Antarctica 'greening' due to climate change

May 18, 2017
A Green Island moss bank with icebergs. Credit: Matt Amesbury

Plant life on Antarctica is growing rapidly due to climate change, scientists have found.

Few plants live on the continent, but scientists studying have found a sharp increase in in the last 50 years.A team including scientists from the University of Exeter used moss bank cores—which are well preserved in Antarctica's cold conditions—from an area spanning about 400 miles.

They tested five cores from three sites and found major biological changes had occurred over the past 50 years right across the Antarctic Peninsula.

"Temperature increases over roughly the past half century on the Antarctic Peninsula have had a dramatic effect on moss banks growing in the region," said Dr Matt Amesbury, of the University of Exeter.

"If this continues, and with increasing amounts of ice-free land from continued glacier retreat, the Antarctic Peninsula will be a much greener place in the future."

Recent climate change on the Antarctic Peninsula is well documented, with warming and other changes such as increased precipitation and wind strength.

Weather records mostly began in the 1950s, but biological records preserved in moss bank cores can provide a longer-term context about climate change.

The scientists analysed data for the last 150 years, and found clear evidence of "changepoints" - points in time after which biological activity clearly increased—in the past half century.

"The sensitivity of moss growth to past temperature rises suggests that ecosystems will alter rapidly under future warming, leading to major changes in the biology and landscape of this iconic region," said Professor Dan Charman, who led the research project in Exeter. "In short, we could see Antarctic greening to parallel well-established observations in the Arctic.

"Although there was variability within our data, the consistency of what we found across different sites was striking."The research team, which included scientists from the University of Cambridge and British Antarctic Survey, say their data indicate that plants and soils will change substantially even with only modest further warming.

The same group of researchers published a study focussing on one site in 2013, and the new research confirms that their unprecedented finding can be applied to a much larger region.

Plant life only exists on about 0.3% of Antarctica, but the findings provide one way of measuring the extent and effects of warming on the continent.

The paper, published in the journal Current Biology, is entitled: "Widespread biological response to rapid warming on the Antarctic Peninsula."

The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

The researchers now plan to examine core records dating back over thousands of years to test how much affected ecosystems before human activity started causing global .

Explore further: On warming Antarctic Peninsula, moss and microbes reveal unprecedented ecological change

More information: "Widespread biological response to rapid warming on the Antarctic Peninsula" Current Biology (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.034

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...

71 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2.3 / 5 (16) May 18, 2017
Dairy farms in Greenland? Wheat and barley growing there as well? For 400 years? No. It's too cold.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) May 18, 2017
This press release repeats a common misconception -- the notion that temperature is the strongest proxy for plant growth. We've seen the same approach with tree ring data ...

http://www.worldc...-record/

"Most seriously, typical reconstructions assume that tree ring width responds linearly to temperature, but trees can respond in an inverse parabolic manner to temperature, with ring width rising with temperature to some optimal level, and then decreasing with further temperature increases. Other problems include tree responses to precipitation changes, variations in atmospheric pollution levels, diseases, pest outbreaks, and the obvious problem of enrichment that comes along with ever higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trees are not simple thermometers!"
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2017
http://onlinelibr...abstract

"- Annual growth rings, measured along the north radius of freshly cut (frozen) tree discs and climatological data recorded at an adjacent site were used in the study. Correlations were based on Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients between the annual growth anomaly and these climatic and atmospheric factors.

- Rather weak correlations between these variables and growth were found. However, there was a consistent and statistically significant relationship between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Moreover, there was an underlying periodicity in growth, with four minima since 1961, resembling the period cycle of galactic cosmic radiation."

Perhaps the effect is particularly strong at the poles, as the magnetic fields would direct charged particles there, no?
barakn
4.4 / 5 (19) May 18, 2017
Shootist, your "400 years" of barley is a few scorched barley grains in the bottom of a dump, no barley found in higher layers, in just a single location. It is actually evidence for just a single barley crop.

I an find no evidence of any wheat being grown in Greenland and am prone to thinking you're just a liar, but feel free to post your evidence, and we'll weigh it on its merits.
Windchaser
4.8 / 5 (13) May 18, 2017
Ayep. The evidence thus far shows that the Vikings in Greenland were unable to depend on barley crops.
cuvtixo
3.9 / 5 (7) May 18, 2017
Chris Reeve- "annual growth rings, measured along the north radius of freshly cut (frozen) tree discs and climatological data recorded at an adjacent site were used in the study. - Rather weak correlations between these variables and growth were found.."

But this study wasn't of trees, it is of moss. There is a lot stronger correlations between temperature increase and moss growth. From the article: "The sensitivity of moss growth to past temperature rises suggests that ecosystems will alter rapidly under future warming, leading to major changes in the biology and landscape of this iconic region," said Professor Dan Charman." On what basis are you drawing a connection to tree growth and galactic cosmic radiation? It is a solution looking for a problem to answer.
Robert_D
2.3 / 5 (9) May 18, 2017
And green is good, right? The Green Parties should be happy about this, right?
richdiggins
2.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2017
Humm... The moss has not suddenly sprung up.

According to experts in the field of "moss" ...

"... mosses are long lived plants that are growing in old climax communities.They could easily be 10 to 50 years old and it could take at least that long for them to regrow."

http://mossplants...iti.html

So let us assume that the moss was already there, and the natural cycle of the earths climate has cycled the growth of the moss over the eons.

What is the problem here?
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2017
So let us assume that the moss was already there, and the natural cycle of the earths climate has cycled the growth of the moss over the eons.
What is the problem here?


We don't have to assume anything. The moss is growing faster and spreading (in itself not a problem of course) because temps are rising and seasons lengthening. This due to factors that are anything but part of the natural cycles of the earth.
Science points the finger at us. Although some die-hards still deny this, it has become an undefendable position (as reading comments on this site illustrates).
Things are accelerating, maybe faster than evolution can adapt and we don't know where it will stop.
So what is the problem here?
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) May 19, 2017
Re: "There is a lot stronger correlations between temperature increase and moss growth."

Can you actually make the case? Or is this merely a conjecture?

Re: "On what basis are you drawing a connection to tree growth and galactic cosmic radiation? It is a solution looking for a problem to answer."

The data appears to be pointing to the fact that plants feed on ions. Cosmic rays are basically a form of food for plants which we struggle to see (and for that very reason, our science will tend to bias against it).

The data may even be suggestive -- by Liebig's Law of the Minimum -- of a former time when ions were of larger percentages in the air. If the climate scientists were actually following the data, rather than imposing their narrative upon it, they might consider growing plants in a simulated atmosphere where the ionic concentration is far greater. We already see some suggestion from epigenetics studies that seeds are dramatically impacted by different E-fields.
richdiggins
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2017
"The moss is growing faster and spreading"

Nonsense. As I was pointing out with the link to the moss expert... is that moss takes a long time to grow and colonize an area.

Why do you believe that the moss is growing faster?

The key phrase in the quote from the article is "old climax communities" ... which means that the moss was already on those rocks from past "climax" of spreading.... and now the moss is regenerating and growing... but at the same rate moss always grows.

Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2017
It's perhaps a good time to remind people that all indications are that the Ebner Effect is real, and that it's very existence is suggestive that the world's electrical properties have undergone some sort of significant shift.

The Ebner Effect is an experiment which anybody can do at home, whereby organisms (it works for completely unrelated species like corn and fish) are subjected to a very specific electrostatic potential at the moment of germination. What results is apparently ancient genetics. E-field is apparently a very significant epigenetics trigger, and the key question we should be asking is WHY?

For more information, see ...

*Why Evolution is Not What You Think - The Ebner Effect*
https://plus.goog...SPmaT4Zn

Also this might help ...

*The Rejection of Epigenetics*
https://plus.goog...eZRc6xyp
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2017
"The moss is growing faster and spreading"

Nonsense. As I was pointing out with the link to the moss expert... is that moss takes a long time to grow and colonize an area.

Why do you believe that the moss is growing faster? -richdiggins


Because in the paper that this article is about, they actually physically measured the growth rate vs. time and they found that it has been growing faster. RTFA. It's fine if you want to quibble about their methods, but you are opining from your own confused understanding about someone else's generalization about moss.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2017
Re: "It's fine if you want to quibble about their methods, but you are opining from your own confused understanding about someone else's generalization about moss."

Rich hardly seems confused. He is in fact helping the readers to understand the misleading jargon inherent to the claim. To be clear, it is the jargon which creates any confusion which may exist.
Lex Talonis
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2017
The pole bits are not de-icing, they are regreening.
richdiggins
1.6 / 5 (7) May 19, 2017
Thanks Hannes.

Just so we are all on the same page. The paper only covers 150 yrs of data. ... and the largest spike in the growth rate data provided, appears to have took place in the late 1980's.

Lets keep in mind 150 yrs ago, we were just coming out of the "little ice age".

My suggestion would be to drill deeper (than 25cm) and provide more proficient data showing a range of years. Otherwise, we are at risk of making assumptions based on personal beliefs, right?

Having reviewed the data, I do not see a spike in 2016.... I see that the data appears to be cyclic.
richdiggins
1.6 / 5 (7) May 20, 2017
Here we have 5 million years of climate change data...
https://upload.wi...ange.svg

Doesn't look like the earth is as fubar'd as the AGW's want us to believe.

https://en.wikipe...h_cycles
barakn
5 / 5 (6) May 20, 2017
Having reviewed the data, I do not see a spike in 2016.... I see that the data appears to be cyclic.

Let me translate that for you.
Having looked at the graph, I decided to look at the inevitable squiggles due to noise and ignore the obvious linear trend that the paper backed up with statistics. -richdiggins
richdiggins
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
@barakn -- Show me your proof, bozo.

Apparently.... Doom and gloom, all you can comprehend.

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that." -HS
howhot3
4.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2017
It's good to see scientist are putting some numbers on the increase in biologic activity in the antarctic due to AGW. It's just one of the thousands of signals of AGW impact on the globe. It also documents one more fact to show deniers when they try to explain why they did nothing when there family lineage stops due to AGW effects a few 100 years from now.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2017
Here we have 5 million years of climate change data...
https://upload.wi...ange.svg

I can't find any good information for the source of this graphic. I can see it here: https://www.frien...p?id=706 and it claims the source is here: http://lorraine-l...2005.pdf but the graph doesn't appear there. I'm interested for a couple reasons: the temperatures are anomalies and it doesn't say what the reference temperature is so it's impossible to compare them to current temperatures, and it has "0 years ago" on the graph, but ice cores are in reference to 1950. The only data I can find for Vostok gives the latest date in the data as 392 BC, so the graph doesn't even plot the current warming. It seem irrelevant to any discussion on AGW. Why did you think this plot was relevant?

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2017
Doesn't look like the earth is as fubar'd as the AGW's want us to believe.

https://en.wikipe...h_cycles

Milankovitch cycles are very likely the trigger for glaciations, but the changes in insolation from them is small and they require feedbacks to cause the glaciations, likely due to changes in greenhouse gases and albedo (and maybe other things?). The additional energy added to the climate due to AGW very strongly suggests that we have delayed the next glaciation by some thousands of years. (As evidence, the cycles show that we should be cooling - as we were until AGW got into the act. The fact that we're warming due to increased greenhouse gases suggests we've already delayed glaciation). So it's not clear why you think Milankovitch cycles are relevant to the current climate.

Can you explain why you presented these links, and how you think this shows there is no problem?
howhot3
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
Yeap, I think in 100 years or so, we can all cheer when the deniers receive their 'Darwin Awards' for being the most pig headed, stubborn, contrarian creatures on earth. Let me recommend to the climate deniers do not vaccinate your kids. You can speed things up.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
This due to factors that are anything but part of the natural cycles of the earth.


And of course this is where you jump the shark, yet again.

There's no evidence at all this is unusual or unnatural. You assert that, but there's no support for it. It's a belief you hold. That's not science.

BackBurner
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
zz5555 writes:
As evidence, the cycles show that we should be cooling - as we were until AGW got into the act. The fact that we're warming due to increased greenhouse gases suggests we've already delayed glaciation


We are cooling Sleepy. The planet has been cooling for 6000 years. It's still cooling according to the evidence I've cited and you refuse to acknowledge.

But what if it weren't? What if human activity had delayed or even averted glaciation? Why would that be bad in any way?

BackBurner
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
It's just one of the thousands of signals of AGW impact on the globe.


No, it's an example of the effects of warming on the globe. And it's not even warming. If you take a geologic time frame perspective, it's just random variation within a low grade (very slow) cooling trend.

There's no attribution of cause. Before you use the term "AGW" you need to establish cause. No one has done that. How many times do you need to be told this before you get it?
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) May 20, 2017
We are cooling Sleepy. The planet has been cooling for 6000 years. It's still cooling according to the evidence I've cited and you refuse to acknowledge.

Wait, wasn't that Marcott, et al (2013)? The paper that says that we've reversed the cooling trend? The paper that you indicated that you'd never read? Yes, that's the quality of your evidence.

But what if it weren't? What if human activity had delayed or even averted glaciation? Why would that be bad in any way?

Well, there's the increase in ocean acidification and increase in ocean dead zones (warmer water holds less oxygen). These will make the oceans less productive, so less food for everyone.

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) May 20, 2017
Rising seas and increases in severe weather means higher taxes and higher prices for everyone. Increased warming will take some land near the equator out of production. Some more land at higher latitudes will become available for farming, but given the difference in surface area, the lousy soil, and drop in daylight hours and growing season, the net result will be a reduction in crops. Many studies have shown that many staple crops (e.g., wheat and rice) have lower nutritional value at higher CO2 levels. There are more issues, like loss of biodiversity, but that's enough for now.

It's hard to say just how bad it will be (I certainly don't know), but no one believes the increased levels of CO2 will be net benificial. Somewhere between fairly and horrifically bad. Certainly it will be cheaper in the long run honestly dealing with it instead of cowardly hiding from it. Do you really want to bet on fairly bad and risk ending up with horrifically bad?
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
There's no attribution of cause. Before you use the term "AGW" you need to establish cause. No one has done that. How many times do you need to be told this before you get it?

There are many, many attribution studies and the IPCC has listed many in their documents. Marcott, et al (2013) even had some attribution in it, if you'd only read it. You can look at the AR5 documents here: http://www.ipcc.c...ar5/wg1/ . Section D.3 of the SPM has a summary of some of the attributions. Each paragraph lists section numbers in the full document that contain more discussion of the attributions and should have names of papers you can read (but you have to read them ;). Heck, Chpt. 10 is titled "Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional".

Seriously, attribution studies have been going on for quite some time - how do you not know any of this?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
There are many, many attribution studies
Not to mention the simple physical facts of the situation which these fools have had explained to them in detail about a million times.

Fact: CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation.
Fact: When it re-emits it, it either emits an infrared photon in a random direction or adds heat to the atmosphere.
Fact: When CO₂ in the atmosphere re-emits an infrared photon in a random direction it's equally likely to be headed for the ground or for space, instead of being headed for space as emission from the ground requires.
Fact: When CO₂ in the atmosphere adds heat to the atmosphere it's adding heat to the atmosphere.
Fact: If more heat is added to the atmosphere, and more photons that would have escaped to space are re-directed to the ground, the atmosphere and the ground will get warmer.
Fact: CO₂ absorbs infrared near the Wien peak of the ground's infrared emissions.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2017
[contd]
Fact: More heat is more heat.
Fact: If the total heat of a substance increases, and the substance doesn't change, it will have a higher temperature.
Fact: Added CO₂ in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the atmosphere and the ground.

It's just as simple as that.

As for this study, anyone who thinks that stuff growing faster in Antarctica doesn't indicate warming temperatures is an idiot or a paid tool.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
Wait, wasn't that Marcott, et al (2013)? The paper that says that we've reversed the cooling trend? The paper that you indicated that you'd never read? Yes, that's the quality of your evidence.


Are you suggesting I must, that I actually need to, agree with Marcott's interpretation of the data? Allow me to clarify; I don't.

The data is very clear. The entire planet is in a cooling trend and has been for thousands of years. Any fool can see it.

And I never "indicated" I hadn't read it. No idea where you came up with that.

BackBurner
1.6 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
"There are many, many attribution studies and the IPCC has listed many in their documents."

No, there are no attribution studies I'm aware of. You have no idea what that means if you hold the opinion there have been. Attribution is simple. You measure your proposed cause, then measure its effect.

There hasn't been a single study demonstrating anthropogenic cause. Not one. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

You go right ahead and cite your claims. And don't even bother with Feldman or I promise to school you in atmospheric science.
BackBurner
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2017
"It's just as simple as that."

Well. I suppose we're finished with that subject then?

Fact: You neglected convection. Completely. You also fail to explain 20 years of no warming during a time when over 30% of all CO₂ ever released by humans in the history of history was released.

So? Perhaps you might stick that in your pipe and smoke it?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
Fact: You neglected convection. Completely.
@BackwardLearner, convection merely distributes the heat in the atmosphere. You're lying by misdirection, with clear indication of lack of understanding of thermodynamics. This is endemic among #climatecranks, both the lying and the lack of understanding of basic physics.

You also fail to explain 20 years of no warming during a time when over 30% of all CO₂ ever released by humans in the history of history was released.
Demonstrate this. I'm willing to bet in advance it's another #climatecrank lie.

BackBurner
2.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
Nose, convection is a pretty well accepted method of heat transfer in physics. It's a problem with contemporary climate models.

If you would like to demonstrate why convection is uninteresting in a discussion of thermodynamics, have at it?

Or, I suppose, you could just sling names like "#climatecrank" and "lie". That should make headway in any conversation involving scientists?

Not.

PS: Seriously. You have to be able to do better than that?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
convection is a pretty well accepted method of heat transfer in physics
@BackwardLearner, there's no convection with empty space. #climatecrank lies again.

Duhhhh ummmm.
BackBurner
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2017
The Nose knows: "Demonstrate this. I'm willing to bet in advance it's another #climatecrank lie."

Nose, it's a matter of public record.

Refer to the reports made by the Mauna Kea National Observatory between 1950 and now. Then refer to the lower trope temperature readings from the RSS satellites during the same time. End of conversation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
Then refer to the lower trope temperature readings from the RSS satellites during the same time
You mean the ones that turned out to be incorrect and need correction for systematic bias?

#climatecrank lies again.

You go ahead and produce your 20-year-old readings, and I'll produce the newer studies that show the corrections were necessary.

We done here, or do you have more lies to tell, @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar?
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
The Nose writes: "there's no convection with empty space"

Really? And what caused you to advance this pearl of wisdom? Why would it, in any way, be relevant to atmospheric heat transfer?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
Why would it, in any way, be relevant to atmospheric heat transfer?
It's not; but if the heat remains in the atmosphere, then there's global warming. Thermodynamics 101.

Duhhh ummmm.

Incidentally, looks like your claims of no tropospheric warming were another lie. Gee, there's a big surprise. How long do you think you can keep lying and no one will notice? How much are you being paid to lie?

@BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar lies again and gets caught again. Were you born like this, or did you have to practice?
BackBurner
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2017
The Nose writes: "You mean the ones that turned out to be incorrect and need correction for systematic bias? "

No, I mean the ones published by RSS. Those. You don't know them?

Nose, if you'd like to take RSS and UAH to the woodshed, I'm not the person to do that with, though I did work on those instruments back in 1978. I know they are the most accurate, most precise and most expensive instruments ever fielded by humans for the express purpose of measuring tropospheric temperature.

Your ignorance of those systems speaks volumes about you.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
The nose opines: "if the heat remains in the atmosphere, then there's global warming. Thermodynamics 101"

Convection? Did we discuss convection? And the measurable fact the heat doesn't remain?

Which word did you not understand?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
I mean the ones published by RSS
Unfortunately for your lie, the RSS satellite measurements show a warming trend, at least if you're not lying about them, @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar. http://www.remss....perature

Maybe you should actually look at the real data instead of making up lies about it.

@BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar, yes, we discussed convection, and convection can't transfer heat to empty space. That means the heat stays in the atmosphere, for the second time. Ever heard of a vacuum flask? What do you think the vacuum is for?

Duhhhh ummmm.

It's difficult arguing with the hard of thinking. I'm getting bored.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
Am I seriously arguing with an individual who is so stupid they think convection can transfer heat to empty vacuum that has nothing in it to convect?

Apparently so, and not for long.
BackBurner
2.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
The Nose continues his blather: "convection can't transfer heat to empty space"

Sure it can. It's called "radiative transfer" and it's enabled by convection.

I can't do this sort of fundamental thermodynamics with you here Nose. It's well and truly beyond the scope of a blog comment exchange. I suggest you seek a real education in atmospheric thermodynamics. This isn't the place to gain that understanding.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
The Nose complains: "I'm getting bored"

God help us all! Bored? Heaven forefend! What could happen next? Tsunamies? Drought? Rains of frogs? Fishes? 40 days of rain? Arks? Biblical disasters?

I suppose we're just doomed?
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
The Nose writes: "Am I seriously arguing with an individual who is so stupid they think convection can transfer heat to empty vacuum that has nothing in it to convect?"

Well, it appears I am. So what's your beef? Seriously? You don't get convection and you want to claim that I'm stupid?

That's pretty good there Nose. Not great, but still pretty good.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
It's called "radiative transfer" and it's enabled by convection
Ummm, wut? Radiative transfer is emission of photons; convective transfer is transfer of material. They have nothing to do with one another, except in the addled brains of @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liars.

Convection is transfer of material. There is no material in empty space. Breathe that fresh space air! What an idiot.

The rest of your blathering appears to be completely content free as far as any technical discussion goes. Typical #climatecrank obfuscation.

Oh, and worth noting that the #climatecrank has now tacitly admitted it lied about the RSS record.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
The Nose expounds: "Ummm, wut?"

Yes. Exactly.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2017
Having reduced @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar to wordlessness, it's apparent my work here is done.

Keep in mind that none of them is very much brighter than this. Climate denial is the epitome of stupidity.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
The Nose declares: "it's apparent my work here is done"

I hope you didn't strain anything.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
No, @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar, it was no strain at all. I only had to think. You apparently, would have to strain. Thanks for admitting it.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
You had to think?

I apologize. I hope it didn't hurt much.

Keep up the good work though. "No pain, no gain" as they say. It gets better the more you do it. Keep thinking!

You do have a bit of an attitude problem. You might want to work on that? Just an idea.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
Bah, boring.

Can anyone question whether @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar is caught in two lies and completely inarticulate? I don't see how. This is now a waste of time. Good bye, @BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar. And good luck with that.

You may have the last word if you're stupid enough to post it.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
Well, I suppose I could? "Completely inarticulate?" Shoot. What did I say? Bad spelling? Grammar problems?

Sorry to see you leave Nose. I mean that. I think you have promise and I'd like the opportunity to change your mind on the subject, or at least open it, which is more to my liking. I truly think there's something to my argument and I had hoped to explore it with you, but I'm not interested in name calling. I'll admit I'm not bad at it, but it gives me no pleasure and it doesn't advance the debate in any meaningful way.

I'd like it if we could continue this conversation on a more scientific basis?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2017
@BackwardLearner #climatecrank liar, there is no point in pretending to a "scientific basis" when you've been caught lying twice in a row. Lying is probably about the most unscientific thing you can do.

You are well and truly busted. I see no point in further discourse; if you make any claims, they will turn out to be lies. What's the point of that?

Don't bother lying about the RSS data any more; it's all available on line, and you'll just look stupid in the end.

Don't bother lying about convection any more either; it's the height of stupidity, and if it's a lie, a stupid lie, to claim convection can transmit heat to space. I have to say, though, that it's well within the envelope of stupidity I've seen from #climatecranks.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2017
The Nose continues his blather: "convection can't transfer heat to empty space"

Sure it can. It's called "radiative transfer" and it's enabled by convection.

I can't do this sort of fundamental thermodynamics with you here Nose. It's well and truly beyond the scope of a blog comment exchange. I suggest you seek a real education in atmospheric thermodynamics. This isn't the place to gain that understanding.


https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8

https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8

Do you understand now?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
For lurkers: note that there are three thermodynamic methods for the propagation of heat.

1. Conduction.
2. Radiation.
3. Convection.

Conduction requires the contact of material with material. There is no material in open space, i.e. vacuum. That's why they call it "vacuum."

Convection requires the transfer of material at one temperature to a different location. Again, there is no material in space.

That means that only radiation can transfer heat to the vacuum of open space.

A material doesn't become magically more likely to transfer heat by radiation the closer it comes to open space; it radiates no matter where it is. One can control its radiation by controlling its color; black surfaced materials radiate the most; silver surfaced materials the least. But what's important is the surface, not the content.

Vacuum (AKA thermos) flasks would not work if this were not true.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2017
[contd]
Thus we see that Earth can only gain heat and lose heat one way: radiation.

The energy from the Sun comes in with a peak in the green spectrum of visible light. This is why the human eye is optimized for this frequency. This is because of the temperature of the surface of the Sun. Wien's Law governs this peak frequency.

However, once absorbed, this energy (heat) is emitted at the Wien's Law peak frequency, and since the Earth's surface is much cooler, the frequency is much lower: in the infrared. It so happens that CO₂ has a pair of absorption bands very close to the Wien's Law peak frequency of the Earth's surface temperature, so it is very active near this point.

As noted above, this means that heat is retained in the atmosphere and on the surface that would not be if there were less CO₂, and the more CO₂ there is, the more of this heat is retained.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2017
[contd]
Thus, if more heat is retained, then the atmosphere and surface will have more heat; and if the surface has more heat, the atmosphere will quickly be warmed by it. This is because the surface is very dense and the atmosphere is not.

So what we have is a system that easily allows energy in (the atmosphere is transparent in visible light) but does not easily allow it out (the atmosphere is partly or mostly opaque in infrared), and the opacity is controlled largely by CO₂. The more CO₂ the more opaque the atmosphere is to escaping heat.

Therefore if we increase the CO₂ we increase the temperature. It's like saying if the Sun comes up it's morning and you better drink coffee.

So if you see me denigrating #climatecranks as liars and fools, understand that this is not a personal bias; I denigrate everyone who is incapable of understanding science as a liar or a fool. Get over it.
Lex Talonis
May 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2017
The Nose continues his blather: "convection can't transfer heat to empty space"

Sure it can. It's called "radiative transfer" and it's enabled by convection.
@BackBurnerIDIOT-TROLL
really?
1- please read SteveS post above, including links

2- you stated
You don't get convection and you want to claim that I'm stupid?
no... you just proved that you are stupid
there is a huge difference

again: read SteveS post

to use your own words: "I suggest you seek a real education in atmospheric thermodynamics. This isn't the place to gain that understanding."

start here: https://ocw.mit.e...dynamics
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2017
The additional energy added to the climate due to AGW very strongly suggests that we have delayed the next glaciation by some thousands of years.
The additional energy comes from the sun. However the solar wind is diminishing as Earth enters little ice age until 2053. Other planets were also warming. Are you claiming people are warming up Mars? Earth will cool as cosmic rays initiate cloud formation, blocking sun. Famines will likely result. Earth will be unprepared due to you blind faith in Rothschilds Bolshevik propaganda and their counterfeit currency crack
jeffensley
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2017
This seemed appropriate to link to since I've seen several references to pre-industrial cooling.

"The research, which was published today in top geoscience journal Nature Geoscience, shows continual warming over the past 11,000 years, contradicting the current belief that northern hemisphere temperatures peaked 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and cooled until the pre-Industrial period."

https://phys.org/...ory.html
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2017
More CO2 more plant growth, wow, this has to stop!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2017
Oh, the mysterious ways of the AGW Cult's magical CO2. It is only warming Antarctica exactly where there is significant geothermal activity.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2017
Geothermal - super volcano - south pole = Krakatoa = extinction for humanity.

Drill hole in the south pole to let the explosion out.
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2017
Unfortunately for some commenters, convection does have a role to play in global warming, see for instance the debate over the infrared iris hypothesis: https://earthobse...es/Iris/
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Unfortunately for some commenters, convection does have a role to play in global warming, see for instance the debate over the infrared iris hypothesis: https://earthobse...es/Iris/

FYI, that's an old webpage. The debate over Lindzen's iris hypothesis is about as over as any debate can be in science (https://skeptical...med.html and http://www.realcl...-effect/ ). Any iris effect is too small to have much effect on warming. Of course, paleoclimate data has always disagreed with the iris effect, so this is no surprise.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
Vikings grew barley in Greenland
A sensational find at the bottom of an ancient rubbish heap in Greenland suggests that Vikings grew barley on the island 1,000 years ago.
http://sciencenor...reenland

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.