Trillion-tonne iceberg breaks off Antarctica (Update)

July 12, 2017
With the calving, the Larsen C ice shelf lost more than 12 percent of its total surface area—larger than the US state of Delaware

A Delaware-sized iceberg, one of the largest ever seen, was set adrift after snapping from a West Antarctic ice shelf that will be closely watched for signs of collapse, scientists said Wednesday.

A crack in the Larsen C ice shelf, a drifting extension of the land-based ice sheet, finally broke through after inching its way across the frozen formation for years.

It created an iceberg of about 5,800 square kilometres (2,200 square miles), with a volume twice that of Lake Erie, one of the North American Great Lakes.

"The iceberg weighs more than a trillion tonnes, but it was already floating before it calved away so has no immediate impact on sea level," said a team of researchers from the MIDAS Antarctic research project.

The gargantuan ice cube will probably be named A68.

"The calving of this iceberg leaves the Larsen C ice shelf reduced in area by more than 12 percent, and the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula changed forever," the team added.

Separation occurred somewhere between Monday and Wednesday, and was recorded by a NASA satellite.

The calving of ice shelves occurs naturally, though global warming is thought to have accelerated the process in some regions. Warmer ocean water erodes the underbelly of the ice shelves, while rising air temperatures weaken them from above.

A map showing detachment of iceberg, based on data from NASA's Aqua Modis satellite. July 12, 2017. Credit: MIDAS Project, Swansea University. Credit: MIDAS Project, Swansea University

Icebergs calving from Antarctica are a regular occurrence, and there are thousands of them.

The latest behemoth will be closely watched for potential risk to ships.

"The big ones are easier to spot in the ocean. This one, for sure, will be tracked very easily by satellite," Mark Drinkwater, a European Space Agency (ESA) ice expert, told AFP.

"The concern is whether the thing breaks up into a myriad of smaller bergs."

Animation of the growth of the crack in the Larsen C ice shelf, from 2006 to 2017, as recorded by NASA/USGS Landsat satellites. Credit: NASA/USGS Landsat

There is also a risk that smaller, loose pieces which stayed behind when the main chunk broke off will now calve away.

"There appear to be a number of fractures that might indicate that other pieces might break away later," Drinkwater said.

The fate of A68 is hard to predict.

Drinkwater said it could "hang around" for some time before the tides and wind force it further out to sea.

This is a Feb. 2017 image of the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica made available by the Antarctic Survey on Wednesday July 12, 2017. A vast iceberg with twice the volume of Lake Erie has broken off from a key floating ice shelf in Antarctica, scientists said Wednesday. The iceberg broke off from the Larsen C ice shelf, scientists at the University of Swansea in Britain said. The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, is described as weighing 1 trillion tons (1.12 trillion U.S. tons). (British Antarctic Survey)

According to an ESA statement, ocean currents could drag the iceberg, or pieces of it, as far north as the Falkland Islands, posing a hazard for ships in the Drake Passage.

Will it collapse?

Experts disagree over whether the calving heightens the risk of Larsen C disintegrating like its neighbours Larsen B in 2002 and Larsen A in 1995.

Floating on the ocean, ice shelves are fed by slow-flowing glaciers from land. Without them, the glaciers would flow directly into the sea.

If the glaciers held in check by Larsen C were to spill into the Antarctic Ocean, it would lift the global water mark by about 10 centimetres (four inches), previous research has shown.

With its new shape and size, Larsen C may be less stable, the MIDAS researchers warned.

"In the ensuing months and years, the ice shelf could either gradually regrow, or may suffer further calving events which may eventually lead to collapse," said lead investigator Adrian Luckman.

"Our models say it will be less stable, but any future collapse remains years or decades away."

This Nov. 10, 2016 aerial photo released by NASA, shows a rift in the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen C ice shelf. A vast iceberg with twice the volume of Lake Erie has broken off from a key floating ice shelf in Antarctica, scientists said Wednesday July 12, 2017 . The iceberg broke off from the Larsen C ice shelf, scientists at the University of Swansea in Britain said. The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, is described as weighing 1 trillion tons (1.12 trillion U.S. tons).(John Sonntag/NASA)

Drinkwater, however, said satellite data and years of on-site investigation show the shelf "is in a very stable configuration."

"We're going to be watching very carefully for signs that the rest of the shelf is becoming unstable," added Swansea University glaciologist Martin O'Leary, another MIDAS project member.

For Catherine Ritz of France's CNRS research institute, the iceberg calving pointed to rising pressure from global warming.

"It is a sign that ice shelves are more and more vulnerable," she told AFP. "These Larsen (shelves) existed already at the beginning of the Holocene"—the current geological period that began about 12,000 years ago.

But O'Leary and Drinkwater said this particular iceberg calving was unrelated to global warming.

Thermal wavelength image of a large iceberg, which has calved off the Larsen C ice shelf. Darker colors are colder, and brighter colors are warmer, so the rift between the iceberg and the ice shelf appears as a thin line of slightly warmer area. Image from July 12, 2017, from the MODIS instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite. Credit: NASA Worldview

According to O'Leary, "we're not aware of any link to human-induced climate change", while Drinkwater called it "a typical iceberg calving event" along a very old fault lines in the ice shelf.

This did not mean other shelves were not already feeling the effects of warming, however.

And in the future, "there is certainly with climate warming a chance of ice shelves being removed further and further south along the Antarctic peninsula," Drinkwater said.

Human actions have lifted average global air temperatures by about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial levels, according to scientists, and Antarctica is one of the world's fastest-warming regions.

Explore further: Huge Antarctic ice block poised to snap off

More information: NASA press release: phys.org/wire-news/261334718/m … tarctica.html#ajTabs

Related Stories

Image: Glacial 'aftershock' spawns Antarctic iceberg

February 16, 2017

Pine Island Glacier has shed another block of ice into Antarctic waters. The loss was tiny compared to the icebergs that broke off in 2014 and 2015, but the event is further evidence of the ice shelf's fragility.

Recommended for you

New Amazon threat? Deforestation from mining

October 18, 2017

Sprawling mining operations in Brazil are destroying much more of the iconic Amazon forest than previously thought, says the first comprehensive study of mining deforestation in the world's largest tropical rainforest.

Scientists determine source of world's largest mud eruption

October 17, 2017

On May 29, 2006, mud started erupting from several sites on the Indonesian island of Java. Boiling mud, water, rocks and gas poured from newly-created vents in the ground, burying entire towns and compelling many Indonesians ...

109 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2017
Yep, and schneibo, along with squareguy, are on duty at their private ocean buoys waiting for the ocean levels to jump at least an inch or two just so they can come here & start their usual foul mouthed profanity routines about "deniers". Of course they do this not even realizing this will cause ocean levels to drop & they don't even know why
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2017
O'Leary said "we're not aware of any link to human-induced climate change" for the latest calving.

Really? Maybe these two well-supported facts from the article might suggest a link:

"Antarctica is one of the world's fastest-warming regions."

"Martin O'Leary, another MIDAS project member, said this is the furthest back Larsen C's ice front has been in recorded history."

This might sound crazy to O'Leary, but maybe, just maybe, rapidly rising temperatures might actually correlate to melting ice and warmer ocean currents which weakening ice shelves and cause increased iceberg calving.
JohnDonohue
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2017
"If the glaciers held in check by Larsen C were to spill into the Antarctic Ocean, it would lift the global water mark by about 10 centimetres (four inches)"

Hmm. "Glaciers" in Antarctica. How do scientists differentiate glaciers from the ice cap?

I wonder if readers realize that the flow of ice to the sea, and the pushing/calving that results, are not a sign of warming, generally. Warming makes Ice recede, not flow forward.
citizenschallenge
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2017
O'Leary's final comment is beyond odd - or perhaps simply an indication of the level of fear that's infused young Earth scientists and led to gross self-censorship.

Physical reality: Human's have raised the temperature of our planet 1C in a geologic blink, much more in portions of Antartica.
Oceans have warmed and some upwelling currents under the Antarctic seem to have shifted and are recorded as increasing melting the underbelly of ice sheets.

"we're not aware of any link to human-induced climate change" Really? Seriously?
nrauhauser
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2017
The comments about no link to warming are ... conservative ... but not out of line for scientists.

Until there is a peer reviewed paper that posits a very specific set of mechanisms linking AGW to the calving of A68, they're going to say they don't have a specific link.

I'm busy today, but this one motivated me to log in and provide some much needed downvotes, in addition to this comment.
PTTG
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2017
@JonDonohue: Look at the coastline now, and compare it to before. The ice margin has retreated BECAUSE the ice is moving more quickly.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2017
The comments about no link to warming are ... conservative ... but not out of line for scientists.

Until there is a peer reviewed paper that posits a very specific set of mechanisms linking AGW to the calving of A68, they're going to say they don't have a specific link.

I'm busy today, but this one motivated me to log in and provide some much needed downvotes, in addition to this comment.


It's good that you're "busy today" & only have time for downvotes, because you are obviously one more low information person who is unable to comprehend why ice shelf calving does not result in ocean level rise. So, have you by now figured this out?

Oh, and by the way, when I tally up my Continuing Education credits along with the 6 years I spent in Engineering School, it totals up to almost 8 years of higher education. How do you stack up? I gave you a downvote and you'll get another one until you can prove you understand why ice shelf calving does not result in ocean level rise.
citizenschallenge
3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2017
nrauhauser - so you find nothing disturbing about this presentation of the situation?
Specific mechanisms, how about heat softening ice?
At the very least we ought to be able to expect a less cavalier assessment.

"But O'Leary and Drinkwater said this particular iceberg calving was unrelated to global warming."

It sounds to me as silly as claiming" "There's no link between AGW and this or that weather event" - even though those weather patterns are spawned from within that measurably warmed climate system.

In the end, thanks to the current fear of connecting dots, in the end we'll have an excellent blow by blow description of how we destroyed our own life support system, but will have done nothing about it. Excuse me if I find that indescribably disappointing.
~~~
PS for further discussion please see: "Statistical Certainty vs Geophysical Realities - communication challenges" at: whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot com /2017/03/statistical-certainty-vs-geophysical .html
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2017
Oh nose!! Run for the hills, Chicken Littles.
Zorcon
5 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2017
@Benni

ice shelf calving does not result in ocean level rise


the 6 years I spent in Engineering School


Did they teach you how to build a strawman in "Engineering School"?
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2017
"But O'Leary and Drinkwater said this particular iceberg calving was unrelated to global warming."

I have got to agree with@citizenschallenge.

While it would be fair of O'leary and Drinkwater to decline to attribute this event to AGW, it is, for the same reason, unreasonable --much less unscientific-- to assert that the event is positively unrelated to AGW.

Sure, it is well known that this ice shelf is subject to calving, simply by virtue of its nature. At the same time, by their very nature, these ice shelves are very stable over very long stretches of time, as was pointed out by their colleague from CNRS, Catherine Ritz. Current conditions are different now than they have been for the previous 12KY, including higher sea/air temps and sea level(which alone creates greater mechanical stress on these ice shelves)

This was a big misstep on their part, and one can only wonder what led them to make such an idiotic statement.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
While it would be fair of O'leary and Drinkwater to decline to attribute this event to AGW, it is, for the same reason, unreasonable --much less unscientific-- to assert that the event is positively unrelated to AGW.
@Caliban, et al
http://www.martinoleary.com/

i've taken the liberty of inquiring directly to the source.

with any luck he will reply directly to the site, but even if he doesn't, i will forward any reply that he gives permission to forward

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2017
@Benni.

Again, I ask you to stop your strawman/disingenuous tactics in the Climate Change discussions. It's demeaning not only to your own intelligence but to everyone else's also who is genuinely and honestly concerned/engaged in the topic discussion based on the objective scientific evidence.

PS: @those not yet up to speed with ALL the subtle/complex factors involved: consider the STRONG WINDS, due to atmospheric CONVECTION loops, which naturally stream from inland and across the coast and on towards the warmer latitudes. This CONVECTION is now increasing in STRENGTH due to warming, and so STRENGTHENING the winds which drive the sea ice/shelf AWAY from the coast. It's this strengthening' 'drag', added to the warming waters etc, which exacerbate the previously 'normal' dynamics that kept the 'shelves' more stable and able to slow the rate of the inland glacier 'rivers' of ice/meltwater adding to ocean levels. It's complex and subtle. Think it ALL through! Ok? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2017
@Benni.
...
PS: @those not yet up to speed with ALL the subtle/complex factors involved: consider the STRONG WINDS, due to atmospheric CONVECTION loops, which naturally stream from inland and across the coast and on towards the warmer latitudes.

References?
This CONVECTION is now increasing in STRENGTH due to warming, and so STRENGTHENING the winds which drive the sea ice/shelf AWAY from the coast. It's this strengthening' 'drag', added to the warming waters etc, which exacerbate the previously 'normal' dynamics that kept the 'shelves' more stable and able to slow the rate of the inland glacier 'rivers' of ice/meltwater adding to ocean levels.

References?
It's complex and subtle.

Indeed it is. Reference material is good way to establish that.
Think it ALL through! Ok? :)

And don't forget to peruse and suggest legitimate references (not articles).
Quit trying to treat everyone else like children, ok...?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2017
Shhhh no one mention the underwater volcanoes that are melting the ice from underneath. We seem to be entering an active period as of late. But all of the AGW ists will continue to blame Co2 because their religious leaders say it is so.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2017
Current conditions are different now than they have been for the previous 12KY, including higher sea/air temps and sea level(which alone creates greater mechanical stress on these ice shelves)


So what about the past 12KY? Guess what is different today from yesterday, and you don't even need to span thousands of years to figure this stuff out............variations in Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprising three dominant cycles known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude.
Osiris1
1.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
This thing is NOT gonna melt anytime soon! Suppose it manages to cross the equator and stuff itself into the Strait of Hormuz and block it for a year or two. What then? Just a thought. Lots of other unhandy places for it to go. Like the Panama Canal. Or South China Sea for a new Chinese navel base that floats right up to Japan and rams an island or two.
24volts
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
Too bad it's so big it can't be towed. There are a lot of countries north of there that could really use a source of some fresh water.
citizenschallenge
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2017
MR166 - sure we'll blame CO2 for continuing to behave the same way it always does.
We'll blame humanity for adding nearly 4 billion tons of the stuff into our atmosphere every month after month after month. Ever hear of accumulating compounding interest? It works in the geophysical world also.

As for volcanoes, you should do some homework.
~~~
"No, Volcanoes Are Not the Primary Cause For the Melting Ice Caps"
By Kayla Ruble June 11, 2014
https ://news.vice. com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps

... In response to those who are using his study to deny climate change, Schroeder confirmed that volcanic activity is not the dominant force of ice loss and rising sea levels.

More information: "Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," by Dustin M. Schroeder, Donald D. Blankenship, Duncan A. Young, and Enrica Quartini. PNAS, 2014:

Read more at: //phys. org/news/2014-06-maj
citizenschallenge
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2017
Benni writes - "figure this stuff out............variations in Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprising three dominant cycles known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude."

Yeah but you don't seem to appreciate that according to deep history the Milankovitch cycle would currently be slowly moving us into a chillier Earth and then a glacial phase, instead we are warming like a son-of-a-gun. Face it humanity and its fossil fuels burning has cancelled the next ice age.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2017
In response to those who are using his study to deny climate change, Schroeder confirmed that volcanic activity is not the dominant force of ice loss and rising sea levels.
........there are no rising sea levels! Where do people like you come up with this silliness? You think a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific that is sinking is somehow indicative of rising oceans?

Yeah but you don't seem to appreciate that according to deep history the Milankovitch cycle would currently be slowly moving us into a chillier Earth and then a glacial phase, instead we are warming


Oh but unlike you, I know that the current cycle from the end of the last Ice Age has not yet completely played itself out. Why don't you actually study the cycle rather than read what your selective climatologists speculate about.

Oh, by the way, do you know why this new iceberg is causing ocean levels to drop? Schneibo can't figure it out, so maybe you can help him out.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2017
There are a lot of countries north of there that could really use a source of some fresh water.

I think the 'north of there' qualifier is not needed ;)
citizenschallenge
3.2 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2017
I notice you don't offer any reliable source to support either of your claims.

Check out the National Climate Assessment report
nca2014.globalchange .gov/report/our-changing-climate/sea-level-rise

Or this one, Surging Seas
sealevel.climatecentral .org/research/reports/surging-seas

Or google "nuisance flooding" sometime.

About Milankovitch Cycle
Google "OSS Foundation - Milankovitch Cycle", okay looks debatable. Though it seems a bit insane debate considering it's a cycle that unfolds over the course of many dozens of thousands of years. Compared to what injecting potent greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is doing here and now.

"It's the Atmospheric Insulation ... !"
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2017
I notice you don't offer any reliable source to support either of your claims
@citizenschallenge
perhaps this will explain more about benni's math and astronomy skills

a direct quote:
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
located here: https://phys.org/...als.html

benni isn't here to talk about any science at all
isn't even capable of doing the math he asks others to do (see links below)
plus, he will freely plagiarize without a reference

examples
http://phys.org/n...rse.html

https://phys.org/...ood.html

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

citizenschallenge
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2017
Cap't, no tell me it ain't so! Not another one.

Well at least I had a chance to sneak in some informative links, for those who might actually be into learning about this stuff.

Pleased to meet you Cap't, virtually that is.
CC
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2017
Well at least I had a chance to sneak in some informative links, for those who might actually be into learning about this stuff.


Hey, CC, the way you start "learning about this stuff" begins with the Milankovitch Cycles, and we're dead in the middle of another one of them & you don't even know it because you'd never so much as heard of them until I posted it to your attention.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2017
Not another one
@CC
yeah, another one
Pleased to meet you Cap't, virtually that is.
the same to you!
nice to see another science advocate

don't stop posting the good information and links, especially since you're giving science study references

there are plenty of people who come here to learn, so giving them factual references is a good thing because it means they can validate the claims

notice the argument from benni is essentially one of argument from self-perceived authority?
eventually even those who are ignorant of science learn why this logical fallacy is an epic failure, especially when people like you post science to reference

keep it up
if you get bored, check this out (it's free): https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
@Whyde.
@those not yet up to speed with ALL the subtle/complex factors involved: consider the STRONG WINDS, due to atmospheric CONVECTION loops, which naturally stream from inland and across the coast and on towards the warmer latitudes.
References?
This CONVECTION is now increasing in STRENGTH due to warming, and so STRENGTHENING the winds which drive the sea ice/shelf AWAY from the coast. It's this strengthening' 'drag', added to the warming waters etc, which exacerbate the previously 'normal' dynamics that kept the 'shelves' more stable and able to slow the rate of the inland glacier 'rivers' of ice/meltwater adding to ocean levels.
References?
It's complex and subtle.
Indeed it is. Reference material is good way to establish that.
Think it ALL through! Ok? :)
Quit trying to treat everyone else like children, ok...?
It's YOU treating everyone like children, Whyde. I credit PO readers with enough intelligence to read 'wiki' on Antarctic winds. :)
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2017
I don't see the point of arguing about sea level change. Satellite data has shown that it is rising almost 3 mm per year or about the thickness of 2 US pennies. If that give some of us the fear of imminent disaster so be it.
citizenschallenge
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2017
MR166 right on cue - here we have an example of that "argument from self-perceived authority" cap't just mentioned. Add to that the predictable refusal to absorb new information.

Are you oblivious to increased nuances flooding? or just don't care?
Are you oblivious to impacts of salt water intrusions into fresh water aquifers? or just don't care?
Are you oblivious to the fact that sea level rise in accelerating? or just don't care?
Are you oblivious to how sea level increase is a storm surge multiplier? or just don't care?

Here, try again, this time actually read what they are trying to explain to us.
If you have another comment, lets see if you can incorporate any of this newly won info.

Check out the National Climate Assessment report
nca2014.globalchange .gov/report/our-changing-climate/sea-level-rise
and
Surging Seas
sealevel.climatecentral .org/research/reports/surging-seas

Oh and remember we are only at the beginning of this upward slope. : (
citizenschallenge
3.4 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2017
Hey, CC, the way you start "learning about this stuff"

This stuff? What would that be?
Changes in Earth's climate regime?
What about understanding the physics of what greenhouse gases do in our atmosphere?
What about calculating how much ghg (insulation) fossil fuels burning injects into our atmosphere?
begins with the Milankovitch Cycles,

Well, yeah. It's sorta grade school basics - first proposed in the 1920s, not accepted until late '70s when the scientific evidence reached a consensus and it was accepted as a correct explanation. Its been absorbed into the collective understanding these past four decades.
and we're dead in the middle of another one of them

So what? How does that inform today's situation?
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2017
and we're dead in the middle of another one of them


How can we be in the middle of something that is an ongoing cycle? The clue is in the word 'cycle'! As things currently stand, with the three parameters of the cycle, we should be getting cooler. We aren't. So I fail to see the relevance of quoting the Milankovitch cycle. If anything, it is evidence against the premise that anthropogenic warming isn't happening. As I said, according to Milankovitch we should be cooling, and we aren't.
citizenschallenge
3.4 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2017
Benni, Contrarian's depend on deriding every opponent, frame them as idiots, self-justify ignoring their constructive questions, arguments, information. Ridicule and dismiss what you don't want to know.
you don't even know it because you'd never so much as heard of them until I posted it to your attention.

Please don't do that. Don't tell me what I know or don't know.
Let's stick to the issues, not our opinions of each other.

Still, so,... you think I'm an idiot. Fancy that. And what do you know?

Asking because I been looking for a worthy climate science debate opponent for a decade and more. Not one cowardly climate science contrarian has had the cahone's to get serious with a constructive, fact-based DEBATE about the validity of the current climate scientific consensus.

Many show up for Round 1 none have gotten past Round 2. Chump you up for a serious debate? Come on down:
whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot .com/p/landscapesandcycles.html
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
So CC do you really think that the same One World Government movement that is filling your head with this propaganda called science can hold back the seas? Do you think that it will put the rights and freedoms of it's citizens above it's own powers? Do you think that it will put your well being above it's own.

These papers are not about science they are about a handful of elites and the governmental powers that they control.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2017
So CC do you really think that the same One World Government movement that is filling your head with this propaganda called science can hold back the seas? Do you think that it will put the rights and freedoms of it's citizens above it's own powers? Do you think that it will put your well being above it's own.
These papers are not about science they are about a handful of elites and the governmental powers that they control.


Christ. Now there is some serious conspiracy ideology, if I ever saw any! Do you wake up in the morning, sweating, thinking that people are out to get you?
The sad fact of the matter is that, if there is any FUD being dumped on this debate, it is anti AGW stuff from those very governments (one in particular), and the very wealthy backers of such politicians - many of whom, in the aforementioned country especially, happen to be in charge of oil companies. Then there is that right wing Australian lunatic who puts all this crap on his TV station.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
Here are some links to what I alluded to previously:
https://www.thegu...ampaigns

https://www.opens...nd=E01++

https://www.thegu...onations

So, who are the 'elite' that are controlling the government? Who has the most to lose? Who is trying to muddy the waters with huge bribes, sorry, 'donations'?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2017
Are you oblivious to increased nuances flooding? or just don't care?
Are you oblivious to impacts of salt water intrusions into fresh water aquifers? or just don't care?
Are you oblivious to the fact that sea level rise in accelerating? or just don't care?
Are you oblivious to how sea level increase is a storm surge multiplier? or just don't care?


CC, you're arguing way too complex stuff with these people. They don't understand that the things you cite are connected to climate change. To them "2 °C warming" means that it has to be 2°C warmer everywhere but everything else will remain exactly the same and that CO2 is plant food so CO2 is good. THAT's the level of comprehension you have to work against.

Using arguments that require intellectual capability beyond such crude thoughts will get you, unfortunately, nowhere.

Ability requires education. Unfortunately the ability to recognize one's own lack of ability requires the same level of education.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
"Christ. Now there is some serious conspiracy ideology,....."

The whole government grant system is designed to create the outcome that is desired. Do you really think that half of these papers would ever be published without grants?
citizenschallenge
3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2017
Sorry MR166, I don't fit your fantasy. It's this planet Earth and understanding her fantastic evolution which brought us this cornucopia, humans have been consuming and destroying fast as possible, that are my main interest. I thought you pretended to be up to debating the science.

Instead I see you'd rather fixate on paranoid fantasies - which I suspect you couldn't defend any better than you can your disregard for serious Earth sciences. But I don't do fantasy world.

The irony is that if you look at the unfolding situation you'll recognize it's the (driven to egomaniacal insanity) corporate oligarchs who are on the march to take over world governance - their motto Profits Űber Alles! - it won't be pretty.

Back to the real world, might I offer some more thoughts for your consideration: "Appreciating Earth's Climate - Who says understanding Earth's Evolution is irrelevant?"
whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot .com/p/understanding-earth.html

MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
http://www.newsbu...-climate

This is all part of the plan to turn the UN into a world ruling body.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2017
"Do you really think that half of these papers would ever be published without grants?


Yes. Maybe not where you live, but certainly in the UK, NZ, Canada, Australia, etc. And I know that from personal experience. Nobody is told what to study, or whether or not they can publish. Unless it's complete crap that would waste everybody's time, of course. Such as electric universe nonsense.

And who is funding what?
Rep James Inhofe (Rep-Okla):
"Inhofe, who's declared that "man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith," has received more money from Koch Industries than any other company. ***The oil firm has given nearly $25 million to climate-change denial groups***."
http://www.mother...ponsors/
So, there you go; more of your government controlling elites, trying to influence the debate.

So, as they say, I think that you have it bass-ackwards.

jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2017
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate

This is all part of the plan to turn the UN into a world ruling body.


Delusional rantings from a right wing loon on a blog. Is that the best you can do?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2017
the same One World Government movement that is filling your head with this propaganda called science
@mr
your conspiracist ideation is showing
1- science has no means, method, authority or capability to govern because science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" https://en.oxford.../science

2- even in the medical and technological world, where science and applied science reign supreme, there is no world scientific governing body (and in point of fact, most national bodies also have competition)

you have no facts to argue from, so you rely upon delusional belief and rhetoric from like minded ignoratti
http://journals.p....0075637
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
@mr cont'd
designed to create the outcome that is desired
this is your opinion and it's based in ignorance because you've never had to apply for a grant for research
please show your factual analysis of this topic that supports your conclusions
(PS - neither the us, nor the un, is not a world gov't, nor is every gov't grant system the same - just sayin')
Do you really think ... without grants?
yes, they would, because the gov't is only one source of funding and facts are facts

more to the point: for most grants from the gov't you also have to have personal funding

you wouldn't know that, but it's common knowledge to anyone who has ever worked with the gov't or who can read ( https://www.grants.gov )

yes, that's a personal dig on you

you like to claim all this BS but to date, most of your claims are refuted by a cursory search for information

what does that tell you about your sources?

ideology doesn't equal science
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2017

Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles


How can we be in the middle of something that is an ongoing cycle? The clue is in the word 'cycle'


........because if you'd learn how to do 1st grade math you learn that "eccentricity", "axial tilt", and "precession" are each a single cycle separate & unrelated to one another, add the total of each cycle, 1+1+1=3..........I won't bother asking if you know how to do Differential Equations.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2017
@benji-TROLL
because if you'd learn how to do 1st grade math
1- considering you're incredible demonstrated failure at basic math (demonstrated here: https://phys.org/...als.html ) it is hilarious that you would argue this point

2- plus, you have proven you can't do ODE's, let alone any other type differential equation (links above)

3- climate isn't inherently cyclical: and Milankovitch cycles, along with Chandler wobbles and other cyclical events which are known to science, were some of the first things to be ruled out regarding AGW

4- don't ASSume that Singer's argument is related because that is about distribution, not a net increase, and it's not equivalent to the Milankovitch cycle, either

5- your argument above is the same as the idiotic interpretation of anti-science sites quoting Singers distribution study and (wrongly) linking it to Milankovitch cycles without evidence

belief isn't science
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2017
@benji-TROLL cont'd
you learn that
so, which cycle are you referring to, so that we can be clear in your other "objections" to factual measured validated science?
the precession, the obliquity, or the eccentricity cycles?

be specific, and present your findings on how it affects not only solar insolation but also distribution and it's measured effects which is the only place you can actually argue any point of Milankovitch cycles from (otherwise you're throwing out a name without knowing WTF you're talking about... pretty much like your above "wobble cycles" quote that is so damn funny considering your basic math failure)

while you're at it, please show the precise way the three Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles, as this is directly relevant to your argument

thanks
ref
Huybers, 2009
see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et al 2009; Denton et al 2010
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
@Benji-TROLL
if all that is too hard for you to process, here is an easy link to help you learn why you need to STFU

http://www.agu.or...3A.shtml
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2017

........because if you'd learn how to do 1st grade math you learn that "eccentricity", "axial tilt", and "precession" are each a single cycle separate & unrelated to one another, add the total of each cycle, 1+1+1=3..........I won't bother asking if you know how to do Differential Equations.


Yes, I covered Milankovitch as an undergrad. You said: "and we're dead in the middle of ***another*** one of them." Suggesting that the bloody thing stops and starts!!!! Do you think that the tilt and precession take a few centuries off, while eccentricity does its own thing? Jesus. They all change independently of each other, and are all happening simultaneously and continually. The 3 cycles are combined into a forcing model of one cycle. And, as I'll repeat, the current state of the cycle says that we should be cooling: https://www.skept...tch.html
So, why bring it up? To scupper your own argument? If so, well done. It worked.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2017
Anyways, at the end of the day, the Milankovitch cycles combine to show how much solar radiation should be hitting the Earth. This is now something that we can measure directly. And we can therefore see if the solar irradiance is the cause of current warming. It isn't:
https://www.skept...ming.htm Fig. 1 and accompanying links and references.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2017
Anyways, at the end of the day, the Milankovitch cycles


..........hey jonsy, good job, your math skills improved a little today since you learned for the first time that it is "Milankovitch cycles" & not "Milankovitch cycle".

I covered Milankovitch as an undergrad
Oh hell's bells you did, you heard of those cycles for the first time when you read my post.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
Oh hell's bells you did, you heard of those cycles for the first time when you read my post.


Oh do one, you uneducated, arrogant tosser. I was learning about that stuff long before you lucked upon a reference to him a few days ago, most likely.
And you still haven't answered the question: why did you bring it up, huh? I'll tell you why; because you don't understand it. WE SHOULD BE COOLING ACCORDING TO MILANKOVITCH. Is that plain enough for you? And we can measure the solar irradiance directly these days. It shows that the solar radiation isn't the cause of the warming. Idiot. What, exactly is your point? Because you are failing spectacularly to make one. Except the one we already knew - that you're clueless.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
So come on Benni, you burke - which cycle are we "in the middle of"? Axial tilt, precession, or eccentricity? Is it just one of them? Maybe two? Or, do you think all three are happening simultaneously? Here's a thought; all three have to be combined to estimate the solar radiation on the Earth at any one time. Of course, what is going on with the northern hemisphere is important as the driver of the ice ages, as that is where most of the landmass is. So, what exactly are we in the middle of?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
@MR166.
So CC do you really think that the same One World Government movement that is filling your head with this propaganda called science can hold back the seas? Do you think that it will put the rights and freedoms of it's citizens above it's own powers? Do you think that it will put your well being above it's own.

These papers are not about science they are about a handful of elites and the governmental powers that they control.
Mate, as @citizenschallenge, @jonesdave and others (including @gkam in your past exchanges) have tried to point out, the world is already under the control of the Oil/Energy/Mining etc and Military-Industrial complex. If you really want to gain your freedom then climate-change action and Renewable/Green energy solutions based on Science is what you should be supporting! Why do you think the anti-renewables lobbies spend so much money and political/religious 'capital' to OPPOSE renewables and climate change action based on science? :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2017
@Benni.
Hey, CC[@citizenschallenge], the way you start "learning about this stuff" begins with the Milankovitch Cycles, and we're dead in the middle of another one of them & you don't even know it because you'd never so much as heard of them until I posted it to your attention.
By "in the middle of...", I suspect you mean 'being impacted by some phase/configuration of...".

But in any case, I remind you again that whatever the 'inputs' to Earth's heat budget, it is the Atmospheric makeup that determines the NET result of ALL the factors. I use the planet Mercury to exemplify this demonstrable fact, since the 'night side' is CRYOGENICALLY COLD despite all that radiation/heat from the sun....because of NO significant/lagging atmosphere!

In short, whatever the sun's influences on Earth's climate, it would be EXACERBATED by EXTRA CO2 in atmosphere. That is the point. Increased insolation would be bad enough, but CO2 emissions would make it worse! Think about it. :)
24volts
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2017
There are a lot of countries north of there that could really use a source of some fresh water.

I think the 'north of there' qualifier is not needed ;)


Actually, I was thinking about South American countries which are pretty much due north of there as it would probably melt even more before it would be hauled to all the way over to Africa but your point is valid since I didn't list any possible destinations. Too bad it's too big to do that with.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2017
Actually, I was thinking about South American countries which are pretty much due north of there as it would probably melt even more before it would be hauled to all the way over to Africa but your point is valid since I didn't list any possible destinations. Too bad it's too big to do that with.


Maybe these big oil companies, instead of chucking umpteen millions at politicians and AGW denial cults, could actually build some desalination plants in those countries. Gratis. Show us all how much they care! Won't happen, of course.They are interested in one thing, and one thing only; profit. If they have to screw the planet over to make it, why should they care? They won't be around for the consequences.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2017
That is the point. Increased insolation would be bad enough, but CO2 emissions would make it worse


Imagine what you want, but this idea that a substance that makes up only 0.04% of the total of atmospheric gases can create a blanket of insulation is pure poppycock. Spread the 0.04% of that gas into an even blanket equally distributed in breadth & thickness around the circumference of Earth & you'd be talking a blanket of material so thin that it wouldn't be more than a few feet thick, if even that much.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2017
The folks who discovered this are very scientifically conservative; they don't state that climate change has obviously increased the probability of this event because they don't have the direct evidence to claim it.

That #climatedeniers would take advantage of this careful science to wildly and without foundation claim "they said it's not teh globul warumin!!!11!one1!" is the deniers' epic megafail, not the scientists'. And that's as obvious as it should be.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
@Benni.
Imagine what you want, but this idea that a substance that makes up only 0.04% of the total of atmospheric gases can create a blanket of insulation is pure poppycock.
Consider:

Atmospheric OZONE is much more rarefied than CO2, ie:

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

About 90 percent of the ozone in the atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere. Ozone concentrations are greatest between about 20 and 40 kilometres (66,000 and 131,000 ft), where they range from about 2 to 8 parts per million.
And rarefied as Ozone is, it has a PROFOUND effect on the radiation in the applicable UV wavelengths.

Whereas atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE is now approximately just over 400 parts per million; and affects the applicable Infra-Red wavelengths as scientifically determined decades before the political/industrial lobby was employed to muddy the waters about its scientifically proven effects.

See? SOME 'rarefied' gases matter, mate! :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
That is the point. Increased insolation would be bad enough, but CO2 emissions would make it worse


Imagine what you want, but this idea that a substance that makes up only 0.04% of the total of atmospheric gases can create a blanket of insulation is pure poppycock. Spread the 0.04% of that gas into an even blanket equally distributed in breadth & thickness around the circumference of Earth & you'd be talking a blanket of material so thin that it wouldn't be more than a few feet thick, if even that much.


Umhmmm, and that just goes to show your sum knowledge on this matter. That is, totally lacking.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Just for the hard of thinking; light from the Sun warms the Earth; it is re-radiated back toward space as IR; CO2 absorbs and re emits some of the IR photons back towards the ground. Trapping it, essentially. So, increase CO2 from 280 ppm to > 400 ppm (> 40% increase), and what do we think will happen? Answers on a postcard to the scientifically illiterate advisers to the GOP.
citizenschallenge
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
While it would be fair of O'leary and Drinkwater to decline to attribute this event to AGW, it is, for the same reason, unreasonable --much less unscientific-- to assert that the event is positively unrelated to AGW.
I've taken the liberty of inquiring directly to the source.
@Caliban, et al
http://www.martinoleary.com/


Cap't

I also sent an emails asking for O'Leary's rationale, Wednesday in the AM.
m.e.w.oleary@gmail.com,
midasantarctica@gmail.com

I have received no response from either. How about you?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
[... Spread the 0.04% of that gas into an even blanket equally distributed in breadth & thickness around the circumference of Earth & you'd be talking a blanket of material so thin that it wouldn't be more than a few feet thick, if even that much.

a solid blanket of CO2 even 1' thick around the globe would trap a bit of heat, one would think...
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
Imagine what you want, but this idea that a substance that makes up only 0.04% of the total of atmospheric gases can create a blanket of insulation is pure poppycock. Spread the 0.04% of that gas into an even blanket equally distributed in breadth & thickness around the circumference of Earth & you'd be talking a blanket of material so thin that it wouldn't be more than a few feet thick, if even that much.


Umhmmm, and that just goes to show your sum knowledge on this matter. That is, totally lacking.


Via actual calculation: The layer of all CO2 in existence in the atmosphere if spread out evenly on earth's surface would be 0.1187 inches in thickness, less than half the thickness of an iPhone 6. By contrast I have a 5" layer of insulation in the walls of my house & I can't shutdown the heat for more than a couple of hours to prevent heat loss, maybe if I pumped my walls full of CO2 I would get better results?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
^^^^I wasn't talking about how much of it you could spread on a piece of toast, FFS!! I was talking about your lack of knowledge of what it does. This has long been known, and predates the climate change debate. Without GHG Earth would be 33 C cooler.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
Here is an abstract from 1927:
http://onlinelibr...019/full

To quote the last part:
From other constituents, however, comprising less than three per cent of the weight of the atmosphere are highly important as affecting temperatures. These constituents are water (both as water vapor and in the form of clouds), dust, ozone, and carbon-dioxide.


So this ain't new. Arguments from incredulity about the effects of CO2 are just that, and have no scientific merit.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
I wasn't talking about how much of it you could spread on a piece of toast, FFS!! I was talking about your lack of knowledge of what it does. This has long been known, and predates the climate change debate. Without GHG Earth would be 33 C cooler.


After I present a fact you never knew about, you come back & try to make it sound like you always knew it, just like the Milankovitch Cycles for which you have no track record here proving you knew about those, except for making the mistake of calling them a "cycle".

The fact is you never knew the thickness an evenly spread layer of CO2 woud create or you would have corrected me when I guessed in a previous post that the layer was a few feet thick. You missed your golden opportunity to do a major correction on me & you didn't even try because you can't put together a cogent thought of common sense without wandering into a vapid wasteland of hysteria.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
^^^Go away, you uneducated troll. I couldn't give a fecking toss how thin the layer would be!!! It isn't. It's in the atmosphere, you idiot. And I knew about Milankovitch long before you (I'm guessing you are less than 15 years old). Hell, I still have an Open University video that must have been from the late 90s, early 2000s, where Maureen Raymo plots coral data over the Milankovitch cycle (i.e. all fecking 3 combined; they are pretty much useless by themselves). And you STILL haven't told us the relevance of Milankovitch; what do you think is happening? Knowing his frigging name is of no use if you are too thick to understand the data.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
just like the Milankovitch Cycles for which you have no track record here......


Has it ever occurred to you that, just because I haven't posted much on a particular topic, that doesn't mean that I don't happen to have a degree in a related area? Do you think that I've only ever studied in one area? Go ahead, find me posting on volcanology, oceanography, astronomy, planetary science, geology, palaeoanthropology et al. For the most part you won't. However, I can guarantee that I'm better qualified in all of those areas than you are, woo boy.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Go away, you uneducated troll. I couldn't give a fecking toss how thin the layer would be!!!


........well of course you wouldn't.

You woudn't even try because you can't put together a cogent thought of common sense without wandering into your usual vapid wasteland of hysteria that you have so succinctly presented thus far.

I think for you a new math course should be in the offing, maybe we could label it Milankovitch Cycle Math, it would go something like 1+1+1=1

jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Go away, you uneducated troll. I couldn't give a fecking toss how thin the layer would be!!!


........well of course you wouldn't.

You woudn't even try because you can't put together a cogent thought of common sense without wandering into your usual vapid wasteland of hysteria that you have so succinctly presented thus far.

I think for you a new math course should be in the offing, maybe we could label it Milankovitch Cycle Math, it would go something like 1+1+1=1



Hey, sh*tforbrains, how about answering the question? OF WHAT RELEVANCE IS MILANKOVITCH TO AGW? Answer it, or stfu, because you have so far presented nothing on here. "Ooooh, I've just heard of Milankovitch." Yes, so what? "Ooooh, look, CO2 would only cover a piece of toast." Yes, so what? Answer the questions dummy, or admit that you are out of your depth, and go away to play with the EU nutjobs.
Fecking teenagers!
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
I couldn't give a fecking toss how thin the layer would be!!! It isn't. It's in the atmosphere
..........it's in the atmosphere alright, thinly spread all around in a huge discontinuous mixture.

So tell, us, how can such a small discontinuous presence of a trace gas create an unbroken insulation barrier that sunlight can penetrate through to reach the surface, but is somehow unable to penetrate upon reflection from the surface? Just what is the magical property of CO2 that it can function to transfer infrared in just one direction, from above but not from below. DUHHHHHH ?????? You never thought of that did you.........it takes my education as an Engineer with 6 years of education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering to figure that out doesn't it?

You're fun to banter with, it is so much great entertainment watching you stumble all over yourself doing catchup comebacks.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Let's summarise Benni the burke's contribution to this thread; AGW isn't happening, it's to do with Milankovitch cycles (we're in ***the middle*** of one such at the moment, apparently :) )

Me: So, Benni, how is this relevant, because Milankovitch says we're cooling?

Benni: Silence.

Benni: All the CO2 would make a layer...blah, blah, irrelevant blah.

Me: So how is that relevant? It isn't in a layer, it's in the atmosphere.

Benni: Silence.

Brilliant. Cranks, eh?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
So tell, us, how can such a small discontinuous presence of a trace gas create an unbroken insulation barrier that sunlight can penetrate through to reach the surface, but is somehow unable to penetrate upon reflection from the surface? Just what is the magical property of CO2 that it can function to transfer infrared in just one direction, from above but not from below.


Jesus, you're thick. It absorbs infrared from below, you idiot. That is what is emitted by the Earth when it is warmed by sunlight. It isn't getting hit by infra-frigging-red from above, is it? Bugger all, anyway. What wavelength is bloody sunlight from above in?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
For those who didn't get past high school science, here is a start:
https://www.ucar...._3_1.htm
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
For those who perhaps made it to undergrad level, here is some more:
http://www-users....here.pdf
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
OK, for the hard of thinking, here is a little summary; CO2, bless it, is essentially transparent to the incoming sunlight, which, funnily enough, is at visible and near-visible wavelengths, for the most part. So it gets through all the CO2 and other gases no problem. It reaches the ground, and heats it. The ground then re-emits the heat as IR photons. Now most of the gases are transparent to this, but not CO2 (or H2O, or CH4). CO2 absorbs and is excited by the IR, and this causes it to then emit an IR photon. It then settles down again. That is how it traps heat. If it didn't we'd be 33 C cooler than we are. So that is good. However, you can have too much of a good thing; ask Venus. Which Wildt, by the way, predicted would be hot due to this mechanism back in 1937 (sorry woo boys, Velikovsky wasn't the first to predict a hot Venus). So, more CO2, more warming. Quite simple, really.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
incoming sunlight, which, funnily enough, is at visible and near-visible wavelengths, for the most part.


You're wrong, energy from the Sun arrives on Earth in space at the top of Earth's atmosphere at a power of 1366 watts/m2 & is composed of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light, google it.

funnily enough
......yeah, great scientific terminology that I've never seen in a chemistry book.
CO2 absorbs and is excited by the IR, and this causes it to then emit an IR photon.
......and CO2 knows how to make this happen ONLY from the incoming direction, but never from the ground up, yeah, that's "funnily enough", no wonder your brain is such a vapid wasteland.

OK, you've got the "funnily enough" one way magical properties of CO2 worked out, but there is no continuous insulating layer which could never be more than 1/10" thick if there were such a layer, but there isn't, 100% - 0.04% = 99.96% is a gaping atmospheric hole.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
@Benni.

You miss many subtleties, mate.

Consider:

- it's 'lagging' effect for 'radiative heat energy' that dominates in upper-atmospheric CO2 'blanket', NOT like 'conduction/convection' effects through solid insulation/structure/air-gaps/currents that your house is also inescapably subject to, hence your house-versus-atmosphere insulation materials/processes 'comparison/argument' is misleading/non-sequitur;

- CO2 'partial pressure' in atmosphere ensures that the more CO2, the more it 'spreads' throughout the 'air column' to greater altitudes where it becomes more evenly distributed and less 'gappy';

- it's INDIVIDUAL MOLECULES of CO2 that do job of absorbing AND re-radiating (upwards/downwards) of BOTH solar insolation IR photons AND Earth re-radiated IR);

- the marginal/cumulative increase in effect that is the problem, along whole 'air column' wherever CO2 occurs;

- it is NET effect of ALL these/other factors that counts, whatever their 'values'.

Ok? :)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2017
The folks who discovered this are very scientifically conservative; they don't state that climate change has obviously increased the probability of this event because they don't have the direct evidence to claim it.

That #climatedeniers would take advantage of this careful science to wildly and without foundation claim "they said it's not teh globul warumin!!!11!one1!" is the deniers' epic megafail, not the scientists'. And that's as obvious as it should be.

The mega fail of the braying Chicken Little donkey. Their conclusion has nothing to do with being conservative because GloBull warming could not have caused this, since GloBull warming is a lie. The extensive geothermal and seismic activity in this region may have played a significant role in this event.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Total and utter crap, yet again.
and CO2 knows how to make this happen ONLY from the incoming direction, but never from the ground up, yeah, that's "funnily enough", no wonder your brain is such a vapid wasteland.


No. It absorbs it as it comes up from the ground. Having been heated by visible light. As any bloody book on the subject will tell you. It will also absorb most of the incoming IR higher in the atmosphere. Which is why we mostly receive visible light. The longer wavelength stuff is absorbed higher up by CO2 and H2O.
It is undergrad science at most. High school these days, I should think. I would suggest reading up on it from first principles. And then you wouldn't look like such an idiot by claiming that you have found a problem with something that has been studied for decades by people who are farrrrr smarter than you are.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Cap't

I also sent an emails asking for O'Leary's rationale...

I have received no response from either. How about you?
@CC
i haven't heard anything yet, but i also understand that researchers are usually pretty busy, with rare exception...

typically i hear back from almost all of my inquiries, but it takes time

i am patient, and i don't mind not knowing the answer
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
I said:
....is at visible and ***near-visible*** wavelengths, for the most part....


Benni:
You're wrong, energy from the Sun arrives on Earth in space at the top of Earth's atmosphere at a power of 1366 watts/m2 & is composed of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light, google it.


I now say: So what, in your mind, does near visible encompass? Yes, that's right, much of the UV and shorter wavelength IR.
Am I supposed to define the whole of the frigging process in 1000 characters? Do some bloody research, you fraud. Nothing you write here is of any relevance. This is a done deal. Lab tested. Yes? CO2 and H2O absorb an IR photon and then emit that photon. That is a fact. End of story. The part we are concerned with is in the lower atmosphere. It will do the same in the upper atmosphere to incoming radiation, but that is irrelevant in this context, because that stuff is not then reaching the ground.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
No. It absorbs it as it comes up from the ground. Having been heated by visible light.
......."visible light" HEATS NOTHING, INFRARED is what creates heat. You don't know anything about the EM Spectrum & the attributes peculiar to specific wavelengths of the EM Energy Spectrum.

It will also absorb most of the incoming IR higher in the atmosphere....... The longer wavelength stuff is absorbed higher up by CO2 and H2O


CO2 doesn't exist in any measurable quantity high in the atmosphere so there is no IR absorption there as you claim, it is a gas so heavy that it's gravity driven flow causes it to hug the ground as close as possible, even when pressure driven flow of wind causes it to flow over mountaintops it immediately seeks to settle at the lowest elevations possible, just like water does.

something that has been studied for decades by people who are farrrrr smarter than you are.
You are the one who believes what they read, it's why I know more

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
You are the one who believes what they read, it's why I know more


Lol, it is patently obvious to anyone reading this, that you know jack sh*t. As evidenced by any and all of your posts here. What's happened to dear old Milutin, by the way? Given up on him? Never did figure out what you were on about there.
If you knew anything, you wouldn't be on here prattling on with your uneducated nonsense, you'd actually be doing science. At the very least you'd be on a physics forum getting your arse kicked, rather than on here.

CO2 doesn't exist in any measurable quantity high in the atmosphere so there is no IR absorption there as you claim


Sorry if the stratosphere isn't high enough for you.
https://www.windo...get.html
https://www.ipcc..../278.htm

And did you miss the part where I mentioned H2O?

The longer wavelength stuff is absorbed higher up by CO2 and H2O

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2017
@Benni.
CO2 doesn't exist in any measurable quantity high in the atmosphere so there is no IR absorption there as you claim, it is a gas so heavy that it's gravity driven flow causes it to hug the ground as close as possible, even when pressure driven flow of wind causes it to flow over mountaintops it immediately seeks to settle at the lowest elevations possible, just like water does.
Please read up on 'gas diffusion' and 'gas partial pressure' and how this effectively mixes and distributes gases upwards as well. The impression you have of CO2 'falling down' is a 'displacement' situation, not the 'diffusion' situation. In a 'displacement' situation, a CO2 'cloud' occupies volume otherwise occupied by air, so CO2 'gaseous mass' falls as you say. But the 'rarefied' CO2 mixed with a lot or air will 'diffuse' in all directions according to 'partial pressure' driven dynamics. It's subtle but important aspect for what is happening withn increased CO2 emissions/warming. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Lol, it is patently obvious to anyone reading this, that you know jack sh*t.
.....and you do in making a statement like this:
No. It absorbs it as it comes up from the ground. Having been heated by visible light.
raucus laughter if you please!!!!!

So, tell us more about how CO2 gets "heated by visible light".

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
Lol, it is patently obvious to anyone reading this, that you know jack sh*t.
.....and you do in making a statement like this:
No. It absorbs it as it comes up from the ground. Having been heated by visible light.
raucus laughter if you please!!!!!

So, tell us more about how CO2 gets "heated by visible light".



No, you burke; the ***ground*** - as has been frigging explained - is heated by visible light. Christ, you really are thick. Ground heated > emits heat (IR radiation) > CO2 absorbs IR photon. Et cetera. Jesus, I give up.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
the ***ground*** - as has been frigging explained - is heated by visible light


You horny idiot, how many times do you need to be told that "visible light" heats NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!! Not, "ground", not "CO2", NOT ANYTHING, and certainly not your meager brain.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
"visible light" heats NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!! Not, "ground", not "CO2", NOT ANYTHING, and certainly not your meager brain.


Jesus H. Christ. Even by your standards that is dumb. Did you know that visible light is absorbed better by darker surfaces than lighter ones? Why do you think black things heat up more than light things? Because they are absorbing almost all of the visible wavelengths. White is reflecting them all. So that will cause more heating of a dark surface, such as rock. Yes, infrared will also cause heating, although it is longer wavelength than visible. Visible light is EM radiation. If it is absorbed, it will cause heating. If it wasn't absorbed, everything would be white!
Key word. Absorption.

https://www.physi....681073/
https://www.quora...ight-hot
https://en.wikipe...red#Heat

Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2017
Why do you think black things heat up more than light things? Because they are absorbing almost all of the visible wavelengths


No, it's because black things more efficiently absorb infrared than white things. Absorbing most of the visible wavelengths has only to do with surface illumination, not generating heat.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Why do you think black things heat up more than light things? Because they are absorbing almost all of the visible wavelengths


No, it's because black things more efficiently absorb infrared than white things. Absorbing most of the visible wavelengths has only to do with surface illumination, not generating heat.


Bollocks. And you know it. Reference, please.
Sadly for you, nobody in the scientific community seems to agree with you. But hey, we're used to you making sh*t up. Like I said, if EM radiation is being absorbed, it causes heating. Has to. If visible light weren't being absorbed, everything would be white! Go ahead, post the question on a physics forum, or email a scientist. I'm not bothered. You're wrong, and you know it.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2017
HEAT ABSORPTION

Sunlight, in the form of short wave solar radiation, exhibits a transformation from solar energy to heat energy when impacting a material (absorption). The temperatures of a white surface and a black surface exposed the same direct sunlight is a simple demonstration of this conversion. The temperature of the black surface is higher because it is absorbing more solar energy. As solar energy is absorbed at the surface of a material it stimulates movement of the molecules in the material. Molecular movement is measured in terms of heat – the greater the movement, the greater the heat. ***Since the color black absorbs more of the spectrum than the color white, it will in turn be hotter (more molecular excitement) than white.***

https://azsolarce...t-1-of-4

Like I said.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Imagine what you want, but this idea that a substance that makes up only 0.04% of the total of atmospheric gases can create a blanket of insulation is pure poppycock. Spread the 0.04% of that gas into an even blanket equally distributed in breadth & thickness around the circumference of Earth & you'd be talking a blanket of material so thin that it wouldn't be more than a few feet thick, if even that much.


Umhmmm, and that just goes to show your sum knowledge on this matter. That is, totally lacking.


Via actual calculation: The layer of all CO2 in existence in the atmosphere if spread out evenly on earth's surface would be 0.1187 inches in thickness, less than half the thickness of an iPhone 6. By contrast I have a 5" layer of insulation in the walls of my house & I can't shutdown the heat for more than a couple of hours to prevent heat loss, maybe if I pumped my walls full of CO2 I would get better results?

Am experiment even YOU could do....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2017
Why do you think black things heat up more than light things? Because they are absorbing almost all of the visible wavelengths


No, it's because black things more efficiently absorb infrared than white things. Absorbing most of the visible wavelengths has only to do with surface illumination, not generating heat.

They absorb ALL wavelengths more efficiently that white - and generating MORE infra red....
citizenschallenge
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2017
I couldn't give a fecking toss how thin the layer would be!!! It isn't. It's in the atmosphere
..........it's in the atmosphere alright, thinly spread all around in a huge discontinuous mixture.

So tell, us, how can such a small discontinuous presence of a trace gas create an unbroken insulation barrier that sunlight can penetrate through to reach the surface, but is somehow unable to penetrate upon reflection from the surface? Just what is the magical property of CO2 that it can function to transfer infrared in just one direction, from above but not from below. DUHHHHHH ??????

First you need a sincere interest and willingness to do an awful lot of homework. Here's a good start

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming.
forecast.uchicago .edu/lectures.html

Keep in mind, simply because you may not understand it, doesn't mean it's not understood!
citizenschallenge
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2017
Cap't

I also sent an emails asking for O'Leary's rationale...

I have received no response from either. How about you?
@CC
i haven't heard anything yet, but i also understand that researchers are usually pretty busy, with rare exception...

typically i hear back from almost all of my inquiries, but it takes time

i am patient, and i don't mind not knowing the answer

I'm not - I'm getting really tired of example after example of truly hideous, if not disastrous, climate science communication coming out of first rate institutions we should be able to trust - Also getting tired of excuses, tired of hurt feeling rather than serious introspection, tired of scientists playing by the contrarian script the media has brainwashed so many with.

When are they are going to start clearly explaining what's unfolding upon this Earth, rather than tailoring themselves to the contrarian media's talking points?

Probably more than you wanted to know, but so it is.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2017
tired of scientists playing by the contrarian script the media has brainwashed so many with
@CC
this may well be more political than you think

offered IMHO only in speculation as to why they would leave this out:
like a court case, perhaps they don't specify a link to AGW simply because it wasn't looked for due to the fact that they know something about the cause that we aren't yet made aware of... and they're waiting for confirmation before posting the evidence due to previous embarrassing moments in science recently
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017
If there are people actually seriously claiming that black objects get hotter "because they absorb more infrared," these are people who have zero understanding of basic radiation physics. Not to mention conservation of energy, the solar Wien radiation distribution, and the meaning of "black." Another truly epic moment in stupid brought to us all by the #climatedeniers.
citizenschallenge
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2017
tired of scientists playing by the contrarian script the media has brainwashed so many with
@CC
this may well be more political than you think


True enough cap't, it is about seepage etc.

Still I believe an explanation is worth pushing for.
There's a lot to be discussed about a whole string of grievous scientific communication failures.
But, I'll save that for another time and place.

If your curious check out my blog
whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot .com
March 21, 2017
"Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification
Dear Fyfe 2016 Co-Authors"
A number of posts regarding that atrocious piece of science communication.

Mind you I'm not deluded enough to think I'm right about everything I say - But I damned well know this ("seepage" ... and using the contrarian script rather than focusing on basic Earth systems education.) needs to be looked at and discussed by the big boys and girls one way or another.

Gotta run
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
This is a very complex phenomenon, but can be summed up very simply:

Ice melts when it gets warmer. Large pieces of ice break up into smaller pieces during the melting process.

Temperatures are rising in direct correlation to greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas increases correlate directly to human population increases.

There are many other factors of course involved. As always, zooming in reveals the chaotic nature of the systems involved, but zooming out reveals the overall pattern. The pattern is quite clear and compelling. Arguing the chaotic details simply reveals the arguer's bias, and makes it clear that the sole purpose of the argument is to validate the arguer's delusion. There is no meaningful discussion possible beyond these unassailable facts.
citizenschallenge
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017
Nicely said,
There are many other factors of course involved. As always, zooming in reveals the chaotic nature of the systems involved, but zooming out reveals the overall pattern. The pattern is quite clear and compelling. Arguing the chaotic details simply reveals the arguer's bias, and makes it clear that the sole purpose of the argument is to validate the arguer's delusion. There is no meaningful discussion possible beyond these unassailable facts.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2017
If your curious check out my blog
whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot .com
@CC
i have read your blog and though i can't say that i am a regular follower, i do habitually check back on a fairly regular basis
Mind you I'm not deluded enough to think I'm right about everything I say...needs to be looked at and discussed by the big boys and girls one way or another
one problem i see: you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think

citizenschallenge
Jul 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
4 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017
Benni is an obvious troll with none of the claimed engineering skills. It is pointless to argue with Benni. Do not feed the troll.
citizenschallenge
Jul 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TrollBane
not rated yet Aug 01, 2017
"I was thinking about South American countries which are pretty much due north of there as it would probably melt even more before it would be hauled to all the way over to Africa"

Yes, Antarctica is closest to South America, but parts of Antarctica are closer to South Africa than the population centers of South America.
citizenschallenge
not rated yet Aug 01, 2017
After multiple attempts trying to get the MIDAS Antarctic research team to offer some clear explanation containing some solid rationale for their bizarre claim of "No Link to Global Warming" - I've heard nothing from them. It's really sad and it's a situation that shouldn't be ignored.
Because so few are willing to think about scientific failures of communication I believe it's appropriate and within guidelines to share this link to a further closer look at the weaknesses of said claim:
"Confronting another failure in scientific communication - Antarctic's Iceberg A-68" (July 24, 2017)
http://whatsupwit...tic.html

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.