A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[Old Rocks]

The Cryosphere

You have free access to this content
Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise

1. E. Rignot1,2,
2. I. Velicogna1,2,
3. M. R. van den Broeke3,
4. A. Monaghan4 and
5. J. T. M. Lenaerts3

Article first published online: 4 MAR 2011

DOI: 10.1029/2011GL046583



Abstract
[1] Ice sheet mass balance estimates have improved substantially in recent years using a variety of techniques, over different time periods, and at various levels of spatial detail. Considerable disparity remains between these estimates due to the inherent uncertainties of each method, the lack of detailed comparison between independent estimates, and the effect of temporal modulations in ice sheet surface mass balance. Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years: one differencing perimeter loss from net accumulation, and one using a dense time series of time-variable gravity. We find excellent agreement between the two techniques for absolute mass loss and acceleration of mass loss. In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL046583/full

The full article available for the reading.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is it called Greenland?

 

[Dot Com]

whats you point Frank1400PennAve? That a few 10's of BILLIONS of tons more of GHG's won't make a diff?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it called Greenland?

Real estate scam;

How Greenland got its Name - Ancient History Blog

One Viking in particular, Erik the Red was very good at raiding and pillaging. Although history is somewhat sketchy, it is believed that he discovered Greenland after being sent away from Iceland in exile. This was rumored to have been his punishment for committing murder. He was able to settle in Greenland and survive there for several years. Finally, his exile was ended and he found that he wanted to settle the island more fully. For that, he needed to convince others to come with him. Erik the Red is believed to have lived from circa 950 to 1003CE.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera?

They don't need to know anything...when a cooler object opens a vector, energy from warmer objects flows to it....Look around...all measurements of "back radiation" are made by instruments that have been cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere. That is the only way you get radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the ground...by cooling the instrument to a temperature cooler than the atmosphere...but then, it isn't really back radiation is it? It is just energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just as the second law predicts.

They don't need to know anything...when a cooler object opens a vector, energy from warmer objects flows to it....

Of course. A cooler object, one light minute away opens a vector and the warmer object magically knows it can begin emitting. Instantly. Magically.

 

[SSDD]

They don't need to know anything...when a cooler object opens a vector, energy from warmer objects flows to it....

Of course. A cooler object, one light minute away opens a vector and the warmer object magically knows it can begin emitting. Instantly. Magically.

Photons, if they exist, experience a different reality than you. Clearly one you can't comprehend. Of course it would seem like magic to you.

Water pressure against a dam...poke a hole in the dam. Does the water need to know that the hole is there?...Do the water molecules 10 yards away from the hole know to go to it or do they just go because they don't have a choice? You seem to see magic in even reality that you should be able to imagine...how much more magical must an entity that experiences neither time nor distance seem?

 

[SSDD]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

The IPCC says that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for over a century..are you denying what the IPCC says?

Of course the IPCC ignores dozens of studies that find otherwise...but what else is new?

I said I guesstimated on the CO2 lifespan in the atmosphere. You helped me slam my point home by 300%

So you are saying that you believe the IPCC even though dozens of studies find that the residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 10 years? You got slammed alright...but not because you were right...because you believe in a hoax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't need to know anything...when a cooler object opens a vector, energy from warmer objects flows to it....

Of course. A cooler object, one light minute away opens a vector and the warmer object magically knows it can begin emitting. Instantly. Magically.

Photons, if they exist, experience a different reality than you. Clearly one you can't comprehend. Of course it would seem like magic to you.

Water pressure against a dam...poke a hole in the dam. Does the water need to know that the hole is there?...Do the water molecules 10 yards away from the hole know to go to it or do they just go because they don't have a choice? You seem to see magic in even reality that you should be able to imagine...how much more magical must an entity that experiences neither time nor distance seem?

Photons, if they exist, experience a different reality than you.

That does not mean that time does not exist.
That does not mean that a molecule on Earth can magically know the temperature of an
object one light minute away,instantly, and decide to emit a photon.

 

[SSDD]

Photons, if they exist, experience a different reality than you.

That does not mean that time does not exist.

Time doesn't exist for a photon...you either believe QM or you don't. Which is it, because if you believe QM then you must accept that time doesn't exist for a photon.

That does not mean that a molecule on Earth can magically know the temperature of an
object one light minute away,instantly, and decide to emit a photon.

One light minute is a distance, and instantly is a reference to time. If photons exist, neither time nor distance can apply to them. In their reality, they are in instant contact with all surfaces that they might radiate to therefore you must constrict the rules of radiative transfer to the same rules as physical contact transfer....

So again, do you believe in back conduction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't need to know anything...when a cooler object opens a vector, energy from warmer objects flows to it....

Of course. A cooler object, one light minute away opens a vector and the warmer object magically knows it can begin emitting. Instantly. Magically.

Photons, if they exist, experience a different reality than you. Clearly one you can't comprehend. Of course it would seem like magic to you.

Water pressure against a dam...poke a hole in the dam. Does the water need to know that the hole is there?...Do the water molecules 10 yards away from the hole know to go to it or do they just go because they don't have a choice? You seem to see magic in even reality that you should be able to imagine...how much more magical must an entity that experiences neither time nor distance seem?

Water pressure against a dam...poke a hole in the dam. Does the water need to know that the hole is there?.

Well, we could use the idea of all matter above 0K, constantly radiating, to translate your dam idea into radiation.
All the water molecules are moving around. Some bouncing off each other, some bouncing off the dam.
Poke a hole in the dam and some number, because they are constantly moving (like matter is constantly emitting), will hit that hole and "escape" this will create an "open space" that other, constantly moving water molecules can fill and, in some cases, also hit the hole and escape. The photon doesn't need to know the temperature of the target, it is emitted regardless, just as the water molecule doesn't need to know that if it moves to the left, it will hit the hole and escape the dam.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is it called Greenland?

Real estate scam;

How Greenland got its Name - Ancient History Blog

One Viking in particular, Erik the Red was very good at raiding and pillaging. Although history is somewhat sketchy, it is believed that he discovered Greenland after being sent away from Iceland in exile. This was rumored to have been his punishment for committing murder. He was able to settle in Greenland and survive there for several years. Finally, his exile was ended and he found that he wanted to settle the island more fully. For that, he needed to convince others to come with him. Erik the Red is believed to have lived from circa 950 to 1003CE.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

You invested in that Nigerian Mine that was offered by the English barrister representing the son of the Jailed Finance Minister

"Some people call it the Farm under the Sand, others Greenland's Pompeii. Dating to the mid-fourteenth century, it was once the site of a Viking colony founded along the island's grassy southwestern coast that stretches in a fjord-indented ribbon between the glaciers and the sea. Archaeologists Jette Arneborg of the Danish National Museum, Joel Berglund of the Greenland National Museum, and Claus Andreasen of Greenland University could not have guessed what would be revealed when they excavated the ruins of the five-room, stone-and-turf house in the early 1990s."

The Fate of Greenland s Vikings - Archaeology Magazine Archive

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons, if they exist, experience a different reality than you.

That does not mean that time does not exist.

Time doesn't exist for a photon...you either believe QM or you don't. Which is it, because if you believe QM then you must accept that time doesn't exist for a photon.

That does not mean that a molecule on Earth can magically know the temperature of an
object one light minute away,instantly, and decide to emit a photon.

One light minute is a distance, and instantly is a reference to time. If photons exist, neither time nor distance can apply to them. In their reality, they are in instant contact with all surfaces that they might radiate to therefore you must constrict the rules of radiative transfer to the same rules as physical contact transfer....

So again, do you believe in back conduction?

Time doesn't exist for a photon...

I'm more interested in the atom, deciding whether or not to emit the photon.
How does the atom know that the atom, one light minute away, is cool enough to accept
that magic photon or not?

So again, do you believe in back conduction?

Why don't you explain what you think that is, and I'll let you know what I believe about it.

 

[Dot Com]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

^ that

add to the at the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by the BRICs

Guess the total weight of Earth atmosphere, to the nearest quintillion tons

huh Frank1400PennAve. I'm not going to let you lead me down a garden path

 

[rdean]

Why is it called Greenland?

Real estate scam;

How Greenland got its Name - Ancient History Blog

One Viking in particular, Erik the Red was very good at raiding and pillaging. Although history is somewhat sketchy, it is believed that he discovered Greenland after being sent away from Iceland in exile. This was rumored to have been his punishment for committing murder. He was able to settle in Greenland and survive there for several years. Finally, his exile was ended and he found that he wanted to settle the island more fully. For that, he needed to convince others to come with him. Erik the Red is believed to have lived from circa 950 to 1003CE.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

Frank doesn't know how to use Google. He's proven that again and again. It really is quite "simple". Perhaps not for a "simpleton" or it could just be laziness or a "determined ignorance"? Who knows?

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

The IPCC says that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for over a century..are you denying what the IPCC says?

Of course the IPCC ignores dozens of studies that find otherwise...but what else is new?

I said I guesstimated on the CO2 lifespan in the atmosphere. You helped me slam my point home by 300%

So you are saying that you believe the IPCC even though dozens of studies find that the residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 10 years? You got slammed alright...but not because you were right...because you believe in a hoax.

Here we go again. The inherint dishonesty in the 'skeptics'. A molecule of CO2 gets cycled through the normal carbon cycle. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases very little or not at all as the carbon cycle goes both ways.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

^ that

add to the at the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by the BRICs

Guess the total weight of Earth atmosphere, to the nearest quintillion tons

huh Frank1400PennAve. I'm not going to let you lead me down a garden path

let's hear more about your "Billions" when the mass of the atmosphere is measured in quintillions

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is it called Greenland?

Real estate scam;

How Greenland got its Name - Ancient History Blog

One Viking in particular, Erik the Red was very good at raiding and pillaging. Although history is somewhat sketchy, it is believed that he discovered Greenland after being sent away from Iceland in exile. This was rumored to have been his punishment for committing murder. He was able to settle in Greenland and survive there for several years. Finally, his exile was ended and he found that he wanted to settle the island more fully. For that, he needed to convince others to come with him. Erik the Red is believed to have lived from circa 950 to 1003CE.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

Frank doesn't know how to use Google. He's proven that again and again. It really is quite "simple". Perhaps not for a "simpleton" or it could just be laziness or a "determined ignorance"? Who knows?

I showed you yesterday how your amazing Google skills destroyed your AGWCult narrative. You actually linked to articles that destroyed your "argument" weak as it was

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh and I'm still waiting for any real lab working linking wisps of CO2 to temperature changes

 

[jc456]

Oh and I'm still waiting for any real lab working linking wisps of CO2 to temperature changes

manmoth reported me!!!!!!! because he/she can't produce the experiment. How childish. boo hoo to her/him/it. When you ain't got one, you ain't got one. that's all she/he had to say. We know that increasing CO2 after the initial 20PPM does very little due to its logarithmic make up. Herr Koch proved it and David Archibald as well. The fear from them is real and why I got reported. But know this, they ain't got it because CO2 is the way we know it is. Therefore for them a great big F A I L

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh and I'm still waiting for any real lab working linking wisps of CO2 to temperature changes

manmoth reported me!!!!!!! because he/she can't produce the experiment. How childish. boo hoo to her/him/it. When you ain't got one, you ain't got one. that's all she/he had to say. We know that increasing CO2 after the initial 20PPM does very little due to its logarithmic make up. Herr Koch proved it and David Archibald as well. The fear from them is real and why I got reported. But know this, they ain't got it because CO2 is the way we know it is. Therefore for them a great big F A I L

What did you want her to do, post an experiment?