Scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated

October 6, 2014 by Anne M Stark, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The Southern Ocean is a remote place where icebergs frequently drift off the Antarctic coast and can be seen during their various stages of melting. This iceberg, sighted off the Amery Ice Shelf, also has bands of translucent blue ice formed by sea or freshwater freezing in bands between layers of more compressed and white glacial ice. Credit: Andrew Meijers/BAS

Using satellite observations and a large suite of climate models, Lawrence Livermore scientists have found that long-term ocean warming in the upper 700 meters of Southern Hemisphere oceans has likely been underestimated.

"This underestimation is a result of poor sampling prior to the last decade and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimated temperature changes in data-€sparse regions," said LLNL oceanographer Paul Durack, lead author of a paper appearing in the October 5 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.

Ocean heat storage is important because it accounts for more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat that is associated with . The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. The Southern Hemisphere oceans make up 60 percent of the world's oceans.

The team found that 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. However, separating the simulated upper-€ocean warming in the Northern and Southern hemispheres is inconsistent with observed estimates of ocean heat content change. These sea level and ocean heat content changes should be consistent, and suggest that until recent improvements occurred in the observational system in the early 21st century, Southern Hemisphere ocean heat content changes were likely underestimated.

Since 2004, automated profiling floats (named Argo) have been used to measure global ocean temperatures from the surface down to 2,000 meters. The 3,600 Argo floats currently observing the global ocean provide systematic coverage of the Southern Hemisphere for the first time. Argo float measurements over the last decade, as well as data from earlier measurements, show that the ocean has been gradually warming, according to Durack.

Akin to having a fleet of miniature research vessels, the global flotilla of more than 3,600 robotic profiling floats provides crucial information on upper layers of the world's ocean currents. Credit: Alicia Navidad/CSIRO.

"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 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."

Given that most of the excess associated with global warming is in the oceans, this study has important implications for how scientists view the Earth's overall energy budget, Durack said.

The new results are consistent with another new paper that appears in the same issue of Nature Climate Change. Co-author Felix Landerer of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who contributed to both studies, says, "Our other new study on deep-ocean warming found that from 2005 to the present, Argo measurements recorded a continuing warming of the upper-ocean. Using the latest available observations, we're able to show that this upper- and satellite measurements are consistent."

Explore further: Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

More information: "Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade." W. Llovel, J. K. Willis, F. W. Landerer & I. Fukumori Nature Climate Change (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2387

"Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming." Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer & Karl E. Taylor Nature Climate Change (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2389

Related Stories

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

July 2, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

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.

Recommended for you

Ocean acidification may reduce sea scallop fisheries

September 21, 2018

Each year, fishermen harvest more than $500 million worth of Atlantic sea scallops from the waters off the east coast of the United States. A new model created by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), ...

105 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2014
"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."


Please don't try to pin that much forcing on human beings, even if it is happening. That is completely inconsistent with what even the most radical AGW alarmist has projected in terms of what man-made GHG should be able to cause, going back to Henson with NASA.

You're talking about an average of a half-watt of additional forcing above what has been calculated based on GHG emissions.

Considering we can measure micro-watts and nano-watts per meter squared, it shouldn't be possible for that much man-made forcing to be undetected.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2014
IN other words, they are saying the southern ocean used to be much colder than they think it used to be, and that AGW has warmed it much more than they thought it was being warmed.

I find this claim, based on 10 years of dataset, to be premature, as a climate cycle is 30 years, and you really need 40 running years of data to make a truly good climate statement, although obviously comparing decadal averages is always good. NOAA moves it's climate "30 year normals" 10 years forward every 10 years, which is why I say it really takes 40 years to study a 30 year climate cycle.

Shipping lanes around S. Africa and S. America have been around for several hundred years. The weather conditions, ocean currents, and ice conditions would be necessarily well-documented, else those lanes could never have existed.

This meta-data would have evidence of persistent changes in behavior of ocean currents, atmospheric fronts and steering currents, storm formation, ice conditions, and more.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 06, 2014
Now I'm not an idiot.

World governments and historical trade/shipping corporations, and military would have extensive weather records through captain's logs and meteorological surveys. A rate of change that big would have had a signature which would have been noticed a long time ago, particularly if it were tied to human made GHG, as like all other GHG related warming, it would have happened dramatically over one or two human lifetimes.

This should result in persistent, impossibly strong monsoons in the Southern Hemisphere, instead they fluctuate between severe droughts and "historical" floods, but not "unprecedented" floods, though the term "unprecedented" gets incorrectly used, particularly when 120 years old records of flood rates still stand in many locations.

So where is the weather signature/meta-climate signature which should be produced from this insane amount of alleged forcing?

BTW. heating the ocean at depth naturally reinforces the heating at surface, extending storms
Returners
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2014
Brazil had a "historical" flood last year, or maybe it was the year before last, but now they are having a "historical" drought. The media loves to use words like "historical" and "unprecedented" when in fact those terms may not apply at all.

If it's happened before, or doesn't break the previous record for it's location, then it is not "unprecedented".

We all know heat rises via convection, on average, and I don't believe you can allegedly dump that much extra energy in the ocean across 2000 meters of depth without seeing bigger changes than we've seen.

Where are the southern hemisphere Atlantic TC formation which ought to happen with huge amounts of forcing?

Why are category 5 saffir-simpson TCs so rare in the south pacific?

The one in Myanmar in the Indian Ocean was par for the course based on about 400 years or so of mega-disaster scale TCs. like 2/3rds of the 30 worst TC mega-distasters in history are Indian Ocean ones, and most are pre-20th century.
saposjoint
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
Now I'm not an idiot.


What, you think it got better? Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're still an idiot.
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2014
They still have to explain how is it possible for Antarctic sea ice extent to grow to record high in allegedly warming southern ocean. Please note, that unlike sea temperature data before Argo, satellite sea ice measurements are quite precise and extensive.

These moronic fairy tales would be considered harmless and could be safely ignored. Unfortunately, they have practical consequences. The price of gasoline in California goes up Jan 1 2015 (and this is not [computer] model prediction).
ForFreeMinds
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
Studies of scientists making a living researching AGW suggest they overestimate the impact of humans on climate.

At least that's what the headline brought to mind. It's been profitable to be in green energy. Just ask Al Gore, or billionaire George Kaiser, the largest investor in Solyndra. Thanks only to government's ability to use force against us.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
...... A rate of change that big would have had a signature which would have been noticed a long time ago, particularly if it were tied to human made GHG, as like all other GHG related warming, it would have happened dramatically over one or two human lifetimes.


Not deep water temperatures they wouldn't, and no it would not have happened "quickly" as we are talking the odd 10th of a degree per decade ... because of the Oceans 4000x greater ability to absorb heat compared to air. It would have been well hidden from view, particularly under sparse data coverage conditions

http://www.rmets....mber.pdf

See fig 3.1
runrig
4.5 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2014
...... A rate of change that big would have had a signature which would have been noticed a long time ago, particularly if it were tied to human made GHG, as like all other GHG related warming, it would have happened dramatically over one or two human lifetimes.


Not deep water temperatures they wouldn't, and no it would not have happened "quickly" as we are talking the odd 10th of a degree per decade ... because of the Oceans 4000x greater ability to absorb heat compared to air. It would have been well hidden from view, particularly under sparse data coverage conditions

http://www.rmets....mber.pdf

See fig 3.1


Oh, hello Dogbert.
Don't hear from you much these days.
Nothing to say?
Just to give me a 1.
That's OK BTW
It's harmless.
The 1 that is - not AGW.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
I gave you 3 to make you feel better.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 06, 2014
The falsification of atmospheric temperatures was not enough for the AGW Cult, now they must do the same with the oceans. Soon, they will be manufacturing heat, that even the sun can't produce.
http://stevengodd...ar-2000/
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
Hi Returners. :) Careful, mate, don't let 'the numbers' carry you away. Curb your enthusiasm and take note of what has already been covered many times by many posters here and elsewhere. The Northern/Southern Hemisphere heat-load/transport/buffering systems/possibilities are different and complex in their respective ways. The cold winds from the Arctic interact with much land mass, and create a greater 'temp-differential' which makes the cyclonic systems more obvious (evidence the "Tornado Alley', "Hurricane Highway" and "Typhoon Tracks" patterns in the Northern hemisphere. These are more extreme because the 'buffering' is 'superficial' (ie, more in the atmosphere than the oceans) and so the 'temp-equalization' processes there create such violent atmospheric mixing/transport 'storm systems'.

Whereas the Southern hemisphere mixing is more spread across the Ocean Water surfaces/depths long before most of the 'cold air' reaches any signifucant land mass areas. Hence the cold from Antarctic is 'buffered/transported' MORE by current/deep water than land-ocean interaction processes like the Northern ones I allude to earlier.

The effect of this longer-duration' cycling 'buffering' makes the additional heat load less 'obvious' and more 'diluted' than in the nirthern Hemisphere. Hence you have to be careful to include all the long-cycle currents/upwellings etc which may transport the additional heat FAR from the Antarctic/Southern Waters, making those waters seem less 'warmed' than they actually are but the heat is spread out more/farther than in the northern land/water masses can, because the heat in the Nrtern susyems is violently obvious in 'powering' all those Typhoons, Tornadoes and Hurricanes. The dynamics in the southern hemisphere is more subtle and deper and less 'intrusive' to the casual observer.

Good luck to us all. :)
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
I gave you 3 to make you feel better.


Like I said tegiri....

That's OK BTW
It's harmless.
The 1 that is - not AGW.
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2014
The falsification of atmospheric temperatures was not enough for the AGW Cult, now they must do the same with the oceans. Soon, they will be manufacturing heat, that even the sun can't produce.
http://stevengodd...ar-2000/


Just because you're paranoid Anti - it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
FFS
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2014
So when deniers falsify, that's OK is it?
Mainstream falsification by AGW-ers is a rather new thing, and I know, I've been watching. It doesn't seem to be fooling the AGW-ers on this site though.

Interesting dynamic- The AGW-ers hold the line even when they recognize pro-AGW BS, yet deniers support everything denier, and lambaste everything AGW.

Hmmm.... what could that say?
castro
Oct 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
Hi castro. :) If we consider that any hear load being transported by 'incoming' currents to those depths are immediately absorbed by the consequential 'outgassing' of previously dissolved/trapped clathrates/hydrates of all sorts (eg, methane, CO2), then those sedimentary depths would be acting much like the 'expansion chamber' in a refrigeration fluid cycle, where the expansion/gasification 'cools' the surrounds. Moreover, released gases then float up the water column or get taken away to distant 'upwellings' by 'outgoing' currents, taken their absorbed heat loads with them. I agree, there are many processes/factors in any localized region/system. The exercise facing us scientists is to include all of these and follow their 'remote effects' because the global system is always trying to 'equalize' its heat loads, both in the oceans, in/on land masses and in the atmosphere.

It's very complex, as I'm sure you/many others have already realized long since. Cheers!

Good luck to us all. :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2014
Hi Forum. :)

You can tell who the mindless trolls are when they downvote without reading the post content. Vietvet and Uncle Ira are at it again here...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...wherein they just downvoted my first post above without even knowing what they were downvoting. Are they denying the Global Warming science by that downvote? They must be, because that post was supporting the global warming observations/science. Go figure how mindless some members of the human race can become from personal ego and bias, hey? Vietvet and Uncle Ira, shame on you. Your personal/scientific reputation is in tatters. Way to go, trolls! Sad.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2014
Hi Forum. :)

You can tell who the mindless trolls are when they downvote without reading the post content. Vietvet and Uncle Ira are at it again here...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...wherein they just downvoted my first post above without even knowing what they were downvoting. Are they denying the Global Warming science by that downvote? They must be, because that post was supporting the global warming observations/science. Go figure how
mindless some members of the human race can become from personal ego and bias, hey? Vietvet and Uncle Ira, shame on you. Your personal/scientific reputation is in tatters. Way to go, trolls! Sad.


My down vote had nothing to do with the content of your post but that it came from a paranoid delusional jerk.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2014
without even knowing what they were downvoting


It had your name beside of him Skippy. What more I need to know?

Now I was going to withdraw from the science postums for the night, you make the cheap shot so I have to come back and defend me from your dishonorable non-science cheap shots for humanity.

Do Better diligence Really-Skippy and maybe I won't have to come back and defend me from your dishonorable cheap shots.
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
I am amazed at the downvoting. Who really is so tiny that they think giving out stars is a power trip, or in the case of downvoting indivduals without reading posts, so closed-minded?

Like I always lampoon: '"1" it's the new "5."'

Because I am pretty sure I know who my downgraders are, I take a certain pride in it.
When I notice, and even more rarely, when I care.

The only people who really do care, are those that do downgrade, really tiny people here.

@runrig
Are you saying that dogbert and tegri are the same?

I sometimes wonder just how many people are really on this forum.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2014
They still have to explain how is it possible for Antarctic sea ice extent to grow to record high in allegedly warming southern ocean.
Ice spreads thinner under gravity and warming.

This is duh.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
Hi Vietvet/Uncle Ira. :)

Vietvet...
Hi Forum. :) You can tell who the mindless trolls are when they downvote without reading the post content. Vietvet and Uncle Ira are at it again here... https://sciencex....k/?v=act ...wherein they just downvoted my first post above without even knowing what they were downvoting. Are they denying the Global Warming science by that downvote? They must be, because that post was supporting the global warming observations/science. Go figure how mindless some members of the human race can become from personal ego and bias, hey? Vietvet and Uncle Ira, shame on you. Your personal/scientific reputation is in tatters. Way to go, trolls! Sad.
My down vote had nothing to do with the content of your post but that it came from a paranoid delusional jerk.
So you AGREE with the content I posted, but say it is from "a paranoid delusional jerk"? LOL!

Then what does that make you, Vietvet? Oh, that's right, a just self-demonstrated silly ego-tripping personality-cult twerp pretending to have any relevance to this science site's discussions. Get real, you mindless bot-voting trolling twerp. :)

Uncle Ira...
without even knowing what they were downvoting
It had your name beside of him Skippy. What more I need to know? Now I was going to withdraw from the science postums for the night, you make the cheap shot so I have to come back and defend me from your dishonorable non-science cheap shots for humanity. Do Better diligence Really-Skippy and maybe I won't have to come back and defend me from your dishonorable cheap shots.
So you again admit to downvoting based on the person not the content. Content with which Vietvet just AGREED . But both of you twerps consider your mindless personality-cult based trolling bot-voting is suitable on a science discussion site?

Face it you twerps, your mindlessness is now self-proven beyond doubt to the Forum. Any further self-serving rationalizations for justifying your numbnuts 'Couyon-Skippy' drivel posts/votes is long sunk into the mire of your stupidities ON THE RECORD here and elsewhere. Good luck with that, you poor dumbass troll-twins. :)

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
So when deniers falsify, that's OK is it?
Mainstream falsification by AGW-ers is a rather new thing, and I know, I've been watching. It doesn't seem to be fooling the AGW-ers on this site though.

Interesting dynamic- The AGW-ers hold the line even when they recognize pro-AGW BS, yet deniers support everything denier, and lambaste everything AGW.

Hmmm.... what could that say?
I would say that your argument sounds much like conspiracy theory crap-o-la

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

there is only SCIENCE

given that you've demonstrated your inability to use the scientific method to prove (or support with evidence) a point, then we can say that your argument is conspiratorial in nature and the world is out to get you with AGW

yeah.. and gore is going to rule forever, because only the agw crowd will get the potion of life we are hiding from the religious zealots
(satirical hyperbole)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
In this regard we should again raise my geo/aquathermal theory of global warming, initiated with decay if not fusion of radioactive elements inside of soil and marine water, accelerated with low-energy neutrinos in dark matter. One consequence of this model is, that when global warming starts or stops, you'll recognize it first with temperatures of deep water
WOW castro-Zephir!
I bet NO SCIENTIST EVER working in climate science or even PHYSICS considered anything like the earth heating from radioactive elements inside of soil and marine water or convection - or something being OUTSIDE of the earth atmosphere adding heat into the earth body!
Maybe you should rush right out and patent your idea... or get MIT to publish it!

Maybe THIS will be the ONE idea to break that awful conspiracy against you!

/sarc/ with satirical hyperbole

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
Because I am pretty sure I know who my downgraders are, I take a certain pride in it.
When I notice, and even more rarely, when I care.
@waterprophet
WOW
we actually agree on this!
getting downvoted from TROLLS always makes me HAPPY AS ALL HECK... it means I said something that is TRUE
that is why zephir has been downvoting me a LOT lately as goika, and there are the other obvious trolls too!
I sometimes wonder just how many people are really on this forum
Wait... were you talking to me as stumpy or runrig? I forgot!
They are ALL me, didn't you know?
after all, even YOU said I might be you, or you me... something like that

EDIT: i better add /sarc/ to the last part (about me being everyone here) or he will take it literally
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
My down vote had nothing to do with the content of your post but that it came from a paranoid delusional jerk.

It had your name beside of him Skippy. What more I need to know?
@Vietvet
@Uncle Ira
yall know that rc thinks that we should vote based upon popularity..
no wait, that leaves him out too
sorry

but his Trolling and baiting this thread is on yall's head, even though you only downvoted him and then gave your reasoning, which is PERFECTLY VALID and there are NO rules against it

After all... HE started THIS one with his BAITING TROLING RANT about how HE thinks people should vote here on PO

doesn't he know what is BEST for us in all cases?

Just downvote and report the post for trolling/baiting/spamming
eventually he will go away and get another sock-puppet like zephir

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

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

great... and now he will start TROLLING me...
just remember! downvote & report!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
Hello, Hysterical Hypocrite CapS


TL;DR
BAITING
TROLLING
SPAM

by the way... FORUM
THIS is an example of an EXPERIMENT
I collect data on the posts
I made a hypothesis and I made a prediction that would test it
great... and now he will start TROLLING me...
just remember! downvote & report!

i allowed the course of actions to go where it may

My prediction held true

Therefore, we can conclude, based upon my analysis, research, prediction and subsequent validation by realitycheck, that the rc we see posting here is a BAITING TROLL with no scientific content
After all... he DID start it with his taunts to Vietvet and Ira, which I also state clearly in my "experiment" post!

Please verify all this information above as it is SCIENCE in action, right rc?
ROTFLMFAO

The world is out to get rc

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

and
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
and
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2014
Poor poor CapS.
Hello, Hysterical Hypocrite CapS
TL;DR BAITING TROLLING SPAM by the way... FORUM THIS is an example of an EXPERIMENT I collect data on the posts I made a hypothesis and I made a prediction that would test it
great... and now he will start TROLLING me... just remember! downvote & report!
i allowed the course of actions to go where it may My prediction held true Therefore, we can conclude, based upon my analysis, research, prediction and subsequent validation by realitycheck, that the rc we see posting here is a BAITING TROLL with no scientific content After all... he DID start it with his taunts to Vietvet and Ira, which I also state clearly in my "experiment" post! Please verify all this information above as it is SCIENCE in action, right rc? ROTFLMFAO The world is out to get rc http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

It's all over, CapS. You've been well and truly 'troll-busted' from your very own big troll-mouths. So stop digging, stupid.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
It's all over, CapS.
I know
I've been trying to tell you that!, penguin-head
After all, you can see it all above you in black and white!
hypothesis and prediction
verification of prediction
continued verification
SUCCESSFUL hypothesis which means it can now be repeated elsewhere OR here by others

which means that you are OUTED!

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

you never learn, sam-i-am

anyone else care to predict how long it takes till he responds again?
not a matter of IF
only WHEN
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
Poor Poor CapS.
It's all over, CapS.
I know
I've been trying to tell you that!, penguin-head
After all, you can see it all above you in black and white!
hypothesis and prediction
verification of prediction
continued verification
SUCCESSFUL hypothesis which means it can now be repeated elsewhere OR here by others

which means that you are OUTED!

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

you never learn, sam-i-am

anyone else care to predict how long it takes till he responds again?
not a matter of IF
only WHEN

Stop digging, stupid.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
Stop digging, stupid.

TL;DR

you don't have to worry about "reporting it"... I already did- penguin-head

they are JUST fine! BOTH of them!
I knew that was worrying you, sam-i-am
:-D

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

and
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
and
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

EAT YOUR HEART OUT, PAVLOV

i don't need no stinking BELLS!
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Poor poor CapS.
Stop digging, stupid.
TL;DR you don't have to worry about "reporting it"... I already did- penguin-head they are JUST fine! BOTH of them! I knew that was worrying you, sam-i-am :-D http://phys.org/n...firstCmt EAT YOUR HEART OUT, PAVLOV i don't need no stinking BELLS!
I suppose you have also been trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Dummy. I have been carrying out Internet Experiments proving exposing trolls and mod-troll gang idiots like you for years now across the forums. With great success, as has been shown. You, on the other hand, are a deluded halfwit who understands neither the subtleties nor complexities of the orthodox paradigm or the alternatives discussed. You link and name-drop etc but haven't clue one. Your "an investigator" shambles of incompetence is beyond ridiculous and straying into criminally insane STALKING territory. Your blabbermouth is easy to 'open', as has been shown by my own little 'prompts' which elicited ADMISSIONS from you and your buddies about how you gang-TROLL and gang-BOTvote based on 'persons' not 'content'...on a SCIENCE SITE no less!

So stop deluding yourself, stupid; and stop digging, dummy.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
Within one century 5 million American homes are going to be lost because of the rising oceans. Not only from ice melt, but the additional heat makes the water expand, and the effects will only multiply the worse it gets.

What's the point of justifying oil, when the more you support it the more houses get lost? How does that help the economy overall?
mooster75
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014

In today's news: Anti-science trolls who post on science sites get downvoted and get their panties in a bunch. Film at eleven.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
When one gang of anti-science trolls pretend to be 'defending science' by trying to censor and troll even worse than the other anti-science trolls, it may be hard to tell who is the worst anti-science trolls. Oh, no, its not, its the troll gangs who 'should know better' if they really are professing to be 'defending' science discourse. Unfortunately many of these same 'defenders' are even more clueless than some of those whom they attack!....while being worse than those others in the clueless trolling department. Good luck to us all. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
Poor poor Cap
TL;DR
Pavlovian conditioned reflex to BAIT, TROLL and FLAME

tell you what... since YOU will not quit
and I really don't care what you write because I am not going to read it anymore due
you got banned from sciforums...TRUTH

so I will just say GOODBYE to you

and let you know that from now on, I will just downvote and report all your posts that TROLL BAIT SPAM AND FLAME anyone here out of RESPECT for SCIENCE

That means when you bait someone out who has not even posted, like here:

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

where you call out and try to bait IRA when all he did was downvote you because he doesn't like you and you want to control him!

what happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE there, penguin-head?

stick THAT in your fedora and chew on it!

I am NOT responding to your baiting anymore... because anyone reading this can see for themselves

and your 'experiments" only PROVED that the MODS were doing their jobs, Sam-I-Am
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
Good show. Finally. Good luck, CapS.
mountain_team_guy
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
Meanwhile, NASA chimes in with it's own research.....

http://www.nbcnew...-n219786

Funny that phys.org hasn't covered this story. It's only NASA refuting the "global warming is hiding in the ocean" narrative that blankets the media coverage of global warming.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2014
Meanwhile, NASA chimes in with it's own research.....

http://www.nbcnew...-n219786

Funny that phys.org hasn't covered this story. It's only NASA refuting the "global warming is hiding in the ocean" narrative that blankets the media coverage of global warming.


Should have added this link---
http://www.nbcnew...-n206486
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
@runrig
Are you saying that dogbert and tegri are the same?


Absolutely NOT.
I have never come across anything on here that made me think anyone was someone else as well. On both sides.
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Meanwhile, NASA chimes in with it's own research.....

http://www.nbcnew...-n219786

Funny that phys.org hasn't covered this story. It's only NASA refuting the "global warming is hiding in the ocean" narrative that blankets the media coverage of global warming.

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?
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
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/

Mr swallow:
I have explained ad nauseam on here the reasons for the increase in Antarctic sea-ice, as there has been published science on it.
You take no notice, so, what's the point me doing it again now?
No, honestly, ask yourself that.
You parrot a rhetorical question just to troll.
I care not a jot (as I keep saying to you) that your 1D thinking relates ice to cold. Full Stop.
The Antarctic sea environment is totally different to the Arctic one, and for that matter from one inside a domestic freezer. ALL the influencing factors need to be considered. Sorry but Notricks (GHE counters the 2nd law of thermodynamics bollocks) joke web-blog aint going to explain those to you.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
I have explained ad nauseam on here the reasons for the increase in Antarctic sea-ice, as there has been published science on it.
You take no notice, so, what's the point me doing it again now?
No, honestly, ask yourself that.
You parrot a rhetorical question just to troll.
@Runrig
Actually, you could cut-and-paste your arguments from other posts right to the new thread and it would not change a thing, because jdhooker will simply give you the exact same arguments back that he did before...
which is not discussion... it is trolling, plain and simple
plus he is irritating in his overages of 1000 characters!

Just start downvoting and reporting the posts that are over
and when he gets the point (maybe) he will talk sense
but I doubt it, considering this: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
@Runrig
Actually, you could cut-and-paste your arguments from other posts right to the new thread and it would not change a thing, because jdhooker will simply give you the exact same arguments back that he did before...
which is not discussion... it is trolling, plain and simple
plus he is irritating in his overages of 1000 characters!


Yes capt. Remember the late not lamented Nik_from_NYC. - I actually started saving my posts during his time to do as you say.
Our friend Mr Swallow has the same MO. Like talking to a parrot - in one ear and out the other with no modulation between, just a tennis ball return of more irrelevant bollocks
I see he's fixated with weather again, and some long archived quotes from wayfarers, with no climate data to back it up, and well before the satellite era.
FFS squared indeed

BTW you will notice that with him I also go over 1000. I've reported it but no one seems to care.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
I see he's fixated with weather again, and some long archived quotes from wayfarers, with no climate data to back it up, and well before the satellite era.
FFS squared indeed


So, Mr. Tony Banton, it appears that you would rather bring up some "Nik_from_NYC" rather than to address the valid evidence that I presented to you about how events that occur in the Arctic also occur in Antarctica during the same time frame. Is the reason that you appear to be so disingenuous and basically dishonest is because you can not dispute the facts that I presented to you with an other than a totally stupid statement like "...he's fixated with weather again, and some long archived quotes from wayfarers, with no climate data to back it up, and well before the satellite era." which it seems in your delusional world of make believe there could not have possibly been any climatic events happen before the "satellite era". It appears that you place no stock in the written word or in historical events and that the whole of your science started with your flawed and corrupt IPCC. Why don't you offer up some valid evidence to back up whatever you believe instead of the stupid remarks, back-handedly offered up to private stupid?

The wayfarer you allude to, Sir Douglas Mawson, contributed more to science and to the overall knowledge of the Antarctic than some bureaucratic goon who never leaves the house without an umbrella, even though his task was to predict the weather & for sure has no "SIR" before his dismal name.

I, unlike someone whose sole aim is to insult and name call, like to present some facts about the issues at hand.
"We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica," Lu says. "More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes."
http://asnews.syr...ate.html

runrig
4.9 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
So, Mr. Tony Banton, it appears that you would rather bring up some "Nik_from_NYC" rather than to address the valid evidence that I presented to you about how events that occur in the Arctic also occur in Antarctica during the same time frame. Is the reason that you appear to be so disingenuous and basically dishonest is because you can not dispute the facts that I presented to you with an other than a totally stupid statement like "...he's fixated with weather again, and some long archived quotes from wayfarers, with no climate data to back it up, and well before the satellite era." which it seems in your delusional world of make believe there could not have possibly been any climatic events happen before the "satellite era".


I did address it ... and dismissed it, for, as I said, anecdotal quotes are meaningless, as are contemporary quotes. Data is the only thing that matters. You did not present any and by "satellite era" I mean the ability to truely see and compare ice coverage.

You said it, climatic events. Of course. Why do you think the climate science community do not know that?
But in your mind, any and all climate change indicators are *natural* events. Sorry to disillusion you on that one. They were until the onset of the industrial revolution when man started to dump CO2 (methane too - not to mention CFC's which have an anti-AGW effect in the hole over Antarctica).
*NB* The above does NOT mean that "natural" climate events do not occur and overlie the AGW temp rise signal (modulated by ocean storage, aerosol, Solar min).
They do.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
No, honestly, I care not a jot (as I keep saying to you) that your 1D thinking relates ice to cold. Full Stop.

"I care not a jot (as I keep saying to you) that your 1D thinking relates ice to cold. Full Stop. I care what you say, Mr. Tony Banton, & that is why I must ask you to please elucidate regarding your statement about relating ice to cold. What do you relate ice to if not cold? I lived 14 years above the Arctic Circle and I certainly relate ice to cold. I now live in the tropics where I have never seen any ice on the lakes, rivers or oceans here.

Since this is about an area that I am very familiar with, I submit this to you to show you just how corrupt and dishonest people who worship at your anthropogenic global warming cult where truth and honesty are not principles that you have any regard for.

If you go to this site where they say:
"The red lines in Figures 3 – 5 show the locations, taken
from the NOC atlas, where the probability of encountering
ice during the period 1972 – 82 was 0%."
file:///C:/Users/win7/Downloads/4146-9103-1-PB.pdf

When going to the charts that begin in 1850s & 60s on down to the 1900s that show the ice extent for September. On none of these charts do they show ANY ice in the area of Point Lay, contradicting what article states:
"The walrus are gathered at Point Lay, an Inupiat village 700 miles north-west of Anchorage on the Chukchi Sea."
http://thinkprogr...a-beach/

This information makes this piece in "Think Progress" out to be a total fabrication that totally disregards the facts of the case as outlined in the pdf above. If you do not believe me, go to Google maps and find Point Lay for yourselves. I do not have to because I lived inland from Kivalina, Alaska & 140 miles north of the Arctic circle for 14 years; therefore, I'm not as easily "snowed" as the alarmist seem to be.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
I did address it ... and dismissed it, for, as I said, anecdotal quotes are meaningless, as are contemporary quotes. Data is the only thing that matters. You did not present any and by "satellite era" I mean the ability to truely see and compare ice coverage.

You poor old befuddled individual. You need to be pitied for being so ideologically blinded by this cult of yours that has NO proof at all that CO2 has one thing to do with the climate and certainly one needs to feel sorry for you & I do. Here is some of your prized satellite info for you and if you can figure out how to open this and look at the map of Antarctic, please explain to me how Sir Douglas Mawson could have mapped the coast of the continent today like he did in the summer of 1929-30.


Updated 17 Sep 2014, 6:45amWed 17 Sep 2014, 6:45am
MAP: Antarctica
Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.
Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.

"This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before," he said.
"Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area.
"That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia."
http://www.abc.ne.../5742668

telic
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
I did address it ... and dismissed it, for, as I said, anecdotal quotes are meaningless, as are contemporary quotes. Data is the only thing that matters. You did not present any and by "satellite era" I mean the ability to truely see and compare ice

Are you actually telling me that the written history has no meaning to you and all scientific data about the climate did not start until the advent of satellites? You, Tony, appear to be stark raving mad and stupid to boot. Speaking of boots, you are not smart enough to poor urine out of one if told that the directions are on the heel. You have the ability NOW to observe the ice cover and yet you do not want to believe that the Antarctica ice cover is at the highest since your hallowed satellites began gaining information. Why don't you deal with that?

The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is 50 percent higher than it was last fall, satellite measurements show. In October 2013, the European Space Agency satellite CryoSat measured 9,000 cubic kilometres of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, said an ESA news release Monday. At the same time of year in 2012, it measured just 6,000 cubic kilometres — a record low.
http://www.alaska...percent/

According to a recent article published on www.iceagenow.info, A.A. Boretti, an Australian scientist, who has studied satellite radar altimeter data covering the past 20 years, discovered that the average rate of sea level rise is just under 3.2 mm a year. That rate would cause a sea levels rise of just under 32 cm (12.5 inches) by the year 2100, not the 100 cm that is currently being advocated.
http://www.cdapre...3b3.html

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

POSTED ON AUGUST 27, 2013 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE
SATELLITE TEMPERATURE DATA FLAT FOR OVER 16 YEARS
http://www.powerl...ears.php

Is this enough "satellite data" for you??????

runrig
5 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
You poor old befuddled individual. You need to be pitied for being so ideologically blinded by this cult of yours that has NO proof at all that CO2 has one thing to do with the climate and certainly one needs to feel sorry for you & I do. Here is some of your prized satellite info for you and if you can figure out how to open this and look at the map of Antarctic, please explain to me how Sir Douglas Mawson could have mapped the coast of the continent today like he did in the summer of 1929-30.


Mr swallow;
It is a nice truism that there is many an inmate of the asylum, who thinks they are to only sane one in there.

This should be on the "The ironclad logic of conspiracy theories and how to break it" thread for it is QED.

You do not get to call me or the followers/knowers/doers of science a "poor old befuddled individual" ... though at 60 I'm no youngster.
Whatever you may think you, and one symptom of you affliction is that your ilk are in the majority. You are not.
This inversion of the natural order of things is just what the above thread addresses, and it mentions the psychological affliction you have that precludes you waking up from your delusion.
Those that are in the minority and are ignorant of the science do NOT to call the experts in that science ignorant. Ok?

Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten, there you were taught by *experts" in whatever field. The reason, I suggest that you ingested that knowledge was because you had an unbiased mind.
I suggest, nay know, that the reason you come on here and talk the bollocks that you do, with total contempt of those that have forgotten more than you'll ever know of the subject, is because you now have a biased mind.

I am NOT repeating again why Antarctic sea-ice is increasing (whilst land ice in the WAIS is decreasing).
If you continue to think that it is akin to putting a bowl of water into a freezer and turning down the thermostat, then you will never comprehend what's going. So there's 2 reasons why you are an epic fail my friend.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
For the attention of Mr swallow:
But as he'll not assimilate it in regard to his implication that the world is cooling due to a record Antarctic sea-ice winter.... For other interested parties.

from the http://phys.org/n...ius.html

So a 5:1 difference in favour of melt, and whats more, on average Arctic sea-ice is twice as thick, so make that a 10:1 ratio.

And what's more, the 5 greatest melts recorded have occurred since '08 when this comparison ended.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
"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.spaced...999.html
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
I bet NO SCIENTIST EVER
Someone must already considered it
@telic/Zephir
i guess you missed that last part
/sarc/ with satirical hyperbole
did you understand what it meant?

The captain says that he first noted an unusual warmth in 1918,and since then temperatures have risen steadily higher
@jdhooker
it was in reference to charts that were linked... perhaps you could also provide that so taht the context could be shown as well, or is that part of your Modus operandi for the denial of science?
it is not that "i first noticed" but that there was a point around 1918 where the temperatures started climbing with the industrial explosion that was occurring for obvious reason

perhaps you should read the following article?
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

P.S. quit violating the 1000 char limit
you already flood the site with enough nonsense and anti-science bullsnot ...
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
Repeat due to incomplete copying.....

For the attention of Mr swallow:
But as he'll not assimilate it in regard to his implication that the world is cooling due to a record Antarctic sea-ice winter.... For other interested parties.

from the http://phys.org/n...ius.html

The difference in areal loss of arctic sea-ice compared to Antarctic sea-ice is ...
Trend '79 to '08
Arctic ~500,000km2 LOSS
Antarctic ~ 100,000KM2 GAIN
http://nsidc.org/...nce.html
http://www.columb...ig20.gif

So a 5:1 difference in favour of melt, and whats more, on average Arctic is is twice as thick, so make that a 10:1 ratio.

And whats more the 5 greatest melts recorded have occurred since '08 when this comparison ended.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
I see he's fixated with weather again, and some long archived quotes from wayfarers, with no climate data to back it up, and well before the satellite era
@Runrig
Yeah... I have noticed that he has a REALLY SERIOUS problem differentiating between weather and climate
In fact... I've pointed that out to him more than a dozen times already just in the recent past. It hasn't seemed to sink in... perhaps there is a mental illness or physical trauma that damaged his ability to learn or comprehend?

BTW you will notice that with him I also go over 1000. I've reported it but no one seems to care

Considering that the site MODS ignore that and ignore MOST of the worst trolls here, I wouldn't worry about it.
but I will still continue to report jdhooker for his overages because he abuses it, he trolls/baits/flaimes and cannot comprehend science... but worse, he is STUPID
he repeats the SAME arguments ad nauseum
even when he's been proven wrong (ad nauseum)

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK Run!
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014


jdswallow
1 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton asked: "Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten, there you were taught by *experts" in whatever field. The reason, I suggest that you ingested that knowledge was because you had an unbiased mind." " Yes, Tony, it is very obvious that I did go to university and did graduate and I am very happy that it was not the same one that filled your mind with such unfounded and outlandish and improbable of a hypotheses that a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, can drive the earth's climate. You have to disregard the FACT that H2O and the sun are responsible for, first the earth's greenhouse effect and the sun for the climate. If this is not true, then explain how the last Ice age occurred or how the RWP, the MWP or the LIA occurred without the influence of your cult's devil in the sky, CO2. Questions that you cannot or will not answer because of your dishonesty; &, I must ask, is that something that your education taught you how to do with such an unconvincing manner as you present here in these discussions?

Concentrate on counting characters because the number that you put forth has no validity or meaning.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014

Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten, there you were taught by *experts" in whatever field. The reason, I suggest that you ingested that knowledge was because you had an unbiased mind.

I am NOT repeating again why Antarctic sea-ice is increasing (whilst land ice in the WAIS is decreasing).
If you continue to think that it is akin to putting a bowl of water into a freezer and turning down the thermostat, then you will never comprehend what's going. So there's 2 reasons why you are an epic fail my friend.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton; I feel the need to elucidate regarding your comments about education and how and why I'm so pleased that my mind was not crippled by the *education*that you had spoon fed to you.

As far as education goes and it is for sure an important part of any civilized countries make up; but, one needs to consider that Thomas A. Edison held 1095 patents, making him one of the most prolific inventors ever, and he had three months of formal education. Was he a scientist, Mr. Tony Banton? Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard during his freshman year & went on to do some pretty amazing things. Steven Jobs also dropped out of university during his freshman year. It is no theory or hypotheses that both Jobs and Gates went on to do some amazing things regarding computer science. I wonder if they had been exposed to someone like you; Mr. Tony Banton , while in college, what would have been the outcome of that, had they not dropped out when they did?

Now the question is; with all of your education that you seem to be so proud of, what have you accomplished that is of note or of any value to humanity? You try to make light of what Sir Douglas Mawson did while trying to propagate this unproven hypotheses about your cult's demon in the sky, CO2, that even you should admit, is responsible for all terrestrial life on earth. I will try to answer some of that question for you, Tony: you do have a convert and loyal disciple in *private stupid* and how could you aspire for more than that?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Tony; I do believe that James Lovelock, your fellow Brit, is a creative thinker and one could add a person that uses logic and not the normal nonsense that one encounters when dealing with this subject of agw from so many that have an agenda that benefits no one, such as you, Mr. Tony Banton.
He goes to show that thinking adults can change their minds when the evidence shows that their previous hypotheses are incorrect. Adults are able to admit their mistakes while delusional folks just maintain the misconceptions, it seems forever and you, Mr. Tony Banton, are a great and ever present on these irrelevant threads, an example of this ignorance.
"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his "Gaia" theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being "alarmist" about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said.

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said.

"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.
http://worldnews....nge?lite

Why, Tony, if this intelligent and well-known figure has understood that the earth is not burning up as you charlatans predicted, can't you also have that same enlightened moment? We know that if you did, then *private stupid* would also be rewarded by knowing what the truth is.




jdswallow
1.1 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Repeat due to incomplete copying...../q]

Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.columb...ig20.gif

Access forbidden
http://nsidc.org/...nce.html

runrig
5 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton asked: "Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten, there you were taught by *experts" in whatever field. The reason, I suggest that you ingested that knowledge was because you had an unbiased mind." " Yes, Tony, it is very obvious that I did go to university and did graduate and I am very happy that it was not the same one that filled your mind with such unfounded and outlandish and improbable of a hypotheses that a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, can drive the earth's climate. You have to disregard the FACT that H2O and the sun are responsible for, first the earth's greenhouse effect and the sun for the climate. If this is not true, then explain how the last Ice age occurred or how the RWP, the MWP or the LIA occurred without the influence of your cult's devil in the sky, CO2. Questions that you cannot or will not answer because of your dishonesty; &, I must ask, is that something that your education taught you how to do with such an unconvincing manner as you present here in these discussions?


Mr swallow....

I find it rather arrogant of you that you assume my education was inferior to yours my friend ... is this on the basis of the educators? or the subject of that education.
You do not know of the former, and therefore it must be the latter.
You therefore reject empirical science, molecular and radiative physics.
If you come at denial of AGW from that standpoint, I suggest you occupy a tiny proportion of that ilk who truly are "away with the fairies".
I have told you, I do not argue empirical science, I do not consider such a fundamentalist world-view, made in order to fit your ideological mindset, worthy of discussion.
There is no winning, as, it is so stupid a view as to even separate you from the bulk of your peers.

The universe you live in seems to be quite, quite different from the one that mankind has discovered this last ~150 years.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton asked: "Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten, there you were taught by *experts" in whatever field. The reason, I suggest that you ingested that knowledge was because you had an unbiased mind."

Now my extremely well educated friend says that he finds "it rather arrogant of you that you assume my education was inferior to yours my friend" when he asked: "Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten" There is certainly no evidence in arrogance or contempt in that question, now is there? Yes, Mr. Tony Banton, I do feel that you have been severely cheated regarding education if you believe that a trace gas, CO2, in the scant amount it represents in today's atmosphere is responsible for the earth's climate. You have admitted that you cannot prove that it has anything to do with that climate and you will not even attempt to demonstrate just how much CO2 would be required in a laboratory experiment to absorb the heat emitted from a heat source, such as the experiment that your fellow, and I might add, much more astute, member of the British Isles did 155 years ago. The next question for you is how many more years of no temperature increase on earth will it take before you finally put aside this false premise of yours and just shut up about a planet that is not in the midst of a fever?
"Therefore the world's new record high goes to the former second-place world's highest temperature of 134°F (56.7°C) at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, California on July 10, 1913."
http://geography....ture.htm
How much education does it take to understand this that I present above, Mr. Tony Banton ? Does 2014 – 1913=101 years mean anything to you????????
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton asked: "Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten, there you were taught by *experts" in whatever field. The reason, I suggest that you ingested that knowledge was because you had an unbiased mind."

Now my extremely well educated friend says that he finds "it rather arrogant of you that you assume my education was inferior to yours my friend" when he asked: "Did you go to University (to school at least I assume)... In case you've forgotten" There is certainly no evidence in arrogance or contempt in that question, now is there? Yes, Mr. Tony Banton, I do feel that you have been severely cheated regarding education if you believe that a trace gas, CO2, in the scant amount it represents in today's atmosphere is responsible for the earth's climate. You have admitted that you cannot prove that it has anything to do with that climate and you will not even attempt to demonstrate just how much CO2 would be required in a laboratory experiment to absorb the heat emitted from a heat source, such as the experiment that your fellow, and I might add, much more astute, member of the British Isles did 155 years ago. The next question for you is how many more years of no temperature increase on earth will it take before you finally put aside this false premise of yours and just shut up about a planet that is not in the midst of a fever?
"Therefore the world's new record high goes to the former second-place world's highest temperature of 134°F (56.7°C) at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, California on July 10, 1913."
http://geography....ture.htm
How much education does it take to understand this that I present above, Mr. Tony Banton ? Does 2014 – 1913=101 years mean anything to you????????


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.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
I see he [jdswallow] is fixated with weather again, and some long archived quotes from wayfarers, with no climate data to back it up, and well before the satellite era
@Runrig Yeah... I have noticed that he has a REALLY SERIOUS problem differentiating between weather and climate In fact... I've pointed that out to him more than a dozen times already just in the recent past. It hasn't seemed to sink in... perhaps there is a mental illness or physical trauma that damaged his ability to learn or comprehend?
BTW you will notice that with him I also go over 1000. I've reported it but no one seems to care
Considering that the site MODS ignore that and ignore MOST of the worst trolls here, I wouldn't worry about it. but I will still continue to report jdhooker for his overages because he abuses it, he trolls/baits/flaimes and cannot comprehend science... but worse, he is STUPID he repeats the SAME arguments ad nauseum even when he's been proven wrong (ad nauseum) KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK Run!

What's with you, CapS, that you think you are the only one who has 'pointed out' the difference between weather and climate? And your "more than a dozen times" pointing this out to jdswallow makes you a SPAMMING troll repeating ad nauseum. Your equally numerous 'cheerleading/sucking up/namedropping' posts are becoming more nauseatingly sad, mate. Give your blabber/suck-up mouth a REST for goodness' sake, CapS. And your own post count 'total text' exceeds by far the total text of anyone else's posts (whether their posts were within or above the text limits for each post) over the last couple days!

Get some sself-awareness, CapS, before you make everyone cringe with embarrassment at your zealotry and hypocrisy all rolled up into your UNCOMPREHENDING PARROTED SPAM all over the forum. Can't yu see that YOU and jdswallow are as bad as each other on that front, CapS?
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
jdswallow
1.4 / 5 (10) 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
1.4 / 5 (10) 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




runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) 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;


Mr swallow....
Again I refer you to science. Surprising, even incomprehensible though it is to you, some science cannot be "proved" in a lab experiment. We have, in the course of time since Newton, come up with theory that delves beyond such limitations, verified by observation. We have invented computers, that have models in them to replicate such dimensions beyond the lab. The Beer-Lambert law describes the process of diffusion of photons through a medium. It has in it a term for path-length.
That is a term that describes the effect of distance, that is applicable on a planetary scale. The experiments you link do not.
I thank you for the opportunity in saying that again.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton: I repeat the request: "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". I well know that you understand the request; therefore, there is no need for the BS about the Beer-Lambert law or saying that "some science cannot be "proved" in a lab experiment." when this is an easy experiment to "Prove" in a lab and that proof would certainly not fit into you insane narrative about CO2, would it? You, Mr. Tony Banton, have demonstrated just how you are an unreliable and dishonest individual that has no credibility regarding this subject and you even seem to be proud of that. Could it be that your ignorant disciple, *private stupid*, is actually smarter than you are?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
Mr. Tony Banton; Is it the education that you received or is it the profession that you pursued after being "educated" that has caused you to be such a dishonest and deceptive person? I certainly to not expect an honest answer from you; but, maybe you will someday come to understand just how shallow and ignorant all of your remarks about this subject make you out to be.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2014
@jdswallow
You've made it quite obvious you don't know physics. You are nothing more than a tiresome troll

Go find a deniers sandbox to go play in.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2014
Mr swallow:
It is not my duty and certainly not my intent to address any of the "experiments" you link to.
CO2 does what it does, and as I have said several times, is unarguable. Sorry about that. I don't like the way the world is too in some aspects, but my grey-matter is sufficiently active to inform me than complaining or denying it happens will not change it.

If you truly wanted to understand how CO2 and the other GHG's do what they do, all you need do is Google it.
You do not get to score points on here, a science site, by trying to get someone like me to teach you science with no intent on learning, and which beyond all doubt you will then proceed to ridicule.
There is no winning for me. Yet you, as the psychology of deniers piece says, will always win (in your own mind only).... akin, as I say to the inmate in the asylum.
In that sense you are a troll. You bait to feel superior to the experts who, you somehow know better than. As I said, the world dont work like that.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
Hi CapS
TL;DR
NO POST ADDRESSED TO YOU
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported

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.
@jdhooker
I call BS on the education... if they DID give you some degree, it was in art or something that had no science in it...
you are not able to differentiate between CLIMATE and WEATHER
you are arguing from ignorance

there is a preponderance of evidence supporting AGW... please take any single one of those studies and refute them, if you will
there are reasons that temperatures can fluctuate due to warming too
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
https://skeptical...ide.html
https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

would you prefer something like this?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
@jdswallow
You've made it quite obvious you don't know physics. You are nothing more than a tiresome troll

Go find a deniers sandbox to go play in.


Vietvet: I am also a Vietnam vet and have been back to the country five times that you extreme liberals did everything in your power to totally destroy. If I am so lacking in the knowledge of physics that I ask for the results of an experiment that demonstrates what the ppm would be of the experiment that outlines exactly what the ppm of CO2 is required to absorb the heat from whatever source is used then, since you are so much more educated in this field of physics than what I am, I am sure that you will have no problem in giving me the exact number of ppm of CO2 that is required to absorb the heat and as, Tony Banton suggests, all you need do s google it and get the answer; but, that is something that he did not do for me. I am sure that due to your superior knowledge of physics & not being a "tiresome troll", you will have no problem in supplying me with information that I have requested.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
@jdhooker
I am also a Vietnam vet
Thank you for serving, if you did
If I am so lacking in the knowledge of physics
you've been given this study more than once by me alone... and i know runrig has taken plenty of time to explain it to you... and to top it off, you were invited to learn why with the exchange between Thermodynamics and Alche, which alche bailed on out of fear and whatever, and you only trolled...
so your request is simply nothing more than your ignoring previous attempts to share data...therefore it is stupidity masking illiteracy and the attempt to undermine legitimate science

you never did reply to the request of MINE to show me where in that study of the effects of CO2 on the environment there is a mistake or there is bad science.
In fact, you've NEVER shown anyone here where the science is wrong in ANY STUDY that was posted...

feel free to refute and post links proving this wrong if you can
I;ve never seen it since i've been here
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
"you extreme liberals did everything in your power to totally destroy."

@jdswallow

Yeah, I was so liberal I served there three years, the last two living with the people we were trying to protect. Would have married a Vietnamese woman but when I admitted I couldn't become a Catholic ( as she put it "you nothing") we just remained passionate friends.

You've exposed yourself, your denialism is based on ideology, not science.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
ony Banton suggests, all you need do s google it and get the answer; but, that is something that he did not do for me
@jdhookerTROLL
because it has been done ad nauseum and you've never given a scientific refute with the same level or type of evidence that was given to you, you essentially said "nuh uh. i don't believe it" and went on confusing weather and climate
you can view your argument style here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

you will have no problem in supplying me with information that I have requested.
already done ad nauseum
you ignored it then
you will ignore it again
that is your Modus Operandi
that you extreme liberals did everything in your power to totally destroy
Vietvet saw through your ruse
you vent here on PO from HATE and conspiracy, with NO science
are you one of these?
http://arstechnic...nformed/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
Come on, *private stupid*, just give me the number of exactly what the ppm of CO2 is required to absorb the heat from what ever source is used then explain to me how this number will cause the earth to some how turn into the furnace that you poor fools are predicting.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
Come on, *private stupid*, just give me the number of exactly what the ppm of CO2 is required to absorb the heat from what ever source is used then explain to me how this number will cause the earth to some how turn into the furnace that you poor fools are predicting.
@jdhookerTROLL
does this mean that you can't find the studies that I already linked in the past?
Tell you what... you go back through your posts and get the study, re-link it here so that I know that you are SERIOUS about this and not just continuing to TROLL and then we can have a nice long discourse using science and whatever you use, ok?

not being mean, but unless you are serious, there is no point in continuing the conversation, as you will simply do what you are doing above... try to re-direct the conversation into something else that you think you can effectively undermine with your paranoia and conspiracy
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
I ask you again! Come on, *private stupid*, just give me the number of exactly what the ppm of CO2 is required to absorb the heat from what ever source is used then explain to me how this number will cause the earth to some how turn into the furnace that you poor fools are predicting. Why can't you give me the number? Is it 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 ppm or higher? You so not know and being as stupid and delusional as you are, you will not discover what it is, will you?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
I ask you again! Come on, *private
@jdhooker
redirection and attempt at obfuscation
your post only supports the conspiratorial nature of your posts
Given that
conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument
and
their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning
( http://phys.org/n...html#jCp ) We can be sure that no matter how much evidence we give you, or how accurate the answer, you will simply deny it or ignore it, like you always do

so to answer, I will ask again: does this mean that you can't find the studies that I already linked in the past?
When you get those studies, we can talk specifics and I will explain what all the hard words mean so you can understand it too.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
I ask you again! And again and again, *private stupid* to just answer the challenge. Come on, *private stupid*, just give me the number of exactly what the ppm of CO2 is required to absorb the heat from what ever source is used then explain to me how this number will cause the earth to some how turn into the furnace that you poor fools are predicting. Why can't you give me the number? Is it 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 ppm or higher? You so not know and being as stupid and delusional as you are, you will not discover what it is, will you? What is so difficult tat even you can not understand the challenge?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
You, Vietvet, are a liar and a dismal individual to boot. Take the time to tell me where you spent the "three years, the last two living with the people we were trying to protect " You could not even find the country of Vietnam on a map if you didn't have the help of someone as equally dishonest and stupid as *private stupid* helping you to d o so.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
I ask you again! Come on, *private stupid*, just give me the number of exactly what the ppm of CO2 is required to absorb the heat from what ever source is used then explain to me how this number will cause the earth to some how turn into the furnace that you poor fools are predicting. Why can't you give me the number? Is it 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 ppm or higher? You so not know and being as stupid and delusional as you are, you will not discover what it is, will you?



This is, absolutely, the worst word problem I have ever seen. What does "absorb the heat from what ever source" mean? Do you mean the sun or the Earth?

You then go on and say: "explain to me how this number will cause the earth to some how turn into the furnace" Who thinks there will be a "furnace?" How does this relate to higher temperatures?

There can be no answer to your nonsense accusations/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
There can be no answer to your nonsense accusations
@Thermo
Yep. I would link the studies here again but that would only cause him to go into yet another round of misdirection and fallacious arguments from conspiracy

I know you remember some of those studies... I think I even sent you one and asked questions about it

but that isn't important. he goes on and on about
I ask you again! And again and again
but seems to "forget" that we have also asked HIM again, and again, and again, and again (ad nauseum) to provide empirical evidence of the same caliber we've given refuting those studies, and instead we get "weather, conspiracy and anti-agw rants" like above, while he tries to slam runrig (and fails miserably)

this is the same type of troll that our resident ToE touting penguin head likes to use

bait and switch, then slander, obfuscate and libel

@jdhookerTROLL
LINK and ANSWER the studies
otherwise get reported for trolling/baiting
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
You, Vietvet, are a liar and a dismal individual to boot.
@jdhookerTROLL
you are a TROLL, LIAR and BAITING
You are making a fallacious statement with absolutely zero proof (unfounded conjecture based upon stupidity)

this post was reported
I ask you again! And again and again
And I will repeat what I said above

redirection and attempt at obfuscation
your post only supports the conspiratorial nature of your posts

LINK and ANSWER the studies that I have ALREADY PROVIDED TO YOU
because THOSE STUDIES ALREADY HAVE THOSE ANSWERS YOU ARE SEEKING

otherwise get reported for trolling/baiting
i will conclude this post with your own (misspelled) words
What is so difficult tat even you can not understand the challenge?
[sic]

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
You, Vietvet, are a liar and a dismal individual to boot. Take the time to tell me where you spent the "three years, the last two living with the people we were trying to protect " You could not even find the country of Vietnam on a map if you didn't have the help of someone as equally dishonest and stupid as *private stupid* helping you to d o so.


http://en.wikiped..._Program

3rd CAG Jan. 1968-Dec. 1969

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Hi jdswallow.

It's not just about CO2, mate. The increasing atmospheric concentration of that gas is just the start of our problems. The planet will always 'buffer' the added CO2 and resultant heat during TRANSITION phase from present 'equilibrium' state to future 'equilibrium' state (which will be hotter and more violent patterns/flows between extremes than present).

The REAL killer is the 'triggering' stage where CO2 related warming will eventually destabilize current reservoirs of 'fossil' Methane and 'fossil' CO2 gases. As they're released from clathrates etc, the temporary absorption of some heat by 'outgassing' phase will 'buffer' some of the heat effects for a while, but when the release rate gets sufficiently high, 'fossil' Methane and CO2 enter so quickly into the atmosphere that current warming will pale by comparison!

That 'tipping point' scenario will usher in the dreaded 'runaway greenhouse effect'. Humanity 'coming back' from that unscathed will be some miracle! :)
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
@jdswallow
Your posts have become sporadic, discontinuous & wide in paradigm. It can be difficult to understand some seemingly tough uni topics such as the basis of heat:-
http://en.wikiped...echanics

So instead, might I suggest you start by taking a peek at the strange properties of water, such as the specific heat of ice at below 0 C, the transition of ice at 0 C to water & that of water.

The Properties are Irrefutable. Uni students who are fresh & eager to find out the truth are unleashed on labs & able to prove them easily.

Once you play with the numbers, easily with a pencil, paper & simple arithmetic calculator you discover some freaky stuff, that, to people with imagination, is very scary.

One such absolute fact is that melting ice absorbs 150 times as much heat as ice and 75 times as much heat as water.

Scary because, it shows that without ice we can be in real trouble !
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
@jdswallow
cont

Here is the simplest & most straightforward example I can find which impresses those that have been in labs & have a good idea of the quantity of heat we are dealing with !

Now we know that glacial ice Mass is decreasing, say its a tonne per year.

That tonne of water absorbs some 330 units of heat JUST to change from ice to water with NO increase in temperature - do you find this odd & strange, well I still do after 40 years !

Now here is the scary bit. If that same tonne of ice is now water and its at 0 C then what happens to its temperature if it is exposed to the SAME amount of heat the ice Mass was ?

One might think its not much, afterall the temp didnt rise AT ALL when going from ice to water.

But, as its structure has changed from solid to liquid then it ALL changes heat value.

That tonne will rise by a whopping 75 C with the SAME amount of heat that it took to change from ice to water.

Can u see the importance of this ?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
@jdswallow
cont

Now the maths we are dealing with are NOT hard, there is no trig, calculus, complex numbers or matrices etc It is a simple formula, some detail is here (skip the calculus):-

Now take that tonne I saidearlier & just multiply it by the mass of actual ice loss & things get very interesting, its actually scary because it shows we are SO dependent upon ice as the buffer - like a car bumper - to absorb the shock of massive amounts of heat being held back from going to space - the heat balance etc.

So, when you see the oceans only rise by 0.064 deg C & you know the relative difference in specific heat ie. Heat capacity of water versus air then you very quickly see, if that heat were not absorbed by the oceans & instead it went into the air then its temperature would be about 64 deg C - & this is NOT even from ice !

When you also add the effect of burning 230,000 Litres of petrol each sec you see we are on a very bad course.

Its only basic math & physics !
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
Its only basic math & physics !

Mike... All rhetorical I'm sure from you because you know as well as I do that - the "math & physics" doesn't fit their (deniers) world-view.
So they distort the physical universe to fit their ideologically created version.
As I keep saying... They don't occupy the same reality as you and I, they are far, far beyond where the Fairies live and, it seems, still going.
FFS.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2014
runrig lamented
Its only basic math & physics !

Mike... All rhetorical I'm sure from you because you know as well as I do that - the "math & physics" doesn't fit their (deniers) world-view.
hmm, potentially true, well I have the vain hope for jdswallow & the same robotic followers that some bit of simple math might make its way into their consciousness so they might;

a. Save us & them lots of time
b. not make it so obvious they are so far from the reality of physics
c. improve the way they articulate so they might be able to make an actual point

Well at least, for me, its good practice typing. Satisfying as it spreads fundamental truths in conjunction with, I hope, a growing appreciation those on the fence might look at the details rather more closely & not be so easily led by the uneducated..

ie. "Details matter as it is the details in which the truth hides"

Most should see, not having an education makes them most susceptible to hypnosis :-(
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. Whilst this thickening is predicted to affect GRACE estimates by no more than 6.2 Gt/yr, it may contribute up to -7 mm/yr to the present-day GIA uplift rate, depending on the chosen Earth model, with a strong east-west gradient across the AP. Its consideration is therefore critical to the interpretation of observed GPS velocities in the AP.''
http://www.agu.or...59.shtml


jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Its only basic math & physics !

No, Mike Massen, it is empirical observed facts that matter; therefore, the question is, where is all of this melting ice & also be advised that the Antarctica sea ice is at all time highs?

"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 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
Most should see, not having an education makes them most susceptible to hypnosis :-(

I know you do not remember when this happened and was reported by Sail World last year.
"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught" Aug 2013GMT
http://www.sail-w...t/113788
Or how about this year?
"The drama begins - North West Passage sailors rescued from ice 2:52 AM Mon 14 Jul 2014GMT
A U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker had to break 12 miles of ice to reach the trapped sailors, Erkan and Elizabeth Gursoy, on Altan Girl, their rugged 36ft steel boat.
http://www.sail-w...e/124426
Sea ice extent in recent years for the northern hemisphere.
http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
Ice delays supply barge for Western Arctic communities Posted: Sep 3, 2013 7:08 PM CT
"We have not seen ice with this type of coverage in quite a few years and I really don't know how far back we might've seen it,"
http://www.cbc.ca...ays.html

Himalayan Glaciers A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change
http://gbpihed.go...iers.pdf

This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains and this is the same area where the IPCC said that all glaciers would be gone by 2030. Get some facts, Mike Massen, before you hit the keys again and you will have little to write & you will not make as big of a fool out of yourself as the bogus IPCC did.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.
http://www.glacie...phy.html
"So they distort the physical universe to fit their ideologically created version" It will be interesting to see how the prevaricator in chief, Tony, handles the facts above.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
Mike_Massen: Here are some historically documented FACTS for you and Tony to dispute if you can from whatever dream world of fantasy you, for whatever reason, live in. This applies to the dire warnings regarding melting glaciers which for the historically knowledgeable are consistent with an earth coming out of a LIA. Keep in mind that Geo. Vancouver's ships were wind powered; therefore, he wasn't spewing out any diesel smoke to start this massive retreat of these glaciers. http://soundwaves...ymap.gif
I have ha my own boat into Glacier Bay on two different occasions; therefore, I know that one can observe by the tree lines that this information is TRUE while you can't even find the Bay on a chart.
"At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range."
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
Hey JD, not sure what your big mystery is. It is not complicated and it is not a furnace (I know you were being metaphorical).
The amount of CO2 required is about 3000ppm for there to be a noticeable difference. That's the easy answer. What happens if it does amplify?
Well the Earth gets warmer, but it has happened before, and the Earth has been warmer before. Hopefully the worst will be the loss of all ice and a lot of rain, from the Earth cooling itself via evaporation/condensation. The Earth's temperature will be warm, but even more constant than it is now. A new if unpleasant equilibrium.
It depends then on how extreme. Venus boiled all its water to the upper atmosphere, where it lyzed and left only CO2. I don't think that'll happen. But it is difficult to say what will. If the world gets wet, will the reforestation of Australia tip the balance back? Etc..

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.