Gravity data show that Antarctic ice sheet is melting increasingly faster

April 30, 2015
Princeton University researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year. Credit: Christopher Harig, Department of Geosciences

During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion—the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high—more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.

The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.

"We have a solution that is very solid, very detailed and unambiguous," said co-author Frederik Simons, a Princeton associate professor of geosciences. "A decade of gravity analysis alone cannot force you to take a position on this ice loss being due to anthropogenic global warming. All we have done is take the balance of the ice on Antarctica and found that it is melting—there is no doubt. But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change."

Compared to other types of data, the Princeton study shows that ice is melting from West Antarctica at a far greater rate than was previously known and that the western ice sheet is much more unstable compared to other regions of the continent, said first author Christopher Harig, a Princeton postdoctoral research associate in geosciences. Overall, ice-loss rates from all of Antarctica increased by 6 billion tons per year each year during the 11-year period the researchers examined. The melting rate from West Antarctica, however, grew by 18 billion tons per year every year, Harig and Simons found. Accelerations in ice loss are measured in tons per year, per year, or tons per year squared.

Of most concern, Harig said, is that this massive and accelerating loss occurred along West Antarctica's Amundsen Sea, particularly Pine Island and the Thwaites Glacier, where heavy losses had already been recorded. An iceberg more than 2,000 square miles in size broke off from the Thwaites Glacier in 2002.

In Antarctica, it's the ocean currents rather than air temperatures that melt the ice, and melted land ice contributes to higher sea levels in a way that melting icebergs don't, Harig said. As the ocean warms, floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice.

"The fact that West Antarctic ice-melt is still accelerating is a big deal because it's increasing its contribution to sea-level rise," Harig said. "It really has potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet."

The Princeton study differs from existing approaches to measuring Antarctic ice loss in that it derives from the only satellite data that measure the mass of ice rather than its volume, which is more typical, Simons explained. He and Harig included monthly data from GRACE, or the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, a dual-satellite joint mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Center. GRACE measures gravity changes to determine the time-variable behavior of various components in the Earth's mass system such as ocean currents, earthquake-induced changes and melting ice. Launched in 2002, the GRACE satellites are expected to be retired by 2016 with the first of two anticipated replacement missions scheduled for 2017.

While the volume of an ice sheet—or how much space it takes up—is also crucial information, it can change without affecting the amount of ice that is present, Simons explained. Snow and ice, for instance, compact under their own weight so that to the lasers that are bounced off the ice's surface to determine volume, there appears to be a reduction in the amount of ice, Simons said. Mass or weight, on the other hand, changes when ice is actually redistributed and lost.

Simons equated the difference between measuring ice volume and mass to a person weighing himself by only looking in the mirror instead of standing on a scale.

"You shouldn't only look at the ice volume—you should also weigh it to find the mass changes," Simons said. "But there isn't going to be a whole lot of research of this type coming up because the GRACE satellites are on their last legs. This could be the last statement of this kind on these kinds of data for a long time. There may be a significant data gap during which the only monitoring available will not be by 'weighing' but by 'looking' via laser or radar altimetry, photogrammetry or field studies."

Harig and Simons developed a unique data-analysis method that allowed them to separate GRACE data by specific Antarctic regions. Because the ice sheet behaves differently in different areas, a continent-wide view would provide a general sense of how all of the ice mass, taken together, has changed, but exclude finer-scale geographical detail and temporal fluctuations. They recently published a paper about their computational methods in the magazine EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, and used a similar method for a 2012 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that revealed sharper-than-ever details about Greenland's accelerating loss of its massive ice sheet.

Robert Kopp, a Rutgers University associate professor of earth and planetary sciences and associate director of the Rutgers Energy Institute, said the analysis method Harig and Simons developed allowed them to capture a view of regional Antarctic "more accurately than previous approaches." Beyond the recent paper, Harig and Simons' method could be important for testing models of Antarctic ice-sheet stability developed by other researchers, he said.

"The notable feature of this research is the power of their method to resolve regions geographically in gravity data," Kopp said. "I expect that [their] technique will be an important part of monitoring future changes in the and testing such models."

Explore further: New method relates Greenland ice sheet changes to sea-level rise

More information: The paper, "Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains," was published in the April 1 edition of Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

Related Stories

Antarctic ice shelves rapidly thinning

March 26, 2015

A new study led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego researchers has revealed that the thickness of Antarctica's floating ice shelves has recently decreased by as much as 18 percent in certain areas over ...

Image: Sea ice off Antarctica's Princess Astrid Coast

April 9, 2015

On April 5, 2015, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA's Terra satellite acquired this natural-color image of sea ice off the coast of East Antarctica's Princess Astrid Coast.

Recommended for you

East Antarctic Ice Sheet has history of instability

December 13, 2017

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet locks away enough water to raise sea level an estimated 53 meters (174 feet), more than any other ice sheet on the planet. It's also thought to be among the most stable, not gaining or losing ...

Hydraulic fracturing negatively impacts infant health

December 13, 2017

From North Dakota to Ohio to Pennsylvania, hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has transformed small towns into energy powerhouses. While some see the new energy boom as benefiting the local economy and decreasing ...

82 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2015
ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet."


Goodbye NOLA, and TAMPA BAy, and Miami, and Galveston, and Key West, and Houston.

Goodbye even Washington DC.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2015
Good-bye to the Great Central Valley, the source of much of your food.
Poj
5 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2015
If you're talking about the Great Central Valley of California, it's going to be gone long before the sea rises ... no water!
Omnishambles
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2015
..."floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice". They are kidding right? Good grief.
zz5555
5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2015
..."floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice". They are kidding right? Good grief.

No, they're not kidding. Here's some information on ice shelves and how they hold back the land ice, if you're interested in learning (https://nsidc.org...ves.html ).
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2015
Yeah. Things are looking bad. "Climate change could drive up to a sixth of animals and plants on Earth to extinction unless governments cut rising greenhouse gas emissions, according to a U.S. study published on Thursday." From Reuters. "Overall, it found that one in six species could be driven to extinction if greenhouse gas emissions are unchecked and temperatures rise by 4.3 degrees Celsius (7.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times by 2100, in line with one scenario from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Yikes.
nevermark
4.3 / 5 (11) May 01, 2015
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the exponential rise of civilization is damaging the environment. Individual life forms always act in preference to their immediate survival, not toward some kind of global balance. That humans continually build up "debt" of one kind or another to optimized today is not a controversial observation.

The deniers of land, air and sea pollution, climate change, ocean acidification are just doing what pre-intelligent life does best: live for today.

We are not only the first species to drive technological change, but have untapped potential to look ahead and avoid problems.

The solutions are simple: balanced budgets and inclusion of external (environmental) costs in prices. Neither of these holds back the economy, they both encourage growth in the direction of greatest return.

But overcoming billions of years of genetic short sightedness is hard. Most people are still mentally in the pre-sentient animal kingdom.
Eddy Courant
1.7 / 5 (11) May 02, 2015
Volcanoes. Too big to miss. Or sweep under the carpet. Under west Antarctica. Off the coast of Cali. Great sources of heat. But don't tell the IPCC. You'll ruin their day.
Returners
3.3 / 5 (7) May 02, 2015
Volcanoes. Too big to miss. Or sweep under the carpet. Under west Antarctica. Off the coast of Cali. Great sources of heat. But don't tell the IPCC. You'll ruin their day.


Known volcanoes are already considered.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (13) May 02, 2015
Volcanoes. Too big to miss. Or sweep under the carpet. Under west Antarctica. Off the coast of Cali. Great sources of heat. But don't tell the IPCC. You'll ruin their day.

The problems with the Antarctic volcanoes are that:
1. They don't put out enough heat to explain all (or even very much) of the ice melt.
2. There's no evidence that the heat from the volcanoes has increased, which would be required to explain the accelerating ice melt.

But don't tell that to the anti-science group. You'll ruin their day ;).
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (11) May 02, 2015
Eddy,
You realize all the green house contributions from geologic processes is measurable right? Your argueing against the top scientists in the world and the military and intelligence agencies.
Think what you want about them, but all those people are serious people
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) May 02, 2015
Only in AGW Cult "science" could CO2 only cause melting, exactly where there is geothermal activity and leave the majority of the continent for ice to grow.
But don't tell that to the AGW Chicken Littles, or they'll have to grow a brain.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (10) May 03, 2015
You're still as retarded as ever antigoracle.
What geologic mechanism are you talking about? Is there a caldera like yellow stone under there that was created in the last 200 years? Is that how stuff works in your mind?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) May 03, 2015
I wonder which gravitational constant they decided to use, or do they adjust that to conform to their beliefs just as they "adjust" temp readings?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2015
Excellent comments all.
So, not for nothing, but this acceleration is exactly predictable using fossil fuels as the driver. I hoped I wouldn't live long enough to see it.

Looks like I now need to get back to the drawing board, and try to figure out if the worst you mention can even be stopped.

What is the sound of the end of the world?

Well for the lowlands you mention, it will be very quick, a storm or some similar event, just moving water above it's usual level. Hydrostatic pressure will take care of the rest.

I honestly don't know if we can reverse it at this point.

But hats off to you CO2 believers, if it IS CO2, it is not reversible. Even some quick table napkin math should confirm this for you. You may as well be protesting Plate Tectonics.
DarkLordKelvin
4.1 / 5 (13) May 03, 2015
Excellent comments all.
So, not for nothing, but this acceleration is exactly predictable using fossil fuels as the driver.
Sort of, but only because burning fossil fuels releases CO2. You also have to include the other anthropogenic GHG's like methane, N2O and SF6 to get the full effect. "Exactly predictable" is a bit of an oversell too, since it takes a while for extra heat retained from increased GHE to be distributed around the globe so it can melt polar ice; I'd go with "inevitable" instead.
But hats off to you CO2 believers, if it IS CO2, it is not reversible.
Not in the short term anyway,
You may as well be protesting Plate Tectonics.
which is why it's important to restrict emissions to reasonable levels ASAP, so that at least we can slow the accumulation of extra GHG's in the atmosphere. Beyond that, we need to come to terms with the fact that the coastlines are probably doomed. If you own low-lying coastal property, sell now before the market collapses.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2015
You're still as retarded as ever antigoracle.
What geologic mechanism are you talking about? Is there a caldera like yellow stone under there that was created in the last 200 years? Is that how stuff works in your mind?

Hey moron, if it is CO2, then explain why the ice is increasing everywhere but where there is geothermal activity.
http://www.climat...amis.jpg
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) May 03, 2015
You're still as retarded as ever antigoracle.
What geologic mechanism are you talking about? Is there a caldera like yellow stone under there that was created in the last 200 years? Is that how stuff works in your mind?

Hey moron, if it is CO2, then explain why the ice is increasing everywhere but where there is geothermal activity.
http://www.climat...amis.jpg


That's easy, auntie griselda --because it isn't.

The aggressive condescension of your stupidiosity fails to support this egregious, lying claim. There IS NO universal increase in ice.

Furthermore, this acceleration of ice loss is across the the entire WAIS, and not limited to only the areas where geothermal activity is present.

The melting is caused by warm ocean and air currents not by your utter horseshit geothermal heating.

The only heating you are qualified to comment upon is that of your diaper by your frequent, uncontrolled voids.
Tom_Andersen
1.3 / 5 (6) May 03, 2015
There are plenty of papers like this one that support the geothermal source of heating in West Antarctica.

Since the temperatures are in no sense warm enough there to melt anything of measure, the only climate change that could do anything is right at the shore.

http://www.scienc...14005780

"..this part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has recently been hypothesized to already be en route towards collapse. Although an oceanic trigger is thought to be responsible for current change at the grounding line of Thwaites Glacier, ...One major contributor to fast glacial flow is the presence of subglacial water, the production of which is a result of both glaciological shear heating and geothermal heat flux. ...
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2015
So Chicken Little has changed his tune from "The Sky is Falling" to "The Ice is Melting!

Everyone knows that the rate of rise of the sea level is decreasing not increasing. If the melting of the poles was increasing the rate of rise would also increase.

This is just a little more propaganda from the Ministry of Truth.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2015
By the way does anyone know what the rise in sea level is each year? It is about the thickness of 5 cent piece or 2.5 mm.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
By the way does anyone know what the rise in sea level is each year? It is about the thickness of 5 cent piece or 2.5 mm.


Which even after a century is a long way from the "tens of feet" mentioned in this article.

Edit:

And I'm well aware the growth curve is potentially non-linear.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2015
Since the temperatures are in no sense warm enough there to melt anything of measure, the only climate change that could do anything is right at the shore.

Yes, and it's been well documented (and mentioned in the story) that the warming oceans have been melting the ice shelves that slow down the flow of glaciers to the ocean. Your article (and your quotes) appear to support that idea. Yes, geothermal heat flux will help lubricate the glaciers (and the abstract doesn't say how much it contributes as opposed to shear heating), but as has been noted before there's no evidence of an increase in the flux meaning something else is causing the acceleration in Antarctic land ice.

Cont.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) May 03, 2015
Scientists have long known of the existence of volcanoes in that area. Only recently was the heat from those volcanoes measured. Here's an article about that study: https://news.vice...ice-caps . It seems to have been written after the erroneous suggestion that it was the volcanoes causing the increase in the ice loss. An interesting quote from that article:
geothermal heating contributes to a few millimeters of melting annually, compared to rising sea temperatures which can trigger rates of up to 100 meters each year.


So, again:
1. The volcanoes don't put out enough heat to explain all (or even very much) of the ice melt.
2. There's no evidence that the heat from the volcanoes has increased, which would be required to explain the accelerating ice melt.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2015
MR166, the rate may be decreasing, that makes sense, the area is expanding disproportionately.

Just a reminder, I was saying the ice was melting several years ago on this site, and for many years before that.

It is the #1 indicator of climate change, and now, it's also a driver.

Ice recedes, it's harder to drive heat to the poles, etc., sunlight falls directly onto more ocean and land.

Even CO2, that joke of the ages is more important up near the poles, because there is little water vapor, and all the junk we humans produce tends to float Northward.

Tom A, good point, Volcanic activity has been increasing, it makes sense. My favorite mis-truth attatched to this is that Mona Loa, where they set the CO2 standard, is an increasingly active volcano. For some reason they couldn't put it elsewhere...
DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (11) May 03, 2015
MR166, the rate may be decreasing, that makes sense, the area is expanding disproportionately.

Just a reminder, I was saying the ice was melting several years ago on this site, and for many years before that.

It is the #1 indicator of climate change, and now, it's also a driver.

Ice recedes, it's harder to drive heat to the poles, etc., sunlight falls directly onto more ocean and land.

Even CO2, that joke of the ages is more important up near the poles, because there is little water vapor, and all the junk we humans produce tends to float Northward.

Tom A, good point, Volcanic activity has been increasing, it makes sense. My favorite mis-truth attatched to this is that Mona Loa, where they set the CO2 standard, is an increasingly active volcano. For some reason they couldn't put it elsewhere...
Wow, even for you, that's a lot of "unscience" to pack into a single post. And you even threw in a Dunning-Krugerism for good measure. (As the Aussies say) Good on ya!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 03, 2015
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.

8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.

This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.

This is about right: Not all heat we release from fossil fuels will melt ice, though since it is "waste" heat, it must be dumped with surprising efficiency to colder places-carried by winds/weather.

Now, laughably, the amount AGWers, claim CO2 is producing is 2.5Watts/m2. 10x the amount the Sun produces that noticeably and inarguably changes the Earth.

Pretty cool, huh? All climatic change expressed quantitatively yet intuitively above.
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2015
Laughably, the amount of CO2 being produced by fossil fuel combustion is insane! @Water profit, you need better starting numbers friend. Otherwise you start doing GIGO (Garbage In = Garbage Out). In 2010, the typical CO2 balance is best shown here; http://co2now.org...ons.html

As much as the deniers like to squirm about the numbers, all joking aside, they are not very favorable to mankind. Since mankind is the cause of this, it is mankind that needs to solve the issue.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
Insane is referencing something from a website called "CO2 now" and expecting it to be neutral.
The numbers seem consistent when I use half-way reliable websites, wiki included.

Maybe the 2.5 mm was off, let's see, 6cm over ~30years = 0.2cm ~ 2.5mm. So good order of magnitude agreement. Everything else is tight as well.

We have a Solar mean of ~255Watts/m2 +/-0.2Watts/m2 over 11 year cycles, the +/-0.2 causes noticeable climate impact.
Which means to have significant subtle impact any influence would have to be ~10% of 0.2Watts/m2, or 0.03Watts/m2. Which is not only what is happening, but in great agreement.

Now ice as a metric is a little more subtle, even waste heat will be radiated into space.

Now, if it were 2.5 Watts/m2, and this would be ALL OVER THE EARTH! The effect on the tropics would be disproportionate, and felt! No one would be arguing about it. This would mean about ~7.5 Watts/m2 in the tropics, ~25% of the Earth.
!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2015
Do you get it yet? Your sites can say anything they like. The numbers above are from raw data.

CO2 propagandists NEED CO2 to be higher than fossil fuels, so they picked a number, basically. What they forgot is that the 255 Watts/m2 is what takes us from -270 Celcius of space to our comfy temperatures. That much energy would throw the world quite out of any equilibrium, temperatures would ramp up, inarguably.

And when you consider this is supposed to be from a tiny 135ppm change in a weak GHG, when 280ppm was just lying around? Temperature fluctuates, CO2 has only gone up.

No matter how you model the situation, you don't get a good answer.

So, heat from fossil fuels heating the Earth? Not much. Changing climate before heating the Earth, makes sense. (Ice melts, etc..), we see these effects.

Now insulation heating the Earth? Well, we need to look at the impacts of relatively homogeneous distribution of CO2, as an insulator... we don't see these effects.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) May 04, 2015
So, CalibanTurd grabs the lone neuron he shares with the rest of the AGW Chicken Little tards and brays.
Hey CalibanTurd if you can, read up.
http://en.wikiped...tic_Rift
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2015
@anti

" We report on new insights gained from a recent broadband seismic experiment. The 25-km-thick crust measured on the southern flank of the Marie Byrd Land dome suggests that the high topography there is partially supported by a low-density mantle, possibly a hotspot, whereas the interior of the rift appears to be underlain by average-density mantle, suggesting that active volcanism is not present beneath the interior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
http://geology.ge...abstract

That's a quote from a study cited by your wiki link.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 04, 2015
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.

8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.

This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.
You got the math wrong (again), you doofus. Why don't you check your calculations? You made enough mistakes that some cancelled out and you still somehow ended up within an order of magnitude of the right answer, which is 3.02x10^20 J/yr, or 0.0185 W/m^2.

But your analysis is even worse than your math. In order for your "water bowl" logic to pertain, the polar ice would have to be in equilibrium with the oceans .. i.e average ocean temp of 0 C.
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (11) May 04, 2015
We have a Solar mean of ~255Watts/m2 +/-0.2Watts/m2 over 11 year cycles, the +/-0.2 causes noticeable climate impact.
Like what .. what "noticeable climate impact" is observable within a typical 11-year solar cycle? Please point it out in the data. In order to fit your "analysis", it'd have to be something like a 0.4 degree C temperature fluctuation. Funny nobody's ever mentioned that before.
Which means to have significant subtle impact any influence would have to be ~10% of 0.2Watts/m2, or 0.03Watts/m2. Which is not only what is happening, but in great agreement.
No .. 0.03 W/m^2 is negligible compared to the net imbalance of ~1 W/m^2 in solar radiation due to increased GHE, which has not yet equilibrated.
Now, if it were 2.5 Watts/m2, and this would be ALL OVER THE EARTH! [snip] This would mean about ~7.5 Watts/m2 in the tropics, ~25% of the Earth.
No .. the imbalance is a global net average of all factors, it doesn't have local character like you claim.
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (11) May 04, 2015
That much energy would throw the world quite out of any equilibrium, temperatures would ramp up, inarguably.
Yep, and that's precisely what's occurring.
So, heat from fossil fuels heating the Earth? Not much. Changing climate before heating the Earth, makes sense. (Ice melts, etc..), we see these effects.
How does that make sense? The only way the ice can melt is BECAUSE the earth has been heated.
Now insulation heating the Earth? Well, we need to look at the impacts of relatively homogeneous distribution of CO2, as an insulator
CO2 doesn't really act like an insulator per se, but it's not a worthless analogy, because the net effect of increased GHG's is that the Earth retains more heat, causing a net imbalance of ~1 W/m^2 between heat absorbed from the sun & heat radiated back to space. We see those "effects".

I asked before that you explain the difference is, in terms of physics, between adding x J of heat, versus retaining x J of heat. Got an answer yet?
Returners
2.1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2015
CO2 cannot "retain" an indefinite amount of heat.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2015
Why is the melting trend slowing,even reversing, in the N. Hemisphere sea ice volume, even as CO2 keeps going up? If we get to september and have a net increase again, that will be 3 consecutive years, already we are at 2.5 consecutive years of increase, contrary to prior expectations when it looked as though it would already be melted out by now just 3 years ago.

Returners
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2015
The CO2 curve increases by more than 1% of the pre-industrial values every year, yet the melt curves can fluctuate by 10% in the WRONG DIRECTION every year. That doesn't make sense for AGW theory. It really just doesn't make sense guy.

And it's not just fluctuation. 3 years in a row is a trend, or at worst an oscillation, but even an oscillation shouldn't happen with the KC growing 1% of the base amount every year, if CO2 is the culprit.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2015
No .. the imbalance is a global net average of all factors, it doesn't have local character like you claim.


There is local character. You are clearly even more afield than he thought.

AGW specifically claims that certain areas of the globe, namely the poles and ice packs, experience mroe warming than others due to an insulation effect.

However, most of the heat input continues to be in the tropics, and it migrates northward to the poles. This is due to basic geometry that over half the solar input strikes just 1/3rd of the surface of the Earth in the tropics.

There is an effect in thermodynamics which explains something, but I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about, and it has nothing to do with man, and everything to do with long-term cycles.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 04, 2015
CO2 cannot "retain" an indefinite amount of heat.


First of all, the GHE involves more than just CO2. Second, who said it needs to? All it is currently doing is causing the Earth to shift out of radiative equilibrium. Thus temperatures will continue to rise until a new radiative equilibrium is established ... the tricky part is figuring out where that new radiative equilibrium lies.
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (11) May 04, 2015
Why is the melting trend slowing,even reversing, in the N. Hemisphere sea ice volume, even as CO2 keeps going up?
I am not sure what you're talking about, the NSIDC says March extent was lowest on record, similar for January.
https://nsidc.org...re-3.png
But even if you WERE correct, there is an obvious answer to your question, which is: because global climate is complicated, and the polar ice caps are not the only place where the heat goes. Contrary to WP's claims, a bowl of ice-water at equilibrium is a really bad model for the climate system of the Earth. The heat going into melting ice is a tiny fraction of the total ~1 W/m^2 of unbalanced heating.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 04, 2015
No .. the imbalance is a global net average of all factors, it doesn't have local character like you claim.
There is local character.
I didn't actually say there wasn't, but my phrasing was a bit ambiguous. My point was that you can't just assume that because the tropics get more sun, the net imbalance there will be greater (as he did).
AGW specifically claims that certain areas of the globe, namely the poles and ice packs, experience mroe warming than others due to an insulation effect.
i.e. NOT more net warming in tropics, as WP claimed.
There is an effect in thermodynamics which explains something, but I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about, and it has nothing to do with man, and everything to do with long-term cycles.
Of course I don't know what you're talking about .. you didn't actually say anything there. I'm not optimistic about your command of thermo though, given your failure to account for energy conservation in another recent thread.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2015
Why is the melting trend slowing,even reversing, in the N. Hemisphere sea ice volume, even as CO2 keeps going up?
I am not sure what you're talking about, the NSIDC says March extent was lowest on record, similar for January.
https://nsidc.org...re-3.png
But even if you WERE correct, there is an obvious answer to your question, which is: because global climate is complicated, and the polar ice caps are not the only place where the heat goes. Contrary to WP's claims, a bowl of ice-water at equilibrium is a really bad model for the climate system of the Earth. The heat going into melting ice is a tiny fraction of the total ~1 W/m^2 of unbalanced heating.


Wow you can't read.

Volume =/= extent.

You should check your facts.

Average volume and average thickness increased. Check Neven's site even.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

Extent is the WORST least reliable indicator.
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2015
Wow you can't read.

Volume =/= extent.
Mea culpa ... I missed the specification of volume instead of extent.
You should check your facts.
Why? What I posted was ALSO correct .. extent has decreased, while volume has apparently increased. The issue with volume is that, as a statistic, it's been available only for a couple of years, so it's hard to put volume measurements in context. (Although it's clear the estimated volume of ice from earlier decades is several times larger than what is being measured now). On the other hand, the trend of decreasing extent has been steady for decades.
Extent is the WORST least reliable indicator.
Of what? If you are talking about the total amount of ice at the pole at any given moment, then yes, you're right. However if your trying to track trends in the formation and disappearance of polar sea ice, then it's fine. [ctd]
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2015
[ctd] Ice extent is a good measure of how easy it is for more ice to form during the months when it is supposed to be forming, which is a complementary measure of the "health" of the north polar ice cap, along with the ice volume/thickness measure. So, at best you can say that the data between volume and extent shows conflicting trends, suggesting that we don't have a complete understanding of the mechanisms involved. It's easy to hypothesize a scenario in which the thicker ice wasn't necessarily an indication of a colder artic (after all, actual ocean temp measurements show that it's considerably warmer up there). For example, it's possible that the ice around northern Greenland is stabilized over the summer due to lower (local) water temps (say from meltwater runoff). Couple that to storm action being able to more effectively pile up sea ice around those land structures, due to greater expanses of open ocean in early fall, and that model would fit the extent AND volume data.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2015
You know, what is really pathetic is; there are only one or two skeptigoons, yet they have many sock-puppets, and they downvote anyone who disagrees with them, even when the math/science is plain.

Can it really be they are paid shills? Or simply closed minded and too stupid to incorporate new information? Is there another option?
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2015
So, CalibanTurd grabs the lone neuron he shares with the rest of the AGW Chicken Little tards and brays.
Hey CalibanTurd if you can, read up.
http://en.wikiped...tic_Rift


Now, now, auntie griselda, no reason to get yourself all excited --afterall, this isn't the first time you had to stew in your own diaperful. Do try to calm yourself. Nurse will be right along with your meds and a fresh didey with which to encase your inflamed backside.

Oh, and next time you decide to take a stab at citation, do make an effort to to provide one that backs up your whinging trollblatt at the REQUISITE SCALE, yes?

Otherwise its support of your claim is as worthless as the steaming, liquescent content of your perpetually soiled diaper.

Senile troll.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
Oh poor CalibanTurd, that bit of reading was too much for your lone neuron.
When you grow a brain you may be able to see the match between the West Antarctic rift and the melting ice.
Then you can look up the ocean current around Antarctica and perhaps understand why the ice is not melting everywhere but the rift.
http://www.climat...elt.html
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
You know, what is really pathetic is; there are only one or two skeptigoons, yet they have many sock-puppets, and they downvote anyone who disagrees with them, even when the math/science is plain
The maths offered by Water_Prophet is so plain its inane, middle school stuff, simple multiplication with immensely naive assumptions. Water_Prophet immature attempt to show CO2 is a "red herring" as he claims was ONLY based on relational concentrations, ie qualitative without any quantitative maths at all, no radiative emission calcs at all - none !

Water_Prophet claimed
Can it really be they are paid shills? Or simply closed minded and too stupid to incorporate new information? Is there another option?
Yes there is another option, they are educated AND you have immense resistance to learning basic heat flow physics with any sort of depth whatsoever !

Water_Prophet prove your claims please ?

OR Man up and admit you faked figures & Lied !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.

8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.

This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.

This is about right: Not all heat we release from fossil fuels will melt ice, though since it is "waste" heat, it must be dumped with surprising efficiency to colder places-carried by winds/weather.

Now, laughably, the amount AGWers, claim CO2 is producing is 2.5Watts/m2. 10x the amount the Sun produces that noticeably and inarguably changes the Earth.

Pretty cool, huh? All climatic change expressed quantitatively yet intuitively above.

DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.

8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.

This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.

I already showed you that this calculation its wrong, ... yet here you go reposting WITHOUT FIXING THE ERRORS! Your lack of respect for scientific accuracy, not to mention science in general, is appalling.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
Oh, I'm sorry DLK/thermodyliar, saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. It's called order of magnitude analysis for a reason. And I use OOM for a reason. And CO2 is what 3 OOM too small and, talk about appalling.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
Oh, I'm sorry DLK/thermodyliar, saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. It's called order of magnitude analysis for a reason. And I use OOM for a reason. And CO2 is what 3 OOM too small and, talk about appalling.


Your calculation was off by an order of magnitude, jackass. And you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to CO2, as usual. We're still waiting on your rebuttal of the MECHANISM of the GHE ... which you cannot provide because you have no idea how it works. If I am wrong, then you should be able to prove it easily enough by explaining why here. So far, almost every claim you have made about the GHE has been wrong (only your recognition that water is a stronger GHG than CO2 keeps it from being a clean slate, but you don't know how to interpret that properly either).

So keep staring into your water bowl if you want to, but you'd be a lot better off reading science content.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
DLK, are you as pathetic as Mikey, just less verbose?
My calculations are fine.

As far as the mechanisms of CO2, they are two fold, the boring one of all gases storing kinetic energy, equipartition means this does not significantly change the GHE of the atmosphere.

Then there is the thing that is supposed to make CO2 significant, its absorption band, which comes from it having three atoms, not two.

This band is very narrow compared to Waters, because the C=O bond is very strong and directional. It absorbs thermo-infrared at ~15 um, retains that energy for about 4.2 usecs. It's primary mechanism is dispersion, secondary is retention.

Dispersion of course means it works in reverse at altitudes where there is little water, and lower in the atm, it is completely overwhelmed by water vapor.

The 4.2 usec retention, if I remember correctly, means it could hold on to the residual heat for 2-3 minutes, if it were the only GHG.

Proved.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2015
Water_Prophet when Co2 emits the absorbed energy is it at the same 15um wavelength?

Thanks, Mr166
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
DLK, are you as pathetic as Mikey, just less verbose?
My calculations are fine.
Only if by "fine" you mean "contain careless errors causing them to give a result that is too low by about one order of magnitude."
As far as the mechanisms of CO2, they are two fold
Reading comprehension fail .. I asked for the mechanism of the GHG, not the "mechanisms of CO2" (which is vague and meaningless in a scientific context). As for the rest of what you wrote, it is a combination of some correct facts, but with your usual twist of including your own personal misinterpretation of their significance. For example, it is true that CO2 most significant absorption band is *centered* near 15 um, but it is only narrow when the optical density is low ... at high optical densities (e.g. in a km-high column of atmosphere), the band is actually quite broad, with over 30,000 individual ro-vibrational lines that need to be accounted for. [ctd]
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (9) May 06, 2015
[ctd] Those 30k lines come into play in the proper way of calculating CO2's direct radiative forcing ... you need to integrate over all of those lines, and also over a column of atmosphere, taking into account the variation in concentration, and most importantly, the thermal lapse rate.

You see, CO2 molecules are constantly absorbing and re-emitting radiation all the way up through the atmosphere, and it is the changing balance between those processes (as a function of temperature) that produces the direct GHE for a given gas. It's more complicated than that to get the overall effect for a mixture of gases, because of feedback effects. Some of the radiation re-emitted by CO2 is absorbed by H2O, which increases the overall "heating efficiency" for radiation that was initially absorbed by CO2 molecules.

So you see, the *retention* of IR-radiation by individual molecules is basically irrelevant to GHE .. it's about *radiative exchange* up through the atmosphere. Science Content.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
MR166,
Very complicated question. Simple answer is yes.

But it can undergo collisions and release that energy, and there are other mechanisms. Quantum mechanics, or discrete values to the energy put the limits on what will not get re-emitted. The intuitive example is if it were to collide with another CO2 molecule. The energy could be transferred between two CO2 molecules.

What CO2 aficionados don't want to hear is that water vapor can also absorb at CO2 frequencies. This has the effect of diminishing CO2 effects further by an exponent of concentration and 0.04, the overlap of the spectrums. This comes out to be 50%. So 50% of CO2 spectrum is absorbed by water vapor anyway. This is of course much stronger in the tropics, it goes down to 20% from WV competition.

V/R
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2015
DLK, you obviously have some training in science, but I just draw a big box around those 30k fine lines you're whining about, making it what, 2x bigger than the actual value? All without integrating, completely overcompensating for the effect. And actually, you are WRONG about the 30k lines. These are for a pure sample of CO2, these are broadened (to overlap) under pressure/collisions.

Again, you obviously have some training in science, so why do you lie and twist it?

Poor DLK, fails at science and propaganda.
If you can't win at truth, and you can't win at lies, all you have left is to defame.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
What CO2 aficionados don't want to hear is that water vapor can also absorb at CO2 frequencies.
Another reading comp. fail for you ... I just pointed this out in my previous post. However, as you prove time and time again, just being aware of a particular fact isn't sufficient, you also have to understand fundamental physics sufficiently well to be able to properly interpret its importance.
This has the effect of diminishing CO2 effects further by an exponent of concentration and 0.04, the overlap of the spectrums. This comes out to be 50%. So 50% of CO2 spectrum is absorbed by water vapor anyway. This is of course much stronger in the tropics, it goes down to 20% from WV competition.
Case in point .. it doesn't work this way .. CO2 and H2O don't "compete for photons" .. both are constantly absorbing and re-radiating IR energy all the way up through the troposphere. The fact that their spectra overlap actually *enhances* this effect somewhat. Study up, buttercup.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
DLK, you obviously have some training in science but I just draw a big box around those 30k fine lines you're whining about,
This is your typical response .. you focus on the least important detail in one of my posts, usually with your own personal knack for scientific misinterpretation. Then you act all superior and condescending as if you somehow have a right to comment on my "training in science". It's laughable, because whatever training you may have had yourself, you either forgot or deliberately ignore, persistently making an ass of yourself.
Again, you obviously have some training in science, so why do you lie and twist it?
Which of my statements would you characterize as a "lie"? Be specific, and provide a citation to support your claim. Nothing I have posted is the slightest bit controversial to anyone who understands the GHE. Even the few p-chemists classifiable as "AGW skeptics" wouldn't quibble with any of my statements about radiative forcing/GHE mechanism.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2015
DLK, you're funny.
You haven't realized you can't intimidate me with physical science. I am the real deal. You're attempts may fool third parties, but to me, you're joke. Several jokes, rarely funny.

You've got maybe an undergrad. in physics, and you misconstrue. Those are the only weapons in your arsenal. They tickle.

As for critiquing your mastery of science, I haven't seen anything to critique. You're comment about "not competing" is just a convenient use of english to again, misconstrue. Of course it can compete. Quantun mechanics allows and demonstrates the competition even though the over lap is small... and the mechanics are above, though an U Grad degree probably doesn't allow you to recognize them.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
You haven't realized you can't intimidate me with physical science. I am the real deal.
I have never tried to intimidate .. I post solid, well-sourced science, and explain to the extent that space allows .. you've seen the sources, and ignored them. If you find any of this intimidating, that's your problem.
You've got maybe an undergrad. in physics
*shot in the dark* (misses wildly)
and you misconstrue
Examples?
You're comment about "not competing" is just a convenient use of english to again, misconstrue. Of course it can compete.
Your third reading comp. failure in a row .. I didn't say they couldn't compete .. I said they DON'T & it was clear from context I meant that any such "competition" is irrelevant to the GHE
Quantun mechanics allows and demonstrates the competition even though the over lap is small
The evidence suggests I understand QM far better than you do, as I have corrected your (egregious) QM errors on at least one previous occasion.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2015
Let MR166 be the judge.

The problem with me is that I keep thinking you're something other than a shill.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 07, 2015
Let MR166 be the judge.

The problem with me is that I keep thinking you're something other than a shill.
I suppose you're hoping (as usual) that you can deflect attention away from the fact that you have once again largely failed to address the scientific content of the discussion, and instead managed to get the focus onto a stupid side-argument about unprovable "scientific credentials" (my fault for rising to the bait this time .. your really are quite effective as a troll).

Anyway, I guess I'll go back to waiting for you to actually engage on a science point. I had hopes for this last exchange, but no .. you just posted some semi-scientific gobbledy-gook and started in with the usual attacks and deflections when you were challenged to defend your claims. The actual science content is still out there waiting for you to read it .. you'll find it surprisingly similar to what I (among others) have been trying to get you to understand for several months now.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2015
DLK, above expresses perfect understanding. But go ahead claim otherwise.

It does let other readers see you for what you are.

You keep going on about scientific context, but say nothing of it.

I guess you are just like Mikey, desperate for attention, and I keep giving it to you.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) May 07, 2015
DLK, above expresses perfect understanding.
Well, perfect is a bit over the top, but thanks for noticing .. I do try.
It does let other readers see you for what you are.
Yes, an expert. You have never rebutted a single one of my posts or points in a convincing matter (i.e. with clear explanations starting from fundamental physics or peer-reviewed literature sources) ... I have debunked your nonsense time and time again, from your water-bowl idiocy, to your goofy CO2 DIY "experiment", to your insipid claims about CO2 being an "insignificant trace gas" .. and I have corrected countless errors of yours, ranging from simple math to incorrect statements of physical principles, along the way
You keep going on about scientific context, but say nothing of it.
It's there in almost every post .. your failure to accept/understand it is beyond my control. I guess you like to pretend that if you don't acknowledge your own failures, maybe nobody else will notice them.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2015
Water what percentage of 15 um energy that the actual surface of the earth has absorbed and is re-radiating into space has a 15um wavelength on the outgoing trip? One would think that most of outgoing energy has been converted into longer, transparent to Co2, wavelengths. If this is true then Co2 is not like a greenhouse at all.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2015
Actually I need to change the question. Of the total energy the surface of the earth re-radiates into space how much of it has a 15um wavelength when it starts it's outward trip?
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (9) May 07, 2015
Actually I need to change the question. Of the total energy the surface of the earth re-radiates into space how much of it has a 15um wavelength when it starts it's outward trip?
You are thinking along the right lines, but it seems like you may be missing a couple of significant points: First, the energy radiated from the Earth's surface has a continuous spectrum determined by its temperature (via the Stefan-Boltzmann law), so what you need to do is add up all the energy emitted over a range of wavelengths .. say from 14.5-15.5 microns. The second point is that, because the radiated energy is absorbed and re-emitted constantly as it passed through the atmosphere, you need to treat each layer of the atmosphere in a similar way to the surface of the earth .. i.e. each one has a continuous emission spectrum determined by its temperature. As the atmos. gets cooler and thinner with altitude, this radiative exchange eventually stops and the radiation is released to space. [ctd]
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (9) May 07, 2015
[ctd] The temp. profile with altitude is called the "thermal lapse rate", and it is a very important part of the GHE mechanism. If the atmos. wasn't cooler at the top than at the bottom, there would be little or no GHE. Since you seem to be interested in the actual science behind this stuff, you might want to have a look at the Science of Doom website. Despite the name, the site is agnostic with respect to political questions, and really only addresses science content, with lots of detailed explanations and references to textbooks as well as the peer-reviewed science literature, so you can see where this comes from.

There's a ton of good stuff on the site, but this is probably a good place for you to start, given the question you just asked:
http://scienceofd...-effect/

You might also want to check this out:
http://scienceofd...art-one/

The comments sections are also good.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) May 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
But hats off to you CO2 believers, if it IS CO2, it is not reversible
Beg Pardon ?
Itss been higher & then lower before, its clear CO2 can be absorbed but it takes a long time & anyone who is trained in physics or understands Psychrometry, can appreciate something is keeping water vapour up ie radiative transfer dynamics & by far the closest issue is CO2's radiative forcing
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

Which shows from dewpoint/humidity etc that Water Vapour can leave atmosphere within mere days, whereas CO2 can take several decades to reduce provided there are no positive feedbacks !

Water_Prophet claims
Even some quick table napkin math should confirm this for you..
Really ?
Then why can't Water_Prophet prove it - go on ?

AND also prove all his other claims eg his "4 technical degrees" & his faked CO2 figure of 0.00009W/m^2 which is 16,666 times LOWER than wikis 1.5 W/m^2

Water_Prophet prove your claims please !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2015
MR166,
How much? About 8%. The question is, how much of that is absorbed by the difference in 280ppm and 400ppm CO2, and how much of the spectrum water vapor absorbs. Water vapor I can say with good certainty absorbs the same amount energy as CO2 at 15um, in the temperate zone, ~75% in the tropics, and ~25% in the arctic.

BUT, what propagandists don't want you to know is that water vapor also absorbs thermal energy over 100% of the spectrum the Earth re-radiates. Water vapor has increased 435ppm.

So, if CO2 is storing 2.5Watts/m2 because of an increase of 135 ppm. Water must be contributing that, plus, roughly an additional ~8Watt/sm2 from it's major bands, plus let's just guestimate 1Watt/m2 over the rest of the spectrum ~40Watts/m2.

Which is clearly preposterous.

Whereas, the energy emitted by fossil fuel consumption is about .03 Watts/m2, the Sun's fluctuations over 11 year cycles driving climate are about 0.2Watts/m2.

QED.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2015
CO2 is dispersing more heat in the upper atmosphere, causing cooling, where there is little water vapor.
Down on Earth, water vapor, mixing effects, etc., are making insulation effects change insignificantly.

Which means we need to look to another reason for change.
Which means energy released by fossil fuels to me. Instead of warmth, but stabilization, which we'd expect from CO2, GHE or insulation, we see more extreme weather.

This suggests a driver, not an insulator.
We'd also expect melting ice to be the primary effect, not temperature change. Then we'd expect ocean changes when the ice retreated, also observed, and so on, as I've mentioned many times.

It makes sense to me: heat is causing heating.

Insulation, well, think about what would have to change to get insulation effects.
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2015
BUT, what propagandists don't want you to know is that water vapor also absorbs thermal energy over 100% of the spectrum the Earth re-radiates
You would know how wrong this accusation is if you ever bothered to read up on the GHE .. any reference you can find will show in detail how broad water absorption is accounted for in the GHE. Nobody is trying to hide any scientific facts about such a well-accepted topic
So, if CO2 is storing 2.5Watts/m2
One cannot properly interpret what they do not comprehend ... CO2 is not "storing" radiative energy to any significant extent .. nobody who knows anything about the GHE has ever suggested that it does. You are making a false claim, and then trying to rebut it .. even if you are successful, it's a pointless exercise.
the Sun's fluctuations over 11 year cycles driving climate
are you ever going to to tell us *which* climate effects you think are "driven" by the 11-year solar cycle?
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2015
CO2 is dispersing more heat in the upper atmosphere, causing cooling, where there is little water vapor.
classic scientific "cherry-picking" of facts .. while it's technically true that emission from CO2 does cool the upper atmosphere, that's just the last step along the radiative exchange pathway responsible for the GHE .. you are ignoring the rest of it, which is plain stupid.
Down on Earth, water vapor, mixing effects, etc., are making insulation effects change insignificantly
Utter BS .. you haven't a clue what you are talking about; you have never been able to provide support for that claim ... and while likening the GHE to "increased insulation" isn't really wrong, it's not particularly helpful as an analogy either.

As for the rest of your post, it was just a bunch of conjecture on your part .. stuff that might sound good to you, but is rather obviously wrong (to a scientist). For any system in local thermal equilibrium, heat retained is equivalent to heat added.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) May 07, 2015
MR166, what do you think? Am I full of it?
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) May 07, 2015
Oh poor CalibanTurd, that bit of reading was too much for your lone neuron.
When you grow a brain you may be able to see the match between the West Antarctic rift and the melting ice.
Then you can look up the ocean current around Antarctica and perhaps understand why the ice is not melting everywhere but the rift.
http://www.climat...elt.html


And again, auntie griselda, your senility prevents understanding of the facts, even if your inflamed backside would give you respite enough to make the effort.

There is more heat being generated in the rift of your spotty bottom than being emitted into the environment of the WAIS by geothermal activity.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
So, if CO2 is storing 2.5Watts/m2 because of an increase of 135 ppm. Water must be contributing that, plus, roughly an additional ~8Watt/sm2 from it's major bands, plus let's just guestimate 1Watt/m2 over the rest of the spectrum ~40Watts/m2.
Which is clearly preposterous.
Yes Water_Prophet's working is preposterous, maths salad without due care & attention, simple multiplications no calculus, nothing at all in line with:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Besides, CO2's radiative forcing is, at last count, just over 1.5W/m^2 averaged over whole planet & Water_Prophet hasn't stated where 2.5W/m^2 comes from ?

Besides Water_Prophet hasnt the intelligence to to connect his 'guesstimate' with what is preposterous, as he fails to understand the bands of water vapour & CO2 are not competitive there are cumulative, ie they sum.

Water_Prophet can't prove ANY of his claims, maths, his degrees, business claims

Nada, zero, zilch !
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) May 08, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
CO2 is dispersing more heat in the upper atmosphere, causing cooling, where there is little water vapor.
Down on Earth, water vapor, mixing effects, etc., are making insulation effects change insignificantly
As DarkLordKelvin points out & I will add my 2c; its at the end of the flux flow, upper atmosphere has to cool because the flux it was subjected to has reduced as data shows:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

It can be confirmed with a simple experiment, re blanket & lying in bed, you need a remote IR temp sensors (TS) & best done on cool night...

1. Turn off air con say hr or so before Lie in bed without a blanket
2. Point TS at ceiling & watch it increase temp as heat leaves you, take few mins to stabilise
3. Quickly place blanket over yourself, repeat 2.
4. You will see ceiling temp drop WHILST you get warmer

ie. Thermal resistivity of the blanket (ie GHGs) reduces the heat flux leaving, heat flow - doh !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2015
Oh, look the clown brigade, here to substancelessly defend the skeptigoon propoganda. Yeah, boys, I'm sure if I read 'em, I'd be crying.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) May 08, 2015
Water_Prophet mutters
Oh, look the clown brigade, here to substancelessly defend the skeptigoon propoganda. Yeah, boys, I'm sure if I read 'em, I'd be crying
Water_Prophet STILL cannot prove ANY of his claims.

The worst is his contradictions on CO2, his made up figure of 0.00009 W/m^2 ?

Where did this come from Water_Prophet ?

Water_Prophet has been asked many times but still FAILS to address it, why is that ?

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.