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Forcings in GISS Climate Models
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate models have also helped scientist understand what's happening over Antarctica.
Solving the polar climate conundrum
Genevieve Wanucha | Oceans at MIT | August 22, 2014
http://news.mit.edu/2014/solving-polar-climate-conundrum
In MIT computer simulations of the ocean and climate, excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions is absorbed into the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and in the North Atlantic Ocean, but it doesn't linger. Instead, the moving ocean redistributes the heat. In the Southern Ocean, strong, northward-flowing currents pull the heat towards the equator, away from the Antarctica. In the North Atlantic Ocean, a separate northward-flowing current system shunts the heat into the Arctic. So while Antarctica warms only mildly, the Arctic Ocean’s temperature increases quickly, accelerating sea-ice loss and warming the Arctic atmosphere.
The model results reveal the differing responses to greenhouse gases in each region, with the Arctic warming more than twice as rapidly as the Antarctic. They also add confidence to the existing predictions of enormous future changes up north. By mid-century, the Arctic may warm so much that the oceans could go sea-ice free in the summers.
Marshall’s group also showed that the ocean's response to the ozone hole can help explain the lack of warming to date around Antarctica. The millions of square feet of deterioration in the ozone over Antarctica was caused by emissions of the man-made pollutants chlorine and bromine, chlorofluorocarbons, which peaked at the turn of the century and are now slowly dwindling.
See: http://oceans.mit.edu/JohnMarshall/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
Numerical models (General Circulation Models or GCMs), representing physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface, are the most advanced tools currently available for simulating the response of the global climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (criterion 1 -- see list here).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
General Circulation Models of Climate
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
Subsections:
Numerical Weather Prediction (1945-1955) -
The First General Circulation Models (1955-1965) -
Many Kinds of Models -
Predictions of Warming (1965-1979) -
Ocean Circulation and Real Climates (1969-1988) -
Limitations and Critics -
Success (1988-2001) -
Earth System Models
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Circulation_Model
_________________________________________________________________
{#2} "but that's not what's seen in the (Antarctic) data."
Take a look at what's seen in the data. You'll find plenty of warming.
ANTARCTIC TRENDS COMPARED
David Schneider, Project Scientist
To complement the publication, An assessment and interpretation of the observed warming of West Antarctica in the austral spring, comparing trend estimates in numerous Antarctic temperature data sets.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/dschneid/Antarctic/
REFERENCE:
2012: An assessment and interpretation of the observed warming of West Antarctica in the austral spring
Schneider, D.P., C. Deser, and Y. Okumura,
Climate Dynamics 38(1), 323-347, [Article]
TIMESERIES
IMAGE OF TIME SERIES
Annual timeseries, area-weighted for the whole continent, similar to Figure 2 in Schneider et al. (2012) but including temperature anomalies from GISTEMP for 64-90S (includes some ocean SST) and from the O'Donnell et al. (2011) RLS reconstruction
1979-200X ANTARCTIC TREND MAPS
Annual
Summer (DJF)
Spring (SON)
Autumn (MAM)
Winter (JJA)
1958-200X ANTARCTIC TREND MAPS
Annual
Summer (DJF)
Spring (SON)
Autumn (MAM)
Winter (JJA)
_________________________________________________________________
{#3} (23:25) "Why does this happen, why does it totally contradict the co2 hypothesis?"
Frolly ignores his own question.
Here's a link to one study providing the answers:
The ocean's role in polar climate change: asymmetric Arctic and Antarctic responses to greenhouse gas and ozone forcing
Marshall, Armour, Scott, Kostov, Hausmann, Ferreira, Shepherd, Bitz
Published 2 June 2014.DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0040
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2019/20130040
_________________________________________________________________
{#4} "Why it has invalidated the enhanced CO2 hypotheses, which it has invalidated it completely."
Only in your imagination,
and by ignoring tons of observation based information,
and by pretending that everyone who doesn't share your opinion must be blocked out, ignored, never ever listened to.
Even if that demands you believe the whole world is conspiring against you? It's down right crazy, and our children will pay the price of our apathy.
Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Vu3u5-lyHww
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate change: How do we know?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
_________________________________________________________________
{#5} CO2 is not a cause, it is an effect.
This is absolutely false. Also refer to {#1}
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Eric Steig | December 2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
_________________________________________________________________
{#6} And what's driving the cloud changes is solar activity changes.
I'm always astounded at all the valid information contrarians must ignore in order to cling to their delusions.
Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research
April 4, 2008 | Institute of Physics
Summary:
New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm
Research published April 3, in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters shows how a team from Lancaster and Durham Universities sought a means to prove the correlation between the ionizing cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover.
Previous research had shown a possible hint of such a correlation, using the results of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, and this had been used to propose that global warming was all down to cosmic rays.
The new research shows that change in cloud cover over the Earth does not correlate to changes in cosmic ray intensity. Neither does it show increases and decreases during the sporadic bursts and decreases in the cosmic ray intensity which occur regularly.
One such very large burst caused the magnetic storm which blacked out the power in Quebec in 1989.
Professors Sloan from Lancaster University and Wolfendale from Durham University write, "No evidence could be found of changes in the low cloud cover from known changes in the cosmic ray ionization rate."
The published version of the paper "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover" (2008 Environmental Research Letters 3 024001) will be available online from Thursday 3 April at http://stacks.iop.org/ERL/3/024001.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001/fulltext/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature
April 7, 2010 By Lisa Zyga
http://phys.org/news/2010-04-scientists-errors-hypothesis-linking-solar.html
However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings.
One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. For instance, the solar cycle has its 11-year periodic trend, where periods of lots of sunspots cause larger numbers of solar flares. Likewise, the global temperature anomaly has numerous other factors (a “multi-decadal, polynomial trend”) that impacts global temperature fluctuations.
By not detrending this data, the analysis resulted in abnormally high values of certain variables that pointed to Lévy walk processes. By estimating the untrended data, Rypdal and Rypdal hypothesized that the solar flare records might be described by a Lévy flight, while the global temperature anomaly might obey a distribution called persistent fractional Brownian motion. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate
T Sloan and A W Wolfendale
7 November 2013 • © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Journal link tile starts Environmental Research Letters Journal link tile ends , Volume 8, Issue Number Tile Start Number 4
Abstract
The article has a video abstract association, but video not found in the video repository
Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cosmic rays fall cosmically behind humans in explaining global warming
A barrage of recent papers demonstrate that galactic cosmic rays can't explain global warming
Dana Nuccitelli | November 12, 2013
Galactic cosmic rays are high energy particles originating from outside our solar system. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute is the main proponent of the hypothesis linking them to global climate change. The hypothesis goes like this:
1) Cosmic rays may be able to seed cloud formation.
2) If so, fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth means less cloud formation.
3) Fewer clouds reflecting sunlight means more solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, and thus warming. ...
First, there's the obvious fact that cosmic rays cannot explain the recent global warming because solar activity and the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface have remained flat on average over the past 60 years. ...
Finally, a paper published last month in Geophysical Research Letters compared measurements of cosmic rays and cloud cover changes, and found no detectable connection between the two. This study is consistent with many previous papers finding that cosmic rays are not effective at seeding clouds. ...
a) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50996/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
b) http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
_________________________________________________________________
{#7} "Through the JCR link which we've already looked at extensively"
You haven't a clue. Want a taste of what extensively means? Take a look: http://www.wcrp-climate.org/documents/GEWEX_Cloud_Assessment_2012.pdf
Assessment of Global Cloud Data Sets from Satellites
Stubenrauch, Rossow, Kinne
A Project of the World Climate Research Programme Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel
The charge given by the then GEWEX Radiation Panel (GRP) to the Cloud Assessment Working Group was to evaluate the overall quality of available, global, long-term cloud data products, including the ISCCP product that has been adopted by GEWEX as its standard product for clouds. The need of periodic assessments is obvious. Climate change requires long term, consistent data products while sensors technology is constantly being improved and re-invented. As such, it is imperative that the long-term products be compared with more recent state of the art products to assess not only their fidelity, but their quality in light of increasingly accurate measurements....
_________________________________________________________________
{#8} "Now this is seen in the lot of the literature and a lot of the data."
Here's a summary of what's been seen in a lot of the literature:
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=595
16.1. Polar Regions
"... The Antarctic is defined here as the Antarctic continent, together with the surrounding Southern Ocean south of the Antarctic Convergence (polar front), an oceanographic barrier that shifts with time and longitude but generally is close to 58°S. Also included in the polar regions are sub-Antarctic islands such as Campbell Island, Heard Island, and South Georgia, some of which are north of the Antarctic Convergence (see Figure 16-2).
The two polar regions are dominated by cold conditions and the presence of ice, snow, and water. They are different in that the Arctic is a frozen ocean surrounded by continental landmasses and open oceans, whereas Antarctica is a frozen continent surrounded solely by oceans. Antarctica tends to be thermally isolated from the rest of the planet by the surrounding Southern Ocean and the atmospheric polar vortex, whereas the Arctic is influenced strongly by seasonal atmospheric transport and river flows from surrounding continents. Both regions have major influences on the global ocean. ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/whats-it-like-in-Antarctica2.php
What is the Antarctic convergence?
The Antarctic Convergence (also known as the Antarctic Polar Front) marks the true outer edge of Antarctica. It is a circumpolar strip of sea around the southern most reaches of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans varying between about 45° and 60° South. It's exact position is somewhat variable, but it is a very real and permanent feature. The surface temperature changes by 2-3°C from one side of the convergence (polar front) to the other, there are also changes in the chemical composition of the water.
There is sufficient difference across the convergence that the seas around Antarctica are known as a distinct "Southern" or "Antarctic" ocean, rather than simply being the most southerly parts of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.
The strip of water that comprises the Antarctic convergence is around 40km wide and it has been in existence for about 20 million years. It is not fixed in place, but usually stays within about half a degree of latitude (35 miles) of the average position, a broad ribbon drifting back and forth. During this time there has been little exchange of marine life from one side to the other. For instance, there are virtually no Decapod Crustaceans (crabs, lobsters etc.) in Antarctica, despite their being found in quantity elsewhere in the world's oceans including the Arctic.
The convergence is a complex and turbulent area. Sea water that has cooled dramatically around the Antarctic continent and so become heavier, starts to flow northwards along the sea bed. It meets deep, warmer south-flowing water from equatorial regions at the Antarctic convergence which results in an upwelling of the deep waters to the surface. This upwelling brings a great many dissolved nutrients with it which acts like fertiliser for the southern ocean and is the reason that the seas around Antarctica are so surprisingly productive despite the cold temperatures.
_________________________________________________________________
{#9} "Because Greenland is very white and fluffy on the surface"
People like frolly have a way of ignoring the news.
http://darksnow.org
Still, an update after 2010 is in order. Now, the evaluation through 2014 yields that there is still a real albedo decline for the southern part of the ice sheet, including places like Saddle or South Dome where surface melting is uncommon. Note how not only do both GC-Net and MODIS MOD10A1 show a decline, they share peaks and troughs. Given that the ground data having a footprint size of just a few square meters and the satellite data that have an effective footprint size of 5 x 5 km and that they pick up the same high and low years is impressive.
http://darksnow.org/author/jason/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Dark Snow team investigates the source of soot that's accelerating Greenland ice melt
John Abraham | July 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/24/dark-snow-soot-accelerating-greenland-ice-melt
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What Darkens the Greenland Ice Sheet?
https://eos.org/opinions/what-darkens-the-greenland-ice-sheet
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/category/analysis/
_________________________________________________________________
{#10} "Now, more low cloudiness cools the world"
Right, and I can pick up a house.
Clouds have definite local impacts, but they get lost in the sauce of a global system. Just like Urban Heat Island effects are real, but regional and globally insignificant.
Yet our atmosphere, the stuff that stands between this living Earth and dead frigid outer space, is a global phenomena that frolly tried to poop poop into irrelevance - another example of denier disconnect from physical reality.
Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere
Benjamin D. Santer, Painter, Bonfils, Mears, Solomon, Wigley, Gleckler, Schmidt, Charles Doutriaux, Gillett, Taylor, Thorne, Wentz
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.full.pdf
"... Most previous comparisons of modeled and observed atmospheric temperature changes have used results from individual models and individual observational records. In contrast, we rely on a large multimodel archive and multiple observational datasets. We show that a human-caused latitude/altitude pattern of atmospheric temperature change can be identified with high statistical confidence in satellite data. Results are robust to current uncertainties in models and observations.
Virtually all previous research in this area has attempted to discriminate an anthropogenic signal from internal variability. Here, we present evidence that a human-caused signal can also be identified relative to the larger “total” natural variability arising from sources internal to the climate system, solar irradiance changes, and volcanic forcing.
Consistent signal identification occurs because both internal and total natural variability (as simulated by state-of-the-art models) cannot produce sustained global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Our results provide clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New Evidence of Human Fingerprints on Global Warming
December 4th, 2012
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-evidence-of-human-fingerprints-on-global-warming-15316
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
9.1.2 What are Climate Change Detection and Attribution?
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Forcing and Fingerprinting
Last updated: October 17, 2014
http://climatenexus.org/learn/models-trends-and-variability/forcing-and-fingerprinting
_________________________________________________________________
{#11} "Ok, now we got that down, so basically clouds always have a warming effect on Antarctica"
Repeating this oversimplified garbage doesn't make it any truer, there's way more involved, and serious scientists have been diligently working the problem - but frolly won't inform you about any of that.
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Cloud Climatology
The Role of Clouds in Climate
System of Climate Feedbacks Involving Clouds
Net Effect on Energy and Water Balances
Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change