The threat of global sea level rise

September 30, 2014

Changes taking place in the oceans around Antarctica could result in an abrupt rise in global sea level, according to a Victoria University of Wellington led study.

Dr Nick Golledge, a senior research fellow at Victoria's Antarctic Research Centre, alongside a team of scientists from Victoria University, GNS Science and the University of New South Wales in Sydney, is trying to understand the way that the Antarctic responds to ocean warming.

Together they used sophisticated ice sheet and climate models to recreate the Antarctic ice sheet as it came out of the last ice age, when both the ocean and the atmosphere warmed quickly.

The results, published by the online journal Nature Communications, suggest that oceanic changes might trigger a significant shift in the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, which Dr Golledge says could lead to an increase in global sea level.

Using geological data to verify their model results, they found that when the ocean around Antarctica became more stratified, or layered, warm water at depth melted the ice sheet faster than when the ocean was less stratified.

A dramatic example of this process occurred around 14,000 years ago, and led to an abrupt rise in of nearly three metres over just a few centuries. Dr Golledge says current oceanographic observations around Antarctica show the ocean is once again becoming more stratified.

"At the surface the water is getting colder and less salty, with more extensive sea ice occurring in some areas. But the deeper ocean is warming, and is already accelerating the decline of glaciers such as Pine Island and Totten," he says.

"Whether the ice sheet will react to these changing conditions as rapidly as it did 14,000 years ago is unclear, but with 10 percent of the world's population living less than 10 metres above present sea-level, this study highlights the need to better define the complex relationship between Antarctica and the Southern Ocean."

Explore further: Changing Antarctic winds create new sea level threat

More information: "Antarctic contribution to meltwater pulse 1A from reduced Southern Ocean overturning" N. R. Golledge, L. Menviel, L. Carter, C. J. Fogwill, M. H. England, G. Cortese & R. H. Levy Nature Communications 5, Article number: 5107 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6107

Related Stories

Warming ocean could start big shift of Antarctic ice

September 19, 2012

(Phys.org)—Fast-flowing and narrow glaciers have the potential to trigger massive changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and contribute to rapid ice-sheet decay and sea-level rise, a new study has found.

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

October 9, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Recommended for you

The world needs to rethink the value of water

November 23, 2017

Research led by Oxford University highlights the accelerating pressure on measuring, monitoring and managing water locally and globally. A new four-part framework is proposed to value water for sustainable development to ...

'Lost' 99% of ocean microplastics to be identified with dye?

November 23, 2017

The smallest microplastics in our oceans – which go largely undetected and are potentially harmful – could be more effectively identified using an innovative and inexpensive new method, developed by researchers at the ...

113 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 30, 2014
So, the deceit of the AGW Cult continues. Not one mention of the fact that this entire area is experiencing extensive geothermal activity.
jwbrighton
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 30, 2014
There is no above average sea level rise happening!!!I In fact it is about 1/2 of the norm for the last 10000 years at this point in time!
TruGhost_OfBo
2 / 5 (16) Sep 30, 2014
As usual, Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda..
More GloBULL from the LOONer modelers in Australia... Must be Government Grant handout time in Sydney. So they're trying to "understand" how the ice sheet "responds" "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 30, 2014
This study is hopelessly out of date. Did the reviewer of the manuscript pointed the author to sea ice which broke the record this year? The ice extent number is outside of two standard deviations, so how can they possibly argue this is consistent with warming ocean hypothesis?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 30, 2014
So, the deceit of the AGW Cult continues. Not one mention of the fact that this entire area is experiencing extensive geothermal activity.


Maybe there's no mention, err, because you are lying.
There is a small contribution to melting on one glacier (Thwaites).
It is most certainly not "extensive".
But lets not let scientific fact get in the way of a deniers dream eh?

"Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"

http://phys.org/n...mal.html

runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2014
There is no above average sea level rise happening!!!I In fact it is about 1/2 of the norm for the last 10000 years at this point in time!


"Based on proxy data, the magnitude of centennial-scale global mean sea level variations did not exceed 0.25 m over the past few millennia (medium confidence). The current rate of global mean sea level change, starting in the late 19th-early 20th century, is, with medium confidence, unusually high in the context of centennial-scale variations of the last two millennia. Tide gauge data also indicate a likely acceleration during the last two centuries. Based on proxy and instrumental data, it is virtually certain that the rate of global mean sea level rise has accelerated during the last two centuries, marking the transition from relatively low rates of change during the late Holocene (order tenths of mm yr–1) to modern rates (order mm yr–1)"
http://www.ipcc.c...ar5/wg1/

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 30, 2014
Isn't global warming a funny thing, the only place around the entire Antarctic being eroded by the ocean is exactly where there is geothermal activity.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2014
Isn't global warming a funny thing, the only place around the entire Antarctic being eroded by the ocean is exactly where there is geothermal activity.


That's wrong... in fact it's bollocks.....

But I'll give you the chance to provide evidence.

Here's mine.....
http://www.esa.in...ice_loss
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2014
The sea level has been rising steadily for 14,000 years. People have feet they can walk to high ground. I hope it finally swallows the District of Columbia. That swamp could use a good drowning that lasts a geologic age.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 30, 2014
Really, what does your evidence show?
Earth Scientist
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2014


Anyhoo, the rise in sea level off Antarctica is given to be 0.51mm/year. As there are a 1000 mm in a meter that rate of rise would take 1000mm / ~0.5 mm/yr = 2000 years for the sea to rise 1 meter. substantially less than the meter per 100 years given in a story. IPCC sez, the overall sea level rise for the world as a whole is just a little less than 3mm/year or less than 1 foot per year!

So at the rate of sea level rise around Antarctica it will take 20,000 years for it to rise 10 meters as is the concern in the story.. Don't be to worried!
rockwolf1000
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2014


Anyhoo, the rise in sea level off Antarctica is given to be 0.51mm/year. As there are a 1000 mm in a meter that rate of rise would take 1000mm / ~0.5 mm/yr = 2000 years for the sea to rise 1 meter. substantially less than the meter per 100 years given in a story. IPCC sez, the overall sea level rise for the world as a whole is just a little less than 3mm/year or less than 1 foot per year!

So at the rate of sea level rise around Antarctica it will take 20,000 years for it to rise 10 meters as is the concern in the story.. Don't be to worried!


Anyhoo. The rate of melt is anticipated to accelerate.

How will that affect your calculations?

Don't be to worried!


That you ignored the accelerating melt rate due TO rising temperature, changes in albedo, atmospheric and oceanic currents and don't know the difference between "to" and "too" doesn't give me TOO much confidence in your last sentence.

I will continue TO worry.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2014
Anyhoo. The rate of melt is anticipated to accelerate.
How will that affect your calculations?
-- rockturd
Know what has accelerated? The rate of your stupidity.

rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2014
Anyhoo. The rate of melt is anticipated to accelerate.
How will that affect your calculations?
-- rockturd
Know what has accelerated? The rate of your stupidity.



Interesting. Know what is already at the maximum rate? Your stupidity.

Do better ignoracle.

Wow. It must really suck being you!

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2014
Really, what does your evidence show?

Try reading it.
That's usually a good start.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2014


Anyhoo, the rise in sea level off Antarctica is given to be 0.51mm/year. As there are a 1000 mm in a meter that rate of rise would take 1000mm / ~0.5 mm/yr = 2000 years for the sea to rise 1 meter. substantially less than the meter per 100 years given in a story. IPCC sez, the overall sea level rise for the world as a whole is just a little less than 3mm/year or less than 1 foot per year!

So at the rate of sea level rise around Antarctica it will take 20,000 years for it to rise 10 meters as is the concern in the story.. Don't be to worried!

Err there is a rate of change of gradient involved my friend. You expect the same slope for 20000 yrs eh?
That says it all.
FFS
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2014
Really, what does your evidence show?

Try reading it.
That's usually a good start.

When are you going to start?
So, according to you and the AGW Cult, only the Twaites glacier is affected by geothermal activity and it so happens that the only other places in the entire Antarctic that is melting are to the left and right of Twaites and is due to CO2. That damn CO2 is sure picky ain't it.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2014
...The rate of melt is anticipated to accelerate...


Is that what your model says?

...ignored the accelerating melt rate due TO rising temperature, changes in albedo, atmospheric and oceanic currents...


So, rising temperature is in hiatus.

Changes in albedo are negligible or even positive.
(Antarctica +10^6 km^2, Arctic -10^6 10^6, with Antactic ice forming at much lower latitude having greater impact)

Oceanic currents... What your revelation about misbehaving currents would be, are they going to spin out of control?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2014

So, according to you and the AGW Cult, only the Twaites glacier is affected by geothermal activity and it so happens that the only other places in the entire Antarctic that is melting are to the left and right of Twaites and is due to CO2. That damn CO2 is sure picky ain't it.


Why stop there .... maybe the geothermal heat goes all the way around the continent.
It's the study that's saying that's the only glacier affected - they have not found any in the others to the "left and right". Maybe they did not investigate that - I dont know.
It's you that jumps on any vestige of science that may support you world-view and that magically makes the mountains of science pointing the opposite way worthless.

Oh, if you'd bothered to look into the matter you'd not have said this ignorant comment.....

"so happens that the only other places in the entire Antarctic that is melting are to the left and right of Twaites and is due to CO2"

How about doing that basic thing now?

http://www.nasa.g...full.jpg

rockwolf1000
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2014
Really, what does your evidence show?

Try reading it.
That's usually a good start.

When are you going to start?
So, according to you and the AGW Cult, only the Twaites glacier is affected by geothermal activity and it so happens that the only other places in the entire Antarctic that is melting are to the left and right of Twaites and is due to CO2. That damn CO2 is sure picky ain't it.


Only in your pitiful little mind.

Why don't you explain the mechanism by which CO2 is able to recognize international borders?

After that you can explain how CO2 resists the atmospheric currents and only hovers above the region it was created.

Face it ignoracle, you're an idiot.

That you posses the audacity to argue with an expert like runrig with that puny little mind of yours only serves to demonstrate your ignorance and naivety.

Give it up already. You lost the argument before it even started.

And it's Thwaites Glacier not Twaites you Twit.
rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2014
Thanks, rockturd for that correct spelling, who would have thunk Turds could spell.
I'm starting to wonder, how is it you keep sticking to me, as I'm sure I pulled the lever to flush you down. I guess I need to do a better job of wiping you off my arse.


Well I have already proven you are incapable of thinking so certainly not you.

Poor ignoracle.

Now go ask mummy if she can grow you a turd brain, and then maybe you'll see how moronic your response is.


Why would anyone want a brain like yours? It is broken. Doesn't work. Never has.

Poor you. Perpetually stupid. It's simply your destiny to be the dumbest person that ever lived.

The sooner you accept that, the easier your life will become.

If anyone is a moron it's the one who thinks CO2 would recognize international borders and remain stationary over its source. i.e you

Do better ignoracle.

My goodness you suck. Is there anything you can do well?

I expect not.
rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2014
Thanks, rockturd for that correct spelling, who would have thunk Turds could spell.


If you weren't such a monumental retard you would remember that I have corrected your poor spelling previously.

Further proof of your broken mind.

Face it ignoracle, you're an idiot!

Dumber than a sack of hammers and not nearly as useful.

A huge waste of space and groceries best describes you.

Poor ignoracle the stupid.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
I want the Deniers to look into the Carolinas, and see it for themselves, in spite of the law against sea-level rise!

Hilarious.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Sea levels have been rising and falling since there were seas. Human have feet, they can walk to keep from getting them wet.

Nothing to see here, at all.

Oh yeah, "the polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2014
"The average sea level rise rate for all 157 NOAA tide gauges active this century is just below 0.7 mm/year."
http://stevengodd...falling/
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century


Latest NOAA mean sea level trend data through 2013 confirms lack of sea level rise acceleration
 July 16, 2014
UN IPCC AR5 WGI claims of increasing rates of sea level rise from 1971 to 2010 are unsupported
9451600 Sitka, Alaska

 
Updated Mean Sea Level Trends
1611400 Nawiliwili, Hawaii
 
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014
 What sea level rise?
"The average sea level rise rate for all 157 NOAA tide gauges active this century is just below 0.7 mm/year."
http://stevengodd...falling/
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century
http://hockeyscht...has.html

Latest NOAA mean sea level trend data through 2013 confirms lack of sea level rise acceleration
 July 16, 2014
UN IPCC AR5 WGI claims of increasing rates of sea level rise from 1971 to 2010 are unsupported http://wattsupwit...ation-2/
9451600 Sitka, Alaska
http://tidesandcu...=9451600
 
Updated Mean Sea Level Trends
1611400 Nawiliwili, Hawaii
  http://tidesandcu...=1611400
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014

"Together they used sophisticated ice sheet and climate models to recreate the Antarctic ice sheet as it came out of the last ice age, when both the ocean and the atmosphere warmed quickly."
http://phys.org/n...sea.html

They must have used the same Models that NOAA used last year the predict the unusually harsh winter in the US when they said that it would be very mild & boy were they wrong about that.

"Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate ModelsBad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past."
http://news.inves...dels.htm

Here is what the here and now shows:
Global Sea Ice Extent Sep 22 2014 – Highest Since 1998
Global Sea Ice Extent Sep 22 2014 – 356,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. Data for Day 264. Data here.
The last time there was more global sea ice extent on day 264 was 1998.
Years with less global sea ice on this day: 1979 1984 1989 1990 1991 1993 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20
http://sunshineho...ce-1998/

jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
So, the deceit of the AGW Cult continues. Not one mention of the fact that this entire area is experiencing extensive geothermal activity.


Active Volcano Found Under Antarctic Ice: Eruption Could Raise Sea Levels
Inevitable eruption will speed up ice loss on frozen continent, study says.
http://news.natio...cience/#

jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
It looks like Dr Nick Golledge is either unaware of this study below or chooses to disregard it to save his grant money. I know from experience that Tony Banton has never heard of it.

"Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
Key Points
Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal
 Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)." 
http://www.agu.or...59.shtml
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
So, the deceit of the AGW Cult continues. Not one mention of the fact that this entire area is experiencing extensive geothermal activity.


Active Volcano Found Under Antarctic Ice: Eruption Could Raise Sea Levels
Inevitable eruption will speed up ice loss on frozen continent, study says.
http://news.natio...cience/#



From your link "could speed up ice loss".

Notice the "speed up", or in other words, add to the melting already taking place.
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
I wonder if Dr Nick Golledge and Tony Banton are open to the findings of this study about the other polar region, Greenland, or if it goes against their agw narrative?
"A 12% or 86 Gt yr−1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate is found from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840–1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600–2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere (SATNHt) remains positive through time, while the correlation of Ât(G) with local near-surface air temperatures or North Atlantic sea surface temperatures is inconsistent, suggesting a hemispheric-scale climate connection. An annual sensitivity of Ât(G) to SATNHt of 6.8% K−1 or 51 Gt K−1 is found."
http://journals.a...-00373.1
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014




From your link "could speed up ice loss".

Notice the "speed up", or in other words, add to the melting already taking place.

Look at my two post about the Antarctic Ice cap and the Greenland Ice cap & then answer the question about "What Melting of the ice cap"?

It is truly amazing that these "alarmist" such as Tony Banton can not be happy when the data proves them to be wrong about their devil in the sky, CO2.They should be happy when there has been no warming for 18 years but for some demented reason they do not want to believe that fact any more than they want to believe that volcanoes can cause ice sheets to melt.

"Steam explodes from a glacier-topped Iceland volcano in an aerial picture taken April 14, 2010, by the Icelandic Coast Guard. The new eruption began Tuesday, just as the headline-making lava fountains at a neighboring, ice-free vent were dying down." 
http://news.natio...ictures/

"Greenland ice melting from below
 AUGUST 18, 2013   
The heat is coming from INSIDE the earth. 
"The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, caused by a high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere," says the German Research Centre for Geosciences  (GFZ)."
http://iceagenow....melting/

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
I wonder if Dr Nick Golledge and Tony Banton are open to the findings of this study about the other polar region, Greenland, or if it goes against their agw narrative?
@jdswallows
this is called baiting and trolling

you've also included a quote that proves that you don't let facts get in your way of believing what you want. Anyone who thinks that the Farmers almanac is more accurate than modern science is a troll

http://arstechnic...nformed/

are you paid to try to undermine science? (by a company in this study?)
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

it would explain a LOT about your historical posts here on PO

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
It is truly amazing that these "alarmist" such as Tony Banton can not be happy when the data proves them to be wrong about their devil in the sky, CO2.
@jdswallows
funny thing is: you had the perfect opportunity to prove to the world that we are all idiots with the AGW challenge located here: http://dialogueso...nge.html

I noticed that you did not win the money... nor did anyone actually prove the science wrong!
to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
That means that you are only here to redirect and confuse the issues with posts undermining science

That would suggest that you don't have a scientific background and that you are working for big business/ big oil as well

prove the science wrong using the scientific method and get published
THEN people will listen

until then, you are just trolling/baiting
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
Look at my two post about the Antarctic Ice cap and the Greenland Ice cap & then answer the question about "What Melting of the ice cap"?
is that anything like this? http://dialogueso...013.html

I noticed that every argument that you've posted TO DATE is included in the following page:
http://dialogueso...ons.html

that would suggest that your ideas have been refuted already

Tell you what: why not take the challenge anyway?
Prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring; I will appeal to the author of the site to give you the money should you actually succeed.

considering the response there and the failure to date, I can honestly say that I doubt that you are capable of succeeding, as science has already proven with overwhelming evidence that man-made global climate change is occurring

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
Hello again JD
"It is truly amazing that these "alarmist" such as Tony Banton can not be happy when the data proves them to be wrong about their devil in the sky, CO2.They should be happy when there has been no warming for 18 years but for some demented reason they do not want to believe that fact any more than they want to believe that volcanoes can cause ice sheets to melt.

If I'd had a pound for every time I's said this on here my friend.

The climate system is NOT just the atmosphere at a height of 4 feet.
That is only ~3% of it.
The oceans store ~97% of it.
Look up the ENSO cycle and do the maths.
There is no getting away from the physics of GHG's nor the data on back-radiated IR and the imbalance measured at TOA......unless you want to.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014

Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal
 Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)." 
http://www.agu.or...59.shtml


Yep, another denier characteristic.
The willingness to accept any science that casts doubt as though the rest is instantly wrong by corollary.

Oh, and what about your (deniers) contempt for "models" .
No objection to them if they confirm your bias I see.
Sorry, but that's called hypocracy.
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014


Yep, another denier characteristic.
The willingness to accept any science that casts doubt as though the rest is instantly wrong by corollary.

Oh, and what about your (deniers) contempt for "models" .
No objection to them if they confirm your bias I see.
Sorry, but that's called hypocracy.

So, it appears, Tony Banton, that you find it impossible to elucidate regarding the research that I presented to you other than to say since it doesn't fit your totally flawed narrative that it is therefore wrong. Explain in more detail why you think it is wrong. I will bring this model from last year up so that Private Stupid can froth at the mouth over it as well as you to not try to explain how NOAA could have been so far off last year and explain why we should now believe them now about their temperature reports.

"Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
02/21/2014 06:14 PM ET
Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past."
http://news.inves...dels.htm

jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014



The climate system is NOT just the atmosphere at a height of 4 feet.
That is only ~3% of it.
The oceans store ~97% of it.
Look up the ENSO cycle and do the maths.
There is no getting away from the physics of GHG's nor the data on back-radiated IR and the imbalance measured at TOA......unless you want to.


"It is truly amazing that these "alarmist" such as Tony Banton can not be happy when the data proves them to be wrong about their devil in the sky, CO2.

If I'd had a pound for every time I's said this on here my friend.

Great news, Tony Banton about the "The oceans store ~97% of it." You do not learn, do you? Have you forgotten about, or never knew or remembered about this?
 
"Thermohaline circulation behaves like a conveyor belt. Originating in the Northern Atlantic Ocean, cold, dense water sinks to the deep ocean.
http://centerforo...ulation/
 
"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again." […] "As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit..
http://science.na...r-cycle/

Are you alarmist now going to change the amount of time that it takes for a 1,000 years to pass by?
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014

If I'd had a pound for every time I's said this on here my friend.

The climate system is NOT just the atmosphere at a height of 4 feet.
That is only ~3% of it.
The oceans store ~97% of it.
Look up the ENSO cycle and do the maths.
There is no getting away from the physics of GHG's nor the data on back-radiated IR and the imbalance measured at TOA......unless you want to.


Now Tony Banton, to try to get this conversation back to the topic, sea levels:

NASA satellites detect pothole on road to higher seas
Aug 24, 2011
http://phys.org/n...her.html

How are you connecting the dots on your warming seas and also agitating over the oceans turning acidic because of too much of your imagined poison, CO2? It matters not to you that ALL terrestrial life on earth depends on CO2 to live and that with each breath you and all other O2 utilizing critters are expelling it; but, that matters not to delusional folks like you, it seems. Anyway
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
Now Tony Banton, to try to get this conversation back to the topic, sea levels:

NASA satellites detect pothole on road to higher seas
Aug 24, 2011
http://phys.org/n...her.html

How are you connecting the dots on your warming seas and also agitating over the oceans turning acidic because of too much of your imagined poison, CO2? It matters not to you that ALL terrestrial life on earth depends on CO2 to live and that with each breath you and all other O2 utilizing critters are expelling it; but, that matters not to delusional folks like you, it seems. Anyway & I hope you agree that warm water gives up CO2 while cooling water absorbs CO2. Do you now want to forget this FACT regarding your warming oceans that you also want to say are getting acidic. You can't have it both ways, Tony Banton. I take that back, you can when the truth doesn't matter to you. It is also true that Ice cores show that the oceans warm 800 years AHEAD of CO2 incr
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014
Runrig said:
Oh, and what about your (deniers) contempt for "models" .
No objection to them if they confirm your bias I see.
Sorry, but that's called hypocracy.


Then jdswallow came back with:
"Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
02/21/2014 06:14 PM ET
Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past."
http://news.inves...dels.htm


Run has made an important point that many of us have tried to make, but have apparently, not made clear. Those like Returners, Antigorical, and jdswallow just can't understand the science so they deny it with information that confirms their biases, even though the information they use is completely without scientific support.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
So, it appears, Tony Banton, that you find it impossible to elucidate regarding the research that I presented to you other than to say since it doesn't fit your totally flawed narrative that it is therefore wrong
@jdswallows
or MAYBE, jd, there is the fact that you produce mistaken and misinterpreted views on the subject, mistaking weather and climate (which you've done repeatedly since posting here on PO) and the evidence supporting runrig is far greater than just your single POV?
http://iopscience.../article

go TROLL elsewhere, jd
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Thermodynamics is correct- you do NOT understand the science
Take a few courses here
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
and LEARN SOMETHING before being stupid again

you are only PROVING runrig and Thermo's point!
OR
you are PAID to sow disinformation?

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
I do not understand how we can still have Deniers.

Since they are unable to admit error, I'll bet some of them are still screaming "WMD!", and "Bring 'em on!".
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
jdswallow may assume the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the seas is mainly dependent upon temperature. Although it has an effect, the fact is, the seas are acidifying.

Perhaps he can tell us the implications of the loss of shells in the copepods.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
Mr swallow says, ever so knowingly.... He must be a climate scientist then, or perhaps a meteorologist...like me.

Are you alarmist now going to change the amount of time that it takes for a 1,000 years to pass by?


You are saying that solar SW does not enter into the water bit of the climate system for 1000 yrs?
Err, really?
How does that work then, as the atmosphere is heated by the oceans and not the other way around.
FYI: that is the time taken for one heated H2O molecule to complete a circuit and no measure of on-going heat storage.
The thermohaline discontinuity does NOT prevent solar energy dispersing at depth. The ENSO circulation has deep water sinkage as it dives in the W Equ Pacific and rises as a cold current in the E. It is a passive solar heating system for deep water - just like the ones on many roofs here, that transfer solar to heating tanks.
It helps if you have a base of knowledge in the subject my friend and not just quoting extracts with big words in them for apparent (deluded) effect.
BTW: I believe I told you in your last passage through here that I do not read your posts in multiples and will just blow your ignorant bias away singly.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
Mr swallow says...
change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past."
http://news.inves...dels.htm

More hand-waving eh?
OK then that'll do it if you say so, the world's experts are wrong. It's true then, just as mr Dyson has said all along. Dang the "inconvenient truth" of the science on the subject. You say so, right.

Forgive me but I wasn't aware that AGW science could predict a (part of) US cold winter. But then again, I'm just a meteorologist.
They predict the likelihood of them but never could deterministically.
I also wasn't aware that GCM's were meant to predict an exact slope of global temp. But then again I may be wrong as I'm a meteorologist.

Oh and your expertise is?
Right I thought so.
BTW: it's called irony.... Or, if you like, sarcasm.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
I do not understand how we can still have Deniers
@gkam
I know you've seen this before, but to point it out for others
We have deniers because it is in the best interest of certain big oil and big business companies to sow doubt among the scientifically illiterate so that they can keep producing at current costs instead of making changes that will cost them money, which eats into their profits.
For proof of this, see this study: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

what we have is deniers like the above being paid to confuse the ignorant!
and the big companies are hiding their funds so that they are not traced back to themselves to harm their public image - and so they can lie about their involvement in "protecting the environment"

With the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting AGW, anyone who denies it still is a PAID crackpot, big Co.'s or mentally deficient and incapable of comprehending reality anyway
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
Mr swallow
Here is a current article on PO concerning Antarctic ice loss.
It is gravity determined and GIA is irrelevant as it only measures mass change.

http://phys.org/n...ice.html

And here is some science regarding Antarctic GIA.

http://www.the-cr...2014.pdf
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
If folk here want to know how we will get away from fossil fuels, go to the thread at
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Many are unaware of the technologies already proven.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014
@runrig, I can think of two reasons to have contempt for models (no wait, you''l like this):

The first is GW; you're soaking in it, you don't need a model, you just need to open your eyes and look how things have changed recently.

Of course the other is the results seem to align with who is funding them... (sigh). OK I don't like that one either.

This article misses something good, the what is the effect of the increased of height of the Earth's oceans and the related exposure in surface area, combined with the effects of Global Heating? It is a good question, one that a good scientist would do well to study the structure of Antarctica to discover.

Other than that, does it seem like publishing scientists are reading my post? Seems that way to me.

Wow, stumpy, we agree completely. Don't make it a habit, or people might think I am you as well.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014


Run has made an important point that many of us have tried to make, but have apparently, not made clear. Those like Returners, Antigorical, and jdswallow just can't understand the science so they deny it with information that confirms their biases, even though the information they use is completely without scientific support.

Thermodynamics: Please elucidate your remark about "jdswallow just can't understand the science so they deny it with information that confirms their biases…." by explaining in as much detail just what of a scientific nature was contained in your whole post. You had no bias because you had NO point other than to say that what I believe is wrong while offering up no believes of your own, Typical of your kind.

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
Run has made an important point that many of us have tried to make, but have apparently, not made clear. Those like Returners, Antigorical, and jdswallow just can't understand the science so they deny it with information that confirms their biases, even though the information they use is completely without scientific support.


Thermodynamics: Please elucidate your remark about "jdswallow just can't understand the science so they deny it with information that confirms their biases…." .


jd: Run and I (as well as many other contributors) have made hundreds of technical posts on this site. Scattered in there are more than 10 I have made directly to rebut your unscientific posts. You continue to post those unscientific views as though there had been no comment. If you bothered to study what Run, Truck Captain, Magnus, Howhot, and many others have pointed you to you would have a better idea of why your ideas are wrong. Instead, you have chosen to remain uninformed.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014


jd: Run and I (as well as many other contributors) have made hundreds of technical posts on this site. Scattered in there are more than 10 I have made directly to rebut your unscientific posts. You continue to post those unscientific views as though there had been no comment. If you bothered to study what Run, Truck Captain, Magnus, Howhot, and many others have pointed you to you would have a better idea of why your ideas are wrong. Instead, you have chosen to remain uninformed.


Thermodynamics: I'm still patiently waiting for either you or your side kicks, "….Run, Truck Captain, Magnus, Howhot, and many others have pointed you to you would have a better idea of why your ideas are wrong." to supply me with the experiment regarding CO2 and the earth's climate. How and why can that be so difficult to do, unless it does not tell the story that fits your narrative because even you know that it would take over 5,000 ppm of CO2 to absorb the infrared radiation? Why is it that now that CO2 is at 400 ppm and the earth is not burning up & that during the years 1886 through 1894; 1886 was the most active hurricane season in US history when seven hurricanes made landfall, including two major hurricanes? Also try to focus on this; Thermodynamics , Run, Truck Captain, Magnus, & Howhot that as of August 22, 2013 there was the coldest summer on record at the North Pole, the highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006, the record high August Antarctic ice extent, no major hurricane strikes for eight years, slowest tornado season on record, no global warming for 17 years, second slowest fire season on record and the four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2000.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
Now to this hypotheses of yours about CO2 and that is all it is because it has never been proven and is not even a theory and will never be because it so blatantly FALSE. If you were to do the experiment that Tyndall did in 1859 & if you were to measure the amount of CO2 required to absorb the infrared radiation you would find as he did that a gas such as CO2 or water vapor needed to be ADDED because the ambient air does not have these gases in sufficient quantity to absorb the infrared radiation even when it is in the confined atmosphere of an enclosure, such as a lab, where the amount of CO2 is HIGHER due to respiration caused by animals utilizing O2 and giving off the trace gas, CO2, than the ambient atmosphere at sea level. I know that you would not want to issue the results of the experiment that shows just HOW MUCH CO2 is required to get the results of absorbing the infrared radiation because it would most likely be more than 5,000 ppm and due to what I just described to you & more than any 400 ppm & that sure would not fit your narrative; but, then the truth is of no interest to you, it sadly appears.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2014
jds babbled:
Now to this hypotheses of yours about CO2 and that is all it is because it has never been proven and is not even a theory and will never be because it so blatantly FALSE. If you were to do the experiment that Tyndall did in 1859 & if you were to measure the amount of CO2 required to absorb the infrared radiation you would find as he did that a gas such as CO2 or water vapor needed to be ADDED because the ambient air does not have these gases in sufficient quantity to absorb the infrared radiation even when it is in the confined atmosphere of an enclosure, such as a lab, where the amount of CO2 is HIGHER due to respiration caused by animals utilizing O2 and giving off the trace gas, CO2,


This is, exactly, why you are not even worth discussing these issues with. You are amazingly ignorant of physics. You don't even understand Tyndall's experiments. Your pathetic lack of scientific background and unwillingness to learn is a blot on other skeptics.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
The threat of global sea level rise
This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
j


This is, exactly, why you are not even worth discussing these issues with. You are amazingly ignorant of physics. You don't even understand Tyndall's experiments. Your pathetic lack of scientific background and unwillingness to learn is a blot on other skeptics.

My My, thermodynamics! Are you attempting to say that your ad hominem attack on me is the best that you can do regarding the CO2 experiment? Why is it too difficult for you to just answer the challenge about the experiment? I will you give this amount of credit and that it is because you do have enough of a scientific background to know that were this experiment to be carried out as I described, the amount of CO2 required to absorb the infrared radiation would be far in excess of the present concentrations in today's atmosphere and probably in the order of over 5,000 ppm & that is for sure not what you want people to know is the truth about carbon dioxide and your planet with a fever, is it? Why is it such a problem for you to explain how this experiment should be set up, carried out and what the results will be since you feature yourself to have such a splendid knowledge of physics while judging me to be "…. amazingly ignorant of physics"?

As far as my knowledge of John Tyndall goes, here is a site that you can go to learn about the amazing man, his experiments that you could not duplicate, and his science. Did you know that he had an idea about how fiber optics could work before there was ever any mention of fiber optics? No, of course you didn't. "The Birth of Fiber Optics" http://inventors....0407.htm
"XXIII. On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.—The Bakerian Lecture. By John Tyndall, F.R.S. &c.(1)"
http://tyndall186...11.mobi/
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
The threat of global sea level rise
This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf



I lived in Sitka, Alaska for several years and this is what NOAA says about the sea level there and in other areas. It appears that those who say the sea level is rapidly raising are not telling us the truth. Imagine that, given the other prevarications they issue about almost everything.
Mean Sea Level Trend 9451600 Sitka, Alaska
The mean sea level trend is -2.05 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.32 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1924 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.67 feet in 100 years.
http://tidesandcu...=9451600
Updated Mean Sea Level Trends 1611400 Nawiliwili, Hawaii
http://tidesandcu...=1611400
Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 9410170 San Diego, California
http://tidesandcu...=9410170

Interannual variation since 1990 030-018 Murmansk, Russia
http://tidesandcu...=030-018

Interannual variation 030-018 Murmansk, Russia
http://tidesandcu...=030-018

Interannual variation since 1990 1619910 Midway Atoll,
http://tidesandcu...=1619910



thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
jds said:
"XXIII. On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.—The Bakerian Lecture. By John Tyndall, F.R.S. &c.(1)"
http://tyndall186...11.mobi/


Let me first say that this is a great site for the original papers of Fourier and Tyndall. Then let me say that you have no idea what those paper say. You either did not read them or you don't understand them. From a historical standpoint these are great papers on this site. From the standpoint of AGW, you clearly either have not read them or just don't understand them.

Again, thanks for the site. I really appreciate the link. You just need to take an introductory course to physics or UV spectroscopy.
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
Again, thanks for the site. I really appreciate the link. You just need to take an introductory course to physics or UV spectroscopy.

I must ask you first off, thermodynamics, or whatever your name is, just what makes you such a hostile person? Most sane, educated and knowledgeable people with a sense of propriety would have answered me and just said "Let me first say that this is a great site for the original papers of Fourier and Tyndall." without adding the ridiculous nonsense that you are noted for; "Then let me say that you have no idea what those paper say. You either did not read them or you don't understand them." which is as presumptuous of you as saying that CO2 in its present quantity in the earth's atmosphere causes the climate the earth to act as it does with no proof, at all, to back up this idiotic contention. Instead of all of the pointless blustering, why don't you just admit that you can find no valid experiment regarding carbon dioxide? Would that take too much honesty and regard for the truth? It appears that you would rather make yourself appear to be the buffoon that you are than to use some judgment, common human respects for others and to most of all admit that you are wrong.

Here is an "experiment" for you to look into and it is worth nothing of value.
"Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
Replicating Al Gore's Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his "high school physics" could never work as advertised"
http://wattsupwit...eriment/

Here is another sophomoric "experiment" that due to the lack of how much CO2 has to be added, is of NO value at all.
"The Greenhouse Effect - Heat trapping"
https://www.youtu...JuOjiNrb
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014

Please do not take offence, thermodynamics, because I really care about what you have to say; but, I'll go with what John Tyndall found when he was doing these amazing experiments.

"Pure atmospheric air, of 5 inches tension, does not effect an absorption equivalent to more than the one-fifth of a degree, while nitrous oxide of the same tension effects an absorption equivalent to fifty-one such degrees. Hence the absorption by nitrous oxide at this tension is about 250 times that of air. no fact in chemistry carries the same conviction to my mind, that air is a mixture and not acompound, as that just cited. In like manner, the absorption by carbonic oxide of this tension is nearly 100 times that of oxygen alone; the absorption by carbonic acid is 150 times that of oxygen; while the absorption by olefiant gas of this tension is 1000 times that of its constituent hydrogen. Even the enormous action last mentioned is surpassed by the vapours of many of the volatile liquids, in which the atomicgroups are known to attain their highest degree of complexity."
[…]
"Carbonic Acid: Normally dihydrogen carbonate in the IUPAC naming convention, but Tyndall appears to use this term to refer specifically to carbon dioxide (e.g. p. 176, s. 1, 4)"
http://tyndall186...11.mobi/
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
JDS again makes a fool of himself. He linked to two good sites for AGW. Then he thought that they, somehow, supported his view. Of course neither of them do and he just doesn't understand why. This is a moron of amazing proportions. jds, do you even have a clue as to how science and engineering work? You are an embarrassment to skeptics around the globe. You don't even know when when your own sites refute your perspective.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
jds: I don't take offense at anything you might say. Such as:
the absorption by carbonic oxide of this tension is nearly 100 times that of oxygen alone; the absorption by carbonic acid is 150 times that of oxygen; while the absorption by olefiant gas of this tension is 1000 times that of its constituent hydrogen.


Do you understand what this says? It says that CO2 is, at least, 100 time that of oxygen for absorption. Do you understand from that why I disparage your interpretation that CO2 is not an effective green house gas? This was 150 years ago and it seems that some (including you) still do not understand it. On top of this, Tyndall's experiment did not do a good job of elucidating longer legs of more dilute solutions. Do you really not understand this or are you just trying to argue a, lost, political agenda?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
I'm still patiently waiting for either you or your side kicks, "….Run, Truck Captain, Magnus, Howhot, and many others have pointed you to you would have a better idea of why your ideas are wrong." to supply me with the experiment regarding CO2 and the earth's climate
@jdhooker
and here we see what Thermo meant by "jdswallow just can't understand the science"

did you forget already that when you and I first started exchanging posts way back when, that I gave you THREE DIFFERENT CO2 studies?

Are you a freakin goldfish or just being stupid?

why should WE have to dig around and continually drag the same information up over and over because YOU IGNORE IT and don't want to believe it?

GO BACK and re-read the studies and then produce ANY part that you feel is wrong and then thermo or runrig can explain it to you in small words that any other kindergarten kid would understand (because obviously you cannot comprehend anything above that level thus far)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
I really care about what you have to say
@jdhooker
then try listening and understanding the science... Thermo goes through a lot of effort to show you what is going on and you ignore it
there was a challenge to anyone that gave away 30grand to anyone who could prove, using the scientific method, that AGW wasn't real - there were no winners

the problem is that the issue is politicized and people will ignore empirical evidence and the preponderance of data supporting the science to fit in with their peers
http://arstechnic...nformed/

and then there is the fact that certain companies have a vested interest in producing disinformation for the sake of making money, so they hide it in order to hide what they are doing
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
Here is an "experiment" for you to look into and it is worth nothing of value.
"Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
Replicating Al Gore's Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his "high school physics" could never work as advertised"
http://wattsupwit...eriment/

Here is another sophomoric "experiment" that due to the lack of how much CO2 has to be added, is of NO value at all.
"The Greenhouse Effect - Heat trapping"
https://www.youtu...JuOjiNrb


Mr swallow this is getting boring and predictable.
You have not seen that the "Emperor is naked" and that the world's scientists are either incompetent or scamming the world for political or monetary gain. If I have to explain why that must be the case then therein lies your answer.
I remember this particular climate myth coming up during your last trip to the front of the goldfish bowl, and I, Thermo and others patiently explained why a lab experiment CANNOT replicate the Atmosphere.
Because......wait for it...... PATH-LENGTH dadah!!
Look up (you wont) - but for others...
http://en.wikiped...bert_law

You can get an IR photon the *bounce* back to you in a small space with high concentration of a GHG or in a large space with low concentration. Have you not ever driven at night in fog??... Err, no seriously - think about it. AND if you cannot figure out what is happening, then do us all a favour stop talking bollocks on here.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
@jd
then try listening and understanding the science... Thermo goes through a lot of effort to show you what is going on and you ignore it
-Captain Stumpy

Can anyone doubt that thermo and stumpy are the same person logging on different accounts? Does anyone else on the site need so much pathetic affirmation? Or get so much of it?

Yes thermo, you're the best buddy, nobody is smarter than you. What incredible vision you have, you see so much farther than the rest of us and take sooo much patience with we who know so verrry little.

Alternatively, I suppose they could be an Ed McMahon to Johnny Carson.

Just an observation, I could have said Pinky and the Brain. See I was being nice.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
Well water is a very effective GHG, much more than CO2, everyone agrees. So CO2's effects pale next to water's effects. Yet its GHG effects pale in sheer magnitude to the effects water has due to evaporation/condensation.
Which pale in terms of sheer magnitude in terms of homospheric mixing (no that's not kinky, it's the homosphere). The mixing HS keeps the Earth Warm. The atmosphere itself has yet another albeit related effect second only to the Sun.

So in terms of magnitude-CO2 is not a player. In addition, look at the effects, CO2 is an insulator, we should be seeing on Earth insulation effects, warmth, but stability, aka, more constant temperatures AND weather. This is not observed.

Now, Anthropomorphic change is occurring, just not for the lies mainstream media purport and deny. How could it not be? Insects change the environment, birds have changed the environment, blue-green algae had changed the environment. What are we innocent organisms who'd never change the world?
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
Do you understand what this says? It says that CO2 is, at least, 100 time that of oxygen for absorption. Do you understand from that why I disparage your interpretation that CO2 is not an effective green house gas? This was 150 years ago and it seems that some (including you) still do not understand it. On top of this, Tyndall's experiment did not do a good job of elucidating longer legs of more dilute solutions. Do you really not understand this or are you just trying to argue a, lost, political agenda?

Yes, thermodynamics, I understand all of this. The question is; why do you not understand any of it and especially the facts about John Tyndall? You carry on about the absorption qualities of CO2 without being able to understand that it is a TRACE GAS that only makes up .039% of the total atmosphere & it is 1 & 1/2 times more dense that that atmosphere it is contained in. I know that you should have the ability to understand this; but ,for some reason that is more than likely brought about due to your ideologically crippled mind where poor uninformed folks like [Retardation runs in runrig's (retiree Tony Banton of the UK MET Office) family]. Please try to understand that at 400 ppm, these parts per million would be randomly spread out over a distance of 16 miles in 400 different one inch segments. Since your can't understand that, try to cope with 400 minutes in the number of minutes in 2 years' time.

"Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect."
http://understand...dall.htm

"Do you understand from that why I disparage your interpretation that CO2 is not an effective green house gas?"
It is interesting that John Tyndall Knew more about this subject 155 years ago than what you and your side kicks know now about the greenhouse effect. I'm sure that you can all get together and come up with some nasty names to call me and some more ad hominine attacks; but, when will you come up with the experiment that I ask for?

jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014


If I'd had a pound for every time I's said this on here my friend.

The climate system is NOT just the atmosphere at a height of 4 feet.
That is only ~3% of it.
The oceans store ~97% of it.
Look up the ENSO cycle and do the maths.
There is no getting away from the physics of GHG's nor the data on back-radiated IR and the imbalance measured at TOA......unless you want to.


Tony Banton said "The oceans store ~97% of it. Look up the ENSO cycle and do the maths. There is no getting away from the physics of GHG's nor the data on back-radiated IR and the imbalance measured at TOA......unless you want to." I suggest Tony that you need to get with NASA and bring them up to speed on your hypothesis that the oceans ate all of the heat that can't be detected.

"October 6, 2014"
RELEASE 14-272
NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
While the upper part of the world's oceans continue to absorb heat from global warming, ocean depths have not warmed measurably in the last decade. This image shows heat radiating from the Pacific Ocean as imaged by the NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System instrument on the Terra satellite. (Blue regions indicate thick cloud cover.)
Image Credit:
NASA
[…]
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years."
http://www.nasa.g...MW_mSySq

Tony Banton; You really owe it to NASA to explain to them why, in your mind, using the word loosely, and also how they could be so wrong. If what they are saying and I do believe that it is true, then where did your missing heat go?


Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014
Can anyone doubt that thermo and stumpy are the same person logging on different accounts?
@waterbaby
can anyone doubt that antig and waterbaby are the same person?
they both logged in at roughly the same times, and they've posted within seconds of each other, like Thermo and I did above (anyone know anything about computers here? obviously waterbaby needs some lessons)

Plus Ryggson has talked to waterbaby, so waterbaby is obviously ryggy too.

see the flawed logic yet, cornholio?

this is just an observation, mind you...
and I was nice. I was going to compare you to rc, but nobody likes him at all

although... now that i think about it....
hmmm>

oh, right
one last link for ya, cornholio

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
Tony Banton; You really owe it to NASA to explain to them why, in your mind, using the word loosely, and also how they could be so wrong. If what they are saying and I do believe that it is true, then where did your missing heat go?


Mr swallow: try reading the science and not the ant-science on the likes of WUWT, and then you'd find out.... or take note of the dozens of posts I and others, have put on here and linked and tried to communicate that information, knowing full well, that to you, and the likes of Anti, Tegri (though there is the minutest flicker in him/her), Uba (rare trolling visit these days) and some others resident here - it is acomplete waste of time. I know for a fact that there are people genuinely confused by you anti-science types and that is why I post on here. (Capt Stumpy was one once - and I thank him for saying that I helped him realise the force of the science). I don't give a jot what you think, but you will not distort the science while I can deny it.
Anyone with a rational mind can realise you have a psychological condition that precludes any acceptance of the overwhelming reality of AGW.
I am not going to swim around the goldfish bowl with you like an idiot while you parrot your climate myths for the n'th time.
The world does not bend to your liking my friend. One has to man-up and use the rational brain your imaginary friend gave you, as he did I, and not climb on board an ideology and an incompetence/conspiracy theory bandwagon to make it fit.
BTW: A classic noted in the above quote...
Those that are knowledgeable/expert in a subject that the denier takes a contrary view of.... bizarrely becomes an idiot. So by corollary, you are more expert than me! Oh, of course, silly me, that just never occured. That is so incredibly counter-intuitive as to label you the idiot.
I thank you. FFS
Oh, and I've employed the "if you cant beat em, join em" technique here. You continually violate posting rules on 1000 ch.
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014
Tony Banton; You really owe it to NASA to explain to them why, in your mind, using the word loosely, and also how they could be so wrong. If what they are saying and I do believe that it is true, then where did your missing heat go?



Mr. Tony Banton; One can only be amazed that it took you over 1000 characters to never mention the NASA findings. Instead you wander off into the weeds and talk about WUWT, the likes of Anti, Tegri, Uba and Captain Stumpy, aka, private stupid, who has never had an original idea in his life and equate yourself with a voice crying in the wilderness because you "saved" him from knowing what the truth is and turned him into a disciple of your idiotic cult. You should feel proud that now there is another individual who is blinded as far as what the truth is regarding this trace gas, CO2, which is essential for all terrestrial life on earth.
I really do care what you think. How else am I to discover just how insane and delusional the alarmists are? I had predicted that in the previous post about John Tyndall, who was something that you most assuredly are not, a scientist that "I'm sure that you can all get together and come up with some nasty names to call me and some more ad hominine attacks; but, when will you come up with the experiment that I ask for?" and as predicted, that is all you have because facts are not in your favor.

Just to remind you of the NASA findings.
"NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed"
http://www.nasa.g...MW_mSySq

runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014
[Mr. Tony Banton; One can only be amazed that it took you over 1000 characters to never mention the NASA findings.....


Try reading here then ...
http://phys.org/n...ted.html
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014
Here is an "experiment" for you to look into and it is worth nothing of value.


Tony, old chap, it is not that I'm asking you to replicate the atmosphere. What I am asking you to do is to perform an experiment that starts out using ambient air from a lab, which is an enclosed space; therefore, the CO2 content will be higher than in the ambient atmosphere outside at sea level, and add a measured amount of CO2 to the apparatus that the experiment is being conducted with until the IR from the heat source is absorbed. One could use the same format that this stupid You Tube uses, a heat sensitive heat intensive infrared camera, a heat source and a large enough enclosure to allow for monitoring devices to actually MEASURE the amount of CO2, either as a percentage of the enclosure's atmosphere or in terms of ppm. (If Charles David Keeling could do this on Mauna Loa, it could be done in this lab experiment and you would not like the results, would you?) It most assuredly would be a value far in excess of the ambient atmosphere in the lab or no CO2 would have to be added from a container with no idea in the world as to how much is added. Then, to have some idiot trying to explain that this proves some point, is inane. Did you devise these experiments when you were a bureaucrat, Tony?

"The Greenhouse Effect - Heat trapping"
https://www.youtu...index=47

This is what you and your sidekicks world should be like at night since you are so worried and unhappy now; but, what are you willing to sacrifice? Being the hypocrites that you are, nothing is the answer.
"This night image of the Korean Peninsula shows that North Korea is almost completely dark compared to neighboring South Korea and China."
http://news.natio...-energy/

jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014
[Mr. Tony Banton; One can only be amazed that it took you over 1000 characters to never mention the NASA findings.....


Try reading here then ...
http://phys.org/n...ted.html]http://phys.org/n...ted.html[/url]


"The team found that climate models simulate the relative increase in sea surface height—a leading indicator of climate change—between Northern and Southern hemispheres is consistent with highly accurate altimeter observations."
[…]
"Prior to 2004, research has been very limited by the poor measurement coverage," he said. "By using satellite data, along with a large suite of climate model simulations, our results suggest that global ocean warming has been underestimated by 24 to 58 percent. The conclusion that warming has been underestimated agrees with previous studies, however it's the first time that scientists have tried to estimate how much heat we've missed."
http://phys.org/n...ted.html]http://phys.org/n...ted.html[/url]

So, Tony, is this "poor measurement coverage" why we see this actual fact in Antarctica? Your link does not explain these actual FACTS, Tony.
"Antarctic Sea Ice On Turbo-Steroids…Mutates To A Behemoth…Sets Quantum All-Time Record High Extent!"
27. September 2014
http://notrickszo...-extent/

"Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away" December 29, 2013 10:17 http://rt.com/new...cue-935/

"Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death."
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

"New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
Scientists measure lowest temperature on Earth via satellites
[…]Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent's eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
"….new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010."
http://news.natio...science/

runrig
4.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2014
Tony, old chap, it is not that I'm asking you to replicate the atmosphere. What I am asking you to do is to perform an experiment that starts out using ambient air from a lab, which is an enclosed space; therefore, the CO2 content will be higher than in the ambient atmosphere outside at sea level, and add a measured amount of CO2 to the apparatus that the experiment is being conducted with until the IR from the heat source is absorbed

JD, old chap/chapess...
You see - this is just the point.
You HAVE to replicate the atmosphere in order to reproduce a GHG's back-radiated effect on this planet.
I do not propose to argue the unarguable with you my friend. CO2 does what it does and I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's life, eh? oh no, sorry you don't know that do you?

Also, sorry to disillusion you, but I don't think many "bureaucrats" do night shifts, armed with a PC able to link to the world's current data on the state of the atmosphere.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
While the upper part of the world's oceans continue to absorb heat from global warming, ocean depths have not warmed measurably in the last decade. This image shows heat radiating from the Pacific Ocean as imaged by the NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System instrument on the Terra satellite. (Blue regions indicate thick cloud cover.)


Happy with the science when it (seems) to prove your case.
Sorry it doesn't... but even if you wanted too, you'd not understand this next bit...
OK I'll put up here my post from this thread...
http://phys.org/n...ted.html

"That's OK my friend - it's not a game changer. This is the deep Ocean NASA studied here. Below 2000m and here we are talking 10ths/100th's of a deg C in the 9 years since 2005 in terms of differential heating. I would be staggered if it was measurable. Much more likely that instrumentation limits experimental error to well outside of that accuracy.
Do I have to mention the 4000x greater capacity of ocean water to absorb solar energy than that of air?".

You understand why I talk of 1/10ths and 100ths of a degree do you?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
Captain Stumpy, aka, private stupid
@jdhooker
ooo, aaa, ooo, aaa
the anguish that you've heaped upon me with your severe language and stinging rapier wit has given me time to pause and sort out my life...
OOps... nope. sorry... that was just gas. you are still an idiot
you DO know that your arguments are already shown here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

your biggest problem is that you "believe" with all your faith in something, so that any challenges to that faith makes you angry, stupid and react by closing out logic
until you decide to choose logic, science and reality over your belief system, you will be destined to continue in the failure that overwhelms you already

http://arstechnic...nformed/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
Ah thermostumpy, you don't even read my posts enough to know:
1. I am not a denier.
2. Unlike you and thermo, I have never answered a question directed at me with his username.
3. I am about 85% sure I have never said anything nice about antigore.
4. His opinions and my derivations based on physical properties are sufficiently different, that unlike you and Captain Stumpy, even if you aren't the same person, your opinions are so identical, who cares?

Isn't that right antigorical?

That's right W_P, you the man, nobody's better than you. Your opinions rock!
The icecaps were keeping the Earth cool, but that dynamic is changing fast. Now the Earth is striving for a new equilibrium, like a fish on a hook.
All those sorry saps who think CO2 is generating heat, what complete schmucks they are. I'll endorse everything you say.

See thermostumpy, this is how someone who WAS really falsely accused of being someone else online would act. Isn't that about right antigoracle?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
Yes, it would have been funnier if I did the joke above in a new message box, but then certain small minded people would have tried to use it as proof that I do what they do.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
Alche/Water-floater said:
2. Unlike you and thermo, I have never answered a question directed at me with his username.


Alche, I answered a statement from you that accused me of plagiarism. It was directed at Truck Captain, but it accused me of plagiarizing. I asked you to back up that statement. What did you expect me to do, just let that slide? Of course you never pointed out where I plagiarized because I did not.

The fact that you would jump to the conclusion that TCS and I are the same person because I would not let that accusation float is an amazing reflection of your analytic skills. Come on, show us where I plagiarized?

I didn't think so.

TruckCaptainThermoRun
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
Also, sorry to disillusion you, but I don't think many "bureaucrats" do night shifts, armed with a PC able to link to the world's current data on the state of the atmosphere.

Tony; I imagine that you were on night shift and really trying to reconcile how these events below could possibly have been happening. They were totally at odds with the teachings of your cult, anthropogenic global warming, that you are a high priest of and you do everything thing in your power to exorcise this invisible devil, CO2, from the planet, but with absolutely no success and because of that you are a befuddled high priest of the faith.


Winter 2010/11
Mean temperatures over the UK were 5.0 °C below average during December, 0.3 °C below average in January and 1.9 °C above average in February. The UK mean temperature for the winter as a whole was 2.4 °C, making it less cold than winter 2009/10 which was 1.6 °C but still the second-coldest winter since 1985/86 with 2.3 °C.
http://www.metoff...ter.html


January 05 2011 17:09 GMT
Several ships and more than 1,000 crew got stuck in arctic ice off the coast of Russia after the sea froze over!
Rescuers have used a huge icebreaker to free two of the ships from the Sea of Okhotsk, but a smaller icebreaker also got stuck in the ice for several hours.
Three other ships that are still stuck have been there since 30 December!
Rescuer Captain Antokhin said: "The ice is very serious, frozen in layers, covered in snow and hard to pass through. It sticks onto the ship."
http://cdnedge.bb...1080.stm
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014

Tony; I imagine that you were on night shift and really trying to reconcile how these events below could possibly have been happening. They were totally at odds with the teachings of your cult, anthropogenic global warming, that you are a high priest of and you do everything thing in your power to exorcise this invisible devil, CO2, from the planet, but with absolutely no success and because of that you are a befuddled high priest of the faith.
Winter 2010/11
Mean temperatures over the UK were 5.0 °C below average during December, 0.3 °C below average in January and 1.9 °C above average in February. The UK mean temperature for the winter as a whole was 2.4 °C, making it less cold than winter 2009/10 which was 1.6 °C but still the second-coldest winter since 1985/86 with 2.3 °C.
January 05 2011 17:09 GMT
Several ships and more than 1,000 crew got stuck in arctic ice off the coast of Russia after the sea froze over!
Rescuers have used a huge icebreaker to free two of the ships from the Sea of Okhotsk, but a smaller icebreaker also got stuck in the ice for several hours.
Three other ships that are still stuck have been there since 30 December!
Rescuer Captain Antokhin said: "The ice is very serious, frozen in layers, covered in snow and hard to pass through. It sticks onto the ship."


Mr swallow... there is no need to "reconcile", as you put it, anything as regards weather with AGW science.
Weather is the *noise* overlying the modulation that is climate.
Please refer to my many posts on here about the disruption of the PJS to realise, that as far as the temperate zones of the NH are concerned, and to ocean SST changes for elsewhere.
My friend, it is neither big nor clever to pick weather events, whether daily records or seasonal variation to bolster your delusions about there being no AGW.
We could just as easily pick opposite extremes.... and you do not realise that both are indicative of CC.
You will not or cannot understand, either, that the Dec of 2010 was likely caused by the excessive warm, open waters in the E Siberian seas, and also a Low solar constant that set up a weak PV in a position favouring HP over the Arctic. Over your head I know, but I include that info for people who do not just come on here to mimmick a goldfish.
And err, Arctic sea-ice varies greatly year to year ... and what, shock horror..... the sea froze over off the coast of Russia... in January, surely not!!
Do you even have an appreciation of geography, never mind climate and weather.
FFS
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014

You HAVE to replicate the atmosphere in order to reproduce a GHG's back-radiated effect on this planet.
I do not propose to argue the unarguable with you my friend. CO2 does what it does and I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's life, eh? oh no, sorry you don't know that do you?

Tony; I know that you are not so dense as to not grasp the experiment that I outlined to you; but, since you will not answer that challenge I will point out how your comments make no sense.
"I do not propose to argue the unarguable with you my friend. CO2 does what it does and I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's life, eh? oh no, sorry you don't know that do you?"

You will see that CO2 is increasing, Tony
Full Mauna Loa CO2 record
http://www.esrl.n...mlo_full
Do you understand what these links are telling you, Tony?
"…. despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or "very close to zero."http://www.cnsnew...15-years
SATELLITE TEMPERATURE DATA FLAT FOR OVER 16 YEARS
http://www.powerl...ears.php
Santer originally calculated 17 years of no warming to show a discrepancy between models and global temperature.
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
Phil Jones: "No global warming since 1995″
http://www.climat...ce-1995/

"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises…."
http://www.theaus...3112134#
NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES.
http://www.thegwp...ntinues/

So now your cult feels the need to dream up another prevarication to try to explain the obvious and that is that despite the increase in your devil in the sky, CO2, there has been no warming so now the oceans ate the heat. At any rate, the earth itself is showing you exactly how insignificant CO2 is as far as the climate goes.
Blowing hot and cold
http://www.econom...es-being

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
So now your cult feels the need to dream up another prevarication to try to explain the obvious and that is that despite the increase in your devil in the sky, CO2, there has been no warming so now the oceans ate the heat. At any rate, the earth itself is showing you exactly how insignificant CO2 is as far as the climate goes.
Blowing hot and cold


Mr swallow - I repeat I am not going to *discuss* with you the GHE of CO2. We know them exactly thanks, have done for well over a century. It's basic molecular/radiative physics.

There is no need for the world's experts in anything, let alone climate science to "make up" things.
Do you cheat while playing patience?

If you cannot/will not understand how the 2nd law of thermodynamics works and the role that ENSO plays in that as regards the climate system.... then, well, I'm stumped, other than to bat your bollocks back to you for the sake of denying ignorance for others.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Ah thermostumpy
Ah, encephalitichead
you don't even read my posts enough to know:
1. I am not a denier.
anyone who denies the science behind AGW like you have, considering the overwhelming abundance of it, is a denier, waterbaby
I have never answered a question directed at me with his username
i've answered questions directed at you, ryg, rc, zeph and Otto as well, but that doesn't mean that I am any of those log-in's either.
we are separate people, so any time you start baiting with this crap i am just gonna report it because it is a stupid, tired argument that has already been proven false
and, most importantly
it is only used as a redirect so that you don't have to admit to your failures, like when you bailed on a join project with Thermo because you could see where you were going to fail... or when you ignore studies for blogs, etc
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
I am about 85% sure I have never said anything nice about antigore
@encephalitus
self persecution is common among the insane
His opinions and my derivations based on physical properties are sufficiently different
anti-science and reality is anti-science and reality, no matter how many fluff words you use to make it sound like something different
unlike you and Captain Stumpy, even if you aren't the same person, your opinions are so identical, who cares?
has it ever occurred to you that our opinions are the same because
*hold on to something here*
WE BOTH AGREE WITH THE SCIENCE?
F*ck me! WOW! WHAT a shocker, right?
Isn't that right antigorical?
That's right W_P, you the man, nobody's better than you. Your opinions rock!
well, according to your analytical skill and logic, this is proof positive that you two are the same person
small minded
well, considering this is YOUR logic and exactly what YOU did, you are now saying that YOU are small minded, you know
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Unlike you and thermo, I have never answered a question directed at me with his username
@encephalitus waterbaby gorical hooker
This can all be cleared up easily with just a few posts... I am not even going to suggest we meet, because of this: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

start with proving your comments, and start with proving Thermo's plagiarism
I answered a statement from you that accused me of plagiarism. It was directed at Truck Captain, but it accused me of plagiarizing. I asked you to back up that statement. What did you expect me to do, just let that slide?
YOU accused Thermo of plagiarism publicly, now prove it. publicly

THIS RIGHT HERE is where your argument falls apart alche
because ANYONE who has not committed plagiarism will ask you to prove it... whether the comment was directed at him or not... so Thermo was correct in fighting back against the TROLLS like you
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
Winter 2010/11
Mean temperatures over the UK were 5.0 °C below average......January 05 2011 17:09 GMT
Several ships and more than 1,000 crew got stuck in arctic ice off the coast of Russia after the sea froze over!
@jdhooker
just a couple of questions: IF you can answer them without trolling
1- WHY do you keep confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE?
there is a difference, you know. Let me see if I can define it with small words you can understand
WEATHER- the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy (SHORT TERM)
CLIMATE- a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time (LONG TERM)
Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

second question next post...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
continued @jdhooker

2- given the links, articles and studies (like this one, for instance: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/ ) that showed you WHY the weather could be "cold" during global warming, why are you continuing to be stupid?

this is not a rhetorical question
WHY are you ignoring facts which are easily explained when you have been shown them over and over?
that is why I chose that article link above
it was simple
it had graphics and a movie
it could be understood by a child
it was colorful (which I know is important for the simple minded)

that video is part of a presentation that is also part of a study, BTW
i didn't link the study because you can't even comprehend the differences in Weather and Climate.

feel free to answer those when you have time

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://arstechnic...nformed/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Hey thermostumped,
My memory to that battle may be flawed, but as I recall, I had five offers for you for resignation the grounds of preponderance of evidence. Including the introduction of the homosphere, which should have reduced your model by magnitudes.

Being fair, that made the score five-one, my favor.
To be unfair, Thermo used spectrum bands that were far too broad, and increased the magnitude of absorption preposterously. It was like simple vs compound interest. Thermostumpy, you ignored my objections, ignored the ground rules and anything else that didn't fit into your answer, them you invoked "SCIENCE OF DOOM," as serious reference for your obtuse model.
5-1, my favor, and a herd of clones say "let him finish, it's going to be good." Well it sucked, and all the clones said good job, one contested and flawed model beats five. Surprise, surprise, surprise. AND, you were still to weak by several orders of magnitude (excluding the homosphere)! AND you didn't even notice!
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
Mr swallow - I repeat I am not going to *discuss* with you the GHE of CO2. We know them exactly thanks, have done for well over a century. It's basic molecular/radiative physics.

From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.
Why does this scam continue?
Actually, this whole concept of a greenhouse like effect surrounding the earth like a pane of glass is a ludicrous attempt to present a vision in children's heads and I well imagine many adults also believe this. The question is, when was the last time anyone was able to "capture" anything with a gas? That this ubiquitous, odorless, colorless, and benign trace gas essential for life on earth, CO2, that is one and one-half times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere (maybe there is intelligent design after all because everything that utilizes CO2 is on the surface of the earth) and be reminded that it constitutes only .037% of the total atmosphere of our planet can have basically anything to do with the earth's climate can not and never will be shown by ANY experiment to do so.
That H2O is what causes the greenhouse effect should be realized by anyone that has ever noticed that the coldest nights of the winter occur when there is no cloud cover and this is why the deserts can get to 130*F during the day and freezing at night, no cloud cover.
Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptica...ic-facts



runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Mr swallow - I repeat I am not going to *discuss* with you the GHE of CO2. We know them exactly thanks, have done for well over a century. It's basic molecular/radiative physics.

From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.
Why does this scam continue?
Actually, this whole concept of a greenhouse like effect surrounding the earth like a pane of glass is a ludicrous attempt to present a vision in children's heads and I well imagine many adults also believe this. The question is, when was the last time anyone was able to "capture" anything with a gas? That this ubiquitous, odorless, colorless, and benign trace gas essential for life on earth, CO2, that is one and one-half times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere (maybe there is intelligent design after all because everything that utilizes CO2 is on the surface of the earth) and be reminded that it constitutes only .037% of the total atmosphere of our planet can have basically anything to do with the earth's climate can not and never will be shown by ANY experiment to do so.
That H2O is what causes the greenhouse effect should be realized by anyone that has ever noticed that the coldest nights of the winter occur when there is no cloud cover and this is why the deserts can get to 130*F during the day and freezing at night, no cloud cover.
Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptica...ic-facts


Mr swallow.
In the above you have just performed another QED.
Therefore I need no longer converse with you.
You demonstrate with your behaviour here the exact attributes illuminated on the thread currently running regarding deniers.

I have addressed all the points, as have others here, that you bring up.... yet you bring them up once again with every post. You are a Troll, in the sense that you do not exhibit any conprehension nor consideration of the science that is put to you. That can be understndable, given education that is lacking, but consideration of common sense and probability regarding what the world's experts (in anything) say should give pause. But no. You repeat yourself as though asking repeatedly somehow makes your assertions true and that you have somehow seen some hypothetical Emperor naked whilst every other hasn't. The mid-set of contempt for knowledge that you find unpalatable, nay, it seems, are pathological about, I find impossible to comprehend my friend. Just does not scan. Of course repeatedly asking questions that have been answered and arguing the unarguable (in this universe anyway) does not make it so. All those I seek to protect from such bollocks by countering them must surely know now. If not then I cannot reach them and as an extreme inhabitant of the denialosphere you are lost forever.
Well done - you merely destroy the credibility of the anti's, and as such I applaud your efforts.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton: Please, just provide the link to the experiment that I have requested that shows exactly how many ppm of CO2 is required in an experiment to absorb the heat from whatever source is use. We know that it is above the amount in the ambient atmosphere or no additions would be required; Right, Tony. If these experiments listed below can be conducted, then what I ask for is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, unless one does not want the have the results publicized for obvious reasons and those reason amount to dishonesty & deceit, right, Mr. Tony Banton.
http://www.scient...nglement
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
http://cdsweb.cer...77?ln=de
http://www.youtub...embedded
http://online.wsj...24987749
Your childish desire to not converse with me regarding this topic is understandable. How does one defend the indefensible when one has no empirical proof that the devil, CO2, of the cult that you are a high priest of cannot, through experiments, be shown to have any affect what so ever on the climate?

jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
The Montana Annual Temp for 2008 was 41.9 F., .2 deg F cooler than the MT. annual 1901 - 2000 Average of 42.14 deg. F. Global CO2 levels keep rising, but temp average is the same. Also, precipitation was also slightly above average for MT. The alarmist model does not fit the data, but that doesn't matter to those who want to take your money. Here are some examples of how Tony & his trained ST. Bernard Pup,* private stupid*, think????.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance




Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2014
My memory to that battle may be flawed
@waterbaby
a side effect of the swelling from encephalitis
I had five offers for you for resignation the grounds of preponderance of evidence. Including the introduction of the homosphere, which should have reduced your model by magnitudes
WHY? the Homosphere was RELEVANT to the discussion and experiment
also: this was an experiment between you and Thermo
that made the score five-one
it was not a kindergarten, it was an experiment with physics and absorbtion of CO2, etc etc... where did you get lost? maybe you should have told Thermo you were outclassed and didn't understand... I told him that I got lost a few times. He explained it to me... he would have done so to you as well
you ignored my objections, ignored the ground rules and anything else that didn't fit into your answer
@crybaby
Here is the problem, one CANNOT be a judge and issue controls in a thread where there are no controls to be had, like PO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2014
5-1, my favor, and a herd of clones say "let him finish, it's going to be good." Well it sucked
@crybaby
1- you SHOULD have continued, per your word
2- it didn't suck... it showed where you were wrong
3- you still haven't given a legitimate argument as to why it is wrong
4- similar information has also been shown in peer reviewed studies, one which i linked for jdhooker, to which you've never offered a refute or a viable alternative explaining it
5- it is not 5-1 your favor when you refused to work WITH Thermo and instead tried to redirect and get off-topic with a plagiarism rant which is STILL unfounded and unproven
6- I happen to know who Thermo is and his background, which is FAR more impressive than what you've demonstrated (including some of his patents and publications)
7- you've STILL never given refute to any OTHER linked publication supporting AGW other than to complain about the CO2 and say "Nuh uh: my water bowl and candle..."
IOW - you post PSEUDOSCIENCE & NO SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Please, just provide the link to the experiment that I have requested that shows exactly how many ppm of CO2 is required in an experiment to absorb the heat from whatever source is use
@jdhooker
mr hooker, please note that when you and I first started exchanging posts I gave you this study and about 5 or so others that explained the physics as well as the effects on the environment.

to date you have given ZERO evidence supporting your claims while confusing WEATHER and CLIMATE... i put those words in capitols so that you can copy/paste them into a dictionary or onto the web and get the definitions, which we have also supplied

To date, you have been given more than 42 links by me alone with plenty of evidence supporting CO2, AGW and more.
To date, you have given the zero (0) empirical evidence from a peer-reviewed reputable source with an impact in climate science refuting those studies and proving yourself correct.

perhaps when YOU change, there will be more dialogue?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
The alarmist model does not fit the data, but that doesn't matter to those who want to take your money. Here are some examples of how Tony & his trained ST. Bernard Pup,* private stupid*, think????
@jdhookerTROLL
this sounds very familiar
from this article: http://phys.org/n...#firstCm

more of your diatribe sounds familiar from THIS article as well: http://arstechnic...nformed/

then I remember that there is a group of people with a vested interest in undermining science and scientists publishing the truth: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

this above study is from this article: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

are you paid?
conspiratorial?
fearful of exposure among your peers?
or just stupid and ignoring evidence?

http://theconsens...ect.com/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
I worked with you for something like two months. At some point I had to acknowledge the game was fixed. I've already mentioned why. "Keep giving him a chance," you crybabies said, well I should have at least got one chance right, I gave 5 trumps, to your 1, and again, your 1 had several inconsistencies you couldn't address.
You ignored flaws in your model, you used constructs that were out of bounds per our agreement, you used websites and references that were laughable, skepti and Science of Doom, claiming the were the best science had to offer, and I am supposed to be OK with that? LOL.
Thermo showed he was no MHD engineer, Maggnus showed he didn't even know what a mole was... your team of cyberbullies are a joke, if you aren't all the same pathetic person.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
I worked with you for
@crybaby
no, you worked with Thermo
At some point I had to acknowledge the game was fixed
No, it wasn't. you just didn't like the outcome
I gave 5 trumps, to your 1, and again, your 1 had several inconsistencies you couldn't address
WTF does this even mean?
I've addressed everything you asked about, and you still ignore what is right in front of you
quit crying and look up the science yourself
look up the research and tell me SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with it... you are sounding just like jdhooker and his troll crap
You ignored...used websites and references that were laughable
what website was laughable?
there were none that didn't have references for your perusal or research
again... you are crying because you failed
and because you don't understand the science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
Thermo showed he was no MHD engineer
@crybaby
he is, actually, and I've read his papers
I've seen some of his work etc
your team of cyberbullies are a joke, if you aren't all the same pathetic person.
the same tired BS from the same tired denier of science

just because you don't understand doesn't mean it aint real
tell you what
take a few minutes to research this study: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

tell me what is specifically wrong with it (as it employs some of that "false physics" that was related to what you were working on)

pick it apart and do some real science, then publish it so we can see

until then
quit whining like a store bought cry-baby doll

Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
Of course you've read his paper, you two are one in the same, enough to answer each others accounts. Repeated AGAIN because apparently it is BS unless I cite it.

http://phys.org/n...ans.html

All one need to is Edit --> Find: "chimed in." There, questions specifically for Captain Stumpy are specifically answered under thermo's account. How many times does that need to be repeated.

Where are your facts? I consistently show your clone Thermo up, with physics. The whining from you when it happens is pretty pathetic. I don't really recall whining. Just applying math.

The websites that we laughable, Science of Doom, and the other sponsored by pro-AGWers. We agreed up front to no bias. As soon as that didn't work for you, you ignored the rules.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
We agreed up front to no bias. As soon as that didn't work for you, you ignored the rules.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!


Water_Prophet: I see that you understand just how easy it is to lead these idiots that get on here trying to push their kind of made up "science" anywhere you care to take them. They have no facts and are trying to defend the indefensible. When presented with facts, they launch phony "model experiments" to try to deflect from that reality and that is that facts do not support them nor will the truth ever be on their side regarding this new cult that they are members of whose leaders see the real objective of the cult and that is have more control over the unwashed, ignorant masses. It should be obvious to even the most stupid members of this cult that in today's world, if one controls the energy sources, who needs to worry about anything else to be able to exact total control?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
Repeated AGAIN ...blah blah blah
@cry-baby
cut-and-paste blatant lie
irrelevant
BAITING
TROLLING
reported

... made up "science"
@jdhooker
science supported by empirical evidence
unlike your continued confusion between climate and weather
or your continued stupidity ignoring empirical evidence
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
irrelevant
BAITING
TROLLING

I noticed you still have not bothered to find those citations/publications i already provided
that makes you:
a liar
someone who ignores empirical data
someone likely being paid to undermine science but failing (like waterbaby)
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
if one controls the energy sources, who needs to worry about anything else to be able to exact total control?
@jdhooker
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Deny THAT science, hooker-boy
it is your big oil/business actively hiding funds and funding/pushing the denier camps to undermine actual climate science
i wonder WHY they would do that? maybe because they have a vested interest in making idiots like you think that the science is wrong? WOW!
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

there is only ONE cult around here: deniers
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://link.sprin...8-0381-8

http://iopscience...2/024024

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
@JD, I appreciate the sentiment, it is rare here, but I am in the AGW, though I say AG heating or AG melting, camp. Warming is a second order effect. I simply don't believe the propaganda on either side. I arrived at a mental construct that made all the lies fade like so much snow on a hot griddle.

The facts are this: How could we be on every continent and not effect change?
However, CO2 is just plain silly as a cause. Order of magnitude analysis, creating an ensemble of photon absorbing particles, the point is there are many way to the truth, and tough to prove a lie.

Lies you can argue about for years, and not prove them, like the bickering on this subject, for example.

My intuitive model is simple and iterative. It begins by demonstrating you can add heat to a system and not increase the temperature, then gradually increases fidelity, until you look at climate regions and predict change.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
I arrived at a mental construct that made all the lies fade like so much snow on a hot griddle.
@cry-baby
more proof that you have ZERO evidence supporting your delusion
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
The facts are this
you gave NO facts
facts are like THIS, which you still have not refuted: : http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
My intuitive model is simple and iterative
SCIENCE does not use INTUITION
religion, faith or idiots replace science with it in order to justify a belief system which has NO empirical data or support for it

This right here is your biggest failure
not just on PO, but in your claims against AGW
(you DO know that heating or melting necessitate warming, right moron? i mean, heating IS warming! WTF?)

keep your faith
i will stick to science
antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2014
Ah stumps, did you READ the article, it exonerates me.
Science does not use intuition.

This explains why you're so bent on citations and an absence of free thought. Science is explained through intuition. Using water to explain voltage and current, using a cat to explain quantum, using ice in a bowl to explain climate change:

Let's see what my model predicts.
1. Melting icecaps (ice cubes).
2. Temperature stability (no not flat-lining, just not a 4C increase).
3. Localized effects (where the flame meets the bowl).
4. "Climate" (OK it's a bowl, use you imagination) change from ice recession and increase of localized effects.
Less direct, but predictable
5. Rise of the Earth's oceans.
6. Increase in number, but not necessarily intensity of Hurricanes.
7. More dynamic weather.
8. More, but this is just the first iteration of the approach!

The question is will ice melting in a brass bowl make these predictions. Absolutely. Is this what we have observed? Yes.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
No citations required, unless you need citation for physical properties. Myself, I don't, I just look them up. As to intuition... no wonder you have comprehension difficulties. I will be more sympathetic to your condition in the future.

Do you need a citation to prove the Homosphere keeps the Earth warm through mixing? That the rotation of the Earth has a similar effect? That water absorbs 333J/g to melt ice?
The the Earths oceans have risen ~6cm?

These are the kinds of tools I use. Citations, please. I can come up with citations, credible ones, to say anything.

THAT'S ONE REASON I DON'T USE THEM in my proofs.
And why you use "Science of Doom" in yours.

By the way, is the leader of Science of Doom still Sinestro? Remind me, I lost track back in the '70s.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.