Another GW Maxim Shot In The ..... Backside

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
It turns out a glacier in western Antarctica has been melting since the 1940s, according to a new study by South Pole experts.

Pine Island Glacier began warming in the 1940s due to a naturally-occurring El Nino warming event, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) found in a new study. The organization’s work suggests western Antarctic glacial melt began 30 years before the the global warming trend that started in the late 1970s.

What’s even more interesting is Pine Island Glacier continued to melt even when global average surface temperature cooled over the next three decades. NASA data shows 1944 was the warmest year on record globally until 1980.

“A significant implication of our findings is that once an ice sheet retreat is set in motion it can continue for decades, even if what started gets no worse,” NASA’s Bob Bindschadler said in a statement.

“It is possible that the changes we see today on Pine Island Glacier were essentially set in motion in the 1940s,” said Bindschadler, one of the study’s co-authors.

Scientists have been warning of Pine Island’s melting rate since the early 1990s, with many attributing its reportedly increasing melt rate to man-made global warming. But the BAS study is the first to look into what caused it to melt.

The BAS team obtained sediment samples by drilling by hand more than 3,280 feet through ice to try and figure out when Pine Island began its melt. Scientists now use satellites to track glaciers, but those records only go back to the early 1980s.

BAS experts say Pine Island has been a major contributor to global sea level rise in recent decades, and other researchers have argued Pine Island’s collapse could help set in motion the collapse of the entire west Antarctic ice sheet.

“Understanding what initiated the current changes is one major piece of the jigsaw, and now we are already looking for the next—how long will these changes continue and how much ice will Pine Island Glacier and its neighbours lose in the coming century?” David Vaughn, BAS’s director of science, said.

Despite warnings, it’s unclear exactly what role global warming has played in Antarctica in recent decades. Scientists say they’ve had trouble finding signs of man-made warming over the “noise” of natural variability in the region. While the Arctic ice cap has been shrinking since the 1980s, some research suggests Antarctica’s ice sheet gained mass since the 1990s.

A 2015 study by NASA found Antarctica’s ice sheet increased in mass from 1992 to 2008. The study found ice gains in Eastern antarctica more than offset ice loss from melting glaciers in the west.

Past research has also found western Antarctica sits atop subterranean volcanoes, which may be contributing to its instability in recent decades.

University of Texas-Austin researchers used radar techniques to map water flows under ice sheets and estimate the rate of ice melt in the glacier. They found geothermal heat from magma and volcanoes under the glacier is much hotter and covers a much wider area than was previously thought.

The Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes, UTA researchers found.
 
The only research in global warming is how to move money from the USA into the Third world
 
LOL Another person that quotes only one study. The majority of studies claim that the ice on Antarctica is losing ice, overall.

Let's see. 2016 will be the third year in a row that the temperature has broken all previous records. At present, the sea ice is about three standard deviations below normal in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The King tides continue to get higher every year in Florida, and the alpine glaciers continue to recede. Now the political establishment has actually started to take action with the Paris accord. And even President-elect Trump says that he will keep an open mind on climate change. Perhaps preparatory to changing his position 180 degrees? LOL
 
LOL Another person that quotes only one study. The majority of studies claim that the ice on Antarctica is losing ice, overall.

Let's see. 2016 will be the third year in a row that the temperature has broken all previous records. At present, the sea ice is about three standard deviations below normal in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The King tides continue to get higher every year in Florida, and the alpine glaciers continue to recede. Now the political establishment has actually started to take action with the Paris accord. And even President-elect Trump says that he will keep an open mind on climate change. Perhaps preparatory to changing his position 180 degrees? LOL
Can you tell me why the temperature change did not occur immediately after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?
Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

Can you tell me it took took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2 after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?

upload_2016-11-24_8-52-1-png.99720
 
Are you assuming that if the greenhouse effect doesn't overwhelm all other factors, that it has no effect at all?

What are you attempting to suggest with these data?
 
Are you assuming that if the greenhouse effect doesn't overwhelm all other factors, that it has no effect at all?

What are you attempting to suggest with these data?
I am not making any assumptions, idiot. I am showing you that there was no immediate effect from radiative forcing of CO2. When we wake up on a cloudy morning there is an immediate effect of the GHG effect of water vapor. It is much warmer than it would be on a clear evening. But putting that aside, idiot, you are proving my argument by arguing that other factors were more dominant than CO2.

upload_2016-11-25_7-32-48.jpeg
 
No one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be temporarily overwhelmed. It happens all the time. CO2's power is in its persistence. The radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation. You've got command of all the numbers. Why does this surprise you? Do the calculations son.

Does it make you feel better to call me an idiot? Are you compensating for something? You'd think someone with your engineering skills and overwhelming knowledge base would have no difficulty using facts and figures to establish your dominance of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
No one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be temporarily overwhelmed. It happens all the time. CO2's power is in its persistence. The radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation. You've got command of all the numbers. Why does this surprise you? Do the calculations son.

Does it make you feel better to call me an idiot? Are you compensating for something? You'd think someone with your engineering skills and overwhelming knowledge base would have no difficulty using facts and figures to establish your dominance of the discussion.
You can't argue that radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation and then conclude that CO2 is driving climate change. Radiative forcing's power is NOT in its persistence. That is your ignorance talking. We know on cloudy nights that the water vapor traps heat such that it s 20 degrees warmer than on a clear night. So no, radiative forcing's power is not in its persistence. You are an idiot for thinking that. If no one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be "temporarily" overwhelmed, then they should stop acting like CO2 is the driving force because it's not.

Yes, actually is does make me feel better to call you an idiot because you are. You demonstrated that when you argued that northern hemisphere glaciation occurred 30 million years ago even though you had read an abstract of a scientific paper that concluded that it didn't occur until 2.7 million years ago. And you continued to argue against it even after I posted the full paper and excerpts from its conclusion which proved you were wrong.

I have done the calculations, son. You are shitting your pants for no good reason.
 
No one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be temporarily overwhelmed. It happens all the time. CO2's power is in its persistence. The radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation. You've got command of all the numbers. Why does this surprise you? Do the calculations son.

Does it make you feel better to call me an idiot? Are you compensating for something? You'd think someone with your engineering skills and overwhelming knowledge base would have no difficulty using facts and figures to establish your dominance of the discussion.[/QUOTE]

You can't argue that radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation and then conclude that CO2 is driving climate change.

I never said CO2 was driving climate change. I've said - and I still say - human activity in the form of GHG emissions and deforestation - are the dominant cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. And I certainly can still

Radiative forcing's power is NOT in its persistence. That is your ignorance talking. We know on cloudy nights that the water vapor traps heat such that it s 20 degrees warmer than on a clear night. So no, radiative forcing's power is not in its persistence. You are an idiot for thinking that. If no one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be "temporarily" overwhelmed, then they should stop acting like CO2 is the driving force because it's not.

You seem not to know what the word "persistence" means. CO2 has a lifetime in the atmosphere measured in decades. GHGs produce a forcing of about 2.3 w/m^2 which, as I said, is small compared to the total solar irradiated power of over 350 W/m^2 when the sun is overhead. There are a number of transient effects that can overcome it (volcanic eruptions, albedo effects from cloud cover, snow fall, ice sheets) But has a much longer lifespan - a greater persistence - than most such effects and will slowly push temperatures upward. How else would you explain the actual temperature curve?

Yes, actually is does make me feel better to call you an idiot because you are. You demonstrated that when you argued that northern hemisphere glaciation occurred 30 million years ago even though you had read an abstract of a scientific paper that concluded that it didn't occur until 2.7 million years ago. And you continued to argue against it even after I posted the full paper and excerpts from its conclusion which proved you were wrong.

I guess it's good to know that you're as much a loser as first impressions seemed to say. BTW, I never said glaciation had occurred 30 million years ago. I quoted the abstract of your article that suggested it had occurred repeatedly over the last 22 million years. If you think that was an idiotic thing to say, why are you using that article as a reference?

geology-lecture-20-60-638.jpg

Milankovitch_Variations.png

Glacials-and-Interglacials-.png



I have done the calculations, son. You are shitting your pants for no good reason.

Then you could tell us, for instance, what the next century's temperature curve would look like if we brought CO2 from 400 ppm today to 600 ppm 20 years from now.

ps: you're not making anyone shit themselves son. You're barely getting anyone to pay you any mind. Note the rather short list of people talking to you?
 
Last edited:
No one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be temporarily overwhelmed. It happens all the time. CO2's power is in its persistence. The radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation. You've got command of all the numbers. Why does this surprise you? Do the calculations son.

Exactly. It happens all the time. I have done the calculations. Problem solved. CO2 is not a problem.
 
LOL Another person that quotes only one study. The majority of studies claim that the ice on Antarctica is losing ice, overall.

Let's see. 2016 will be the third year in a row that the temperature has broken all previous records. At present, the sea ice is about three standard deviations below normal in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The King tides continue to get higher every year in Florida, and the alpine glaciers continue to recede. Now the political establishment has actually started to take action with the Paris accord. And even President-elect Trump says that he will keep an open mind on climate change. Perhaps preparatory to changing his position 180 degrees? LOL

IN a word.. NO!

Old Fraud is caught in yet another lie..

Climate shock: 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are GROWING
 
Principia Scientifica is 100% CRAP. The article actually only retells Zwally. Translating that to 90% sounds exactly like LaDexter, doesn't it. You got balls to call Rocks a liar and then post an article that claims 90% of the world's glaciers are growing, when not a single glacier outside Antarctica is mentioned anywhere in that stupid fucking article.

figure-4-15-l.png


ba2014.jpg


Greenland_Mass_Balance.gif


glaciers-north.gif


Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
 
Principia Scientifica is 100% CRAP. The article actually only retells Zwally. Translating that to 90% sounds exactly like LaDexter, doesn't it. You got balls to call Rocks a liar and then post an article that claims 90% of the world's glaciers are growing, when not a single glacier outside Antarctica is mentioned anywhere in that stupid fucking article.

figure-4-15-l.png


ba2014.jpg


Greenland_Mass_Balance.gif


glaciers-north.gif


Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
What is the sum total mass of all glaciers?
 
Greenland and Antarctica, between them, contain 99% of the Earth's fresh water ice. The volume of the two is roughly 33 million km^3. You can probably find a better answer with a more diligent search.

That third graph shows a loss of 1500 Gt. 33 million km^3 has a mass of 3.33 e19 kg or 3.33e7 Gt. 1500 Gt, then is 4.5e-3% of the total mass.

However, if you're looking at water supplies, you need to multiply that value by 100 or more, since it is including Antarctic and Greenland in the sum, both of whom are very little used for drinking water supplies. The vast majority of glacier based drinking water systems are using some of that remaining 1% of frozen fresh water in Europe, Asia and South America.
 
No one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be temporarily overwhelmed. It happens all the time. CO2's power is in its persistence. The radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation. You've got command of all the numbers. Why does this surprise you? Do the calculations son.

Does it make you feel better to call me an idiot? Are you compensating for something? You'd think someone with your engineering skills and overwhelming knowledge base would have no difficulty using facts and figures to establish your dominance of the discussion.
You can't argue that radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation and then conclude that CO2 is driving climate change. Radiative forcing's power is NOT in its persistence. That is your ignorance talking. We know on cloudy nights that the water vapor traps heat such that it s 20 degrees warmer than on a clear night. So no, radiative forcing's power is not in its persistence. You are an idiot for thinking that. If no one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be "temporarily" overwhelmed, then they should stop acting like CO2 is the driving force because it's not.

Yes, actually is does make me feel better to call you an idiot because you are. You demonstrated that when you argued that northern hemisphere glaciation occurred 30 million years ago even though you had read an abstract of a scientific paper that concluded that it didn't occur until 2.7 million years ago. And you continued to argue against it even after I posted the full paper and excerpts from its conclusion which proved you were wrong.

I have done the calculations, son. You are shitting your pants for no good reason.
Damn, I get so tired of the type of people that seize on one little meme, and claim to prove that Einstein is wrong, and they are far smarter than he ever was.

Buddy boy, you are full of shit, and so are your calculations. And how does your calculations explain what is happening right now?
 
Greenland and Antarctica, between them, contain 99% of the Earth's fresh water ice. The volume of the two is roughly 33 million km^3. You can probably find a better answer with a more diligent search.

That third graph shows a loss of 1500 Gt. 33 million km^3 has a mass of 3.33 e19 kg or 3.33e7 Gt. 1500 Gt, then is 4.5e-3% of the total mass.

However, if you're looking at water supplies, you need to multiply that value by 100 or more, since it is including Antarctic and Greenland in the sum, both of whom are very little used for drinking water supplies. The vast majority of glacier based drinking water systems are using some of that remaining 1% of frozen fresh water in Europe, Asia and South America.
So what do you believe the 90% of glaciers reference is to? Mass or number of glaciers?
 
No one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be temporarily overwhelmed. It happens all the time. CO2's power is in its persistence. The radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation. You've got command of all the numbers. Why does this surprise you? Do the calculations son.

Does it make you feel better to call me an idiot? Are you compensating for something? You'd think someone with your engineering skills and overwhelming knowledge base would have no difficulty using facts and figures to establish your dominance of the discussion.
You can't argue that radiative forcing of CO2 is small compared to the sum of incoming radiation and then conclude that CO2 is driving climate change. Radiative forcing's power is NOT in its persistence. That is your ignorance talking. We know on cloudy nights that the water vapor traps heat such that it s 20 degrees warmer than on a clear night. So no, radiative forcing's power is not in its persistence. You are an idiot for thinking that. If no one in mainstream science has ever suggested that CO2 could not be "temporarily" overwhelmed, then they should stop acting like CO2 is the driving force because it's not.

Yes, actually is does make me feel better to call you an idiot because you are. You demonstrated that when you argued that northern hemisphere glaciation occurred 30 million years ago even though you had read an abstract of a scientific paper that concluded that it didn't occur until 2.7 million years ago. And you continued to argue against it even after I posted the full paper and excerpts from its conclusion which proved you were wrong.

I have done the calculations, son. You are shitting your pants for no good reason.
Damn, I get so tired of the type of people that seize on one little meme, and claim to prove that Einstein is wrong, and they are far smarter than he ever was.

Buddy boy, you are full of shit, and so are your calculations. And how does your calculations explain what is happening right now?
Showing you past examples of where CO2 did not drive temperature changes is not one little meme. It is a fundamental argument to your belief that CO2 is the dominant driver in climate change.
 

Forum List

Back
Top