Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows

[ding]

Why do you believe I have no background in science? What is your background in science?

I said 'climate' science. And no, a petroleum engineer is not a climate scientist..

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.

 

[ding]

Jesus fucking Christ!!!!! The Cenozoic is not a worry for me. The temperatures that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be seeing is what is worrying me. And the present increase in the last three years are definitely indicating that the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere is going to go well beyond 2 degrees, even if we add not one ppm more.

The rapid drawdown of CO2 from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm should have resulted in a 7C decrease in temperature. That decrease was not realized until 12 million years later proving that CO2 does not drive climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do you believe I have no background in science? What is your background in science?

I said 'climate' science. And no, a petroleum engineer is not a climate scientist..

There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)

1.43 degrees from what we have already put in. Yet we were almost there this year, in spite of the thermal inertia of the oceans. I think your chart has serious errors.

 

[ding]

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.


The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.

Nobody is denying the Earth goes through phases. And yes it is going through that now. What you deniers are saying is that humans are not contributing to it accelerating. Of course we are. How can we not. You know what a GH gas is right? I lived in NZ for the first 40 years of my life. It has not gone unnoticed that since the decrease in HFCs and the like, the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic AND parts of NZ during summer is now decreasing every year.

See post #60.

 

[ding]

Why do you believe I have no background in science? What is your background in science?

I said 'climate' science. And no, a petroleum engineer is not a climate scientist..

There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)

1.43 degrees from what we have already put in. Yet we were almost there this year, in spite of the thermal inertia of the oceans. I think your chart has serious errors.

That same thing would apply in both directions which is how we know that CO2 does not drive climate change.

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.

 

[ding]

Why do you believe I have no background in science? What is your background in science?

I said 'climate' science. And no, a petroleum engineer is not a climate scientist..

There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)

1.43 degrees from what we have already put in. Yet we were almost there this year, in spite of the thermal inertia of the oceans. I think your chart has serious errors.

CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change. I would much prefer to remain in an interglacial climate than a glacial climate.

 

[westwall]

Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.

Clearly the reason you climate change religious fanatics don't use the reply button is because you are embarrassed with how the thread is playing out. Use the reply button.

And how is the thread playing out, Onenote?

The Antarctic sea Ice is still melting at a rate unseen since we put up satellites.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Global sea ice has reached a record low – should we be worried?

We have not seen anything like this previously. Not in 1998, or at any time since the satellite record which started in 1979.

Yeah? So? We have written records from whaling ships that show them travelling at least 300 miles closer to the South pole in the 1880's then they can get to today. You hysteria doesn't impress me.

 

[westwall]

[
No what is ridiculous is you jack-a-napes shitting your pants over minor deviations which will always prove to be nothing because there is no problem. CO2 does not drive climate change. If it did we would have seen much quicker responses when climates really were changing.

Gee who to believe? Climate scientists or somebody on a message board with no background in the science. It's a hard one....

Climate scientists who haven't had a single prediction come true in over thirty years. Yeppers, leave it to a moron like you to choose them.

 

[ding]

Why do you believe I have no background in science? What is your background in science?

I said 'climate' science. And no, a petroleum engineer is not a climate scientist..

There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)

1.43 degrees from what we have already put in. Yet we were almost there this year, in spite of the thermal inertia of the oceans. I think your chart has serious errors.

Probably because you are too dumb to understand the math.

 

[westwall]

I don't see anyone from NASA here discussing this. I see global warming religious fanatics who remind me of nazis discussing it.

They're just saying what NASA is saying.

That aside, just looked at your profile page. You're a petroleum engineer. No conflict of interest with regard to your POV there! Jaysus.....

And the climatologists don't have a conflict of interest? Really? Lets see, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding the worlds energy distribution systems and gee, I wonder how much of that they'll get????

 

[westwall]

That's not what he said. He was very clear in what he said. This is the problem that people have with you climate nazis. You are fanatics who will stoop to dishonesty just to defend your religion.

NASA is full of nazis? Go figure... Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

I don't see anyone from NASA here discussing this. I see global warming religious fanatics who remind me of nazis discussing it.

And I see a fucking idiot that know even less than I do, and is trying to bull his way through with graphs that he cannot even understand.

Go sell your politics somewhere else. Not buying here. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So why should we believe an anonymous poster that states otherwise?

That would only be possible with your fellow morons dude. What you don't know would fill volumes. What you do know will fill a thimble. The fact still remains that no empirical lab experiment has EVER been run that shows a 200 ppm increase in CO2 will have a measurable effect on global temp. Not one. Antarctic sea ice is low this year. However the previous two years it was at levels (to use your term) unseen since we began the satellite era. So, two years higher to one year lower.

You were bleating?

 

[ScienceRocks]

JAXA has posted 12,616,192 km2 for SIE around Antarctica for Nov. 25th...

Down 120,774 km2 from the 24th...

 

[Dr Grump]

And the climatologists don't have a conflict of interest? Really? Lets see, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding the worlds energy distribution systems and gee, I wonder how much of that they'll get????

If you think scientists think like that, you know nothing of scientists. Only neocon money grabbers "it's all about me,em, me" think like that. I know quite a few scientists. I've told them people think like that, and they laugh. You haven't a clue.

 

[westwall]

And the climatologists don't have a conflict of interest? Really? Lets see, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding the worlds energy distribution systems and gee, I wonder how much of that they'll get????

If you think scientists think like that, you know nothing of scientists. Only neocon money grabbers "it's all about me,em, me" think like that. I know quite a few scientists. I've told them people think like that, and they laugh. You haven't a clue.

I AM a scientist and the climatologists pushing this crap are lazy, vain, venal pricks who DO think that way.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
I AM a scientist and the climatologists pushing this crap are lazy, vain, venal pricks who DO think that way.

Simply put I don't believe the last part. I know two scientists who work in the climate field. Two very hard working individuals. Anybody who puts a type of person into a stereotype loses all credibility.
As for being a scientist. What type? And who for?

 

[Lewdog]

Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?

The only research the loserterians want is profit based. Anything else doesn't need to be done within their little minds...

A new dark age would occur if they got their way.

 

[westwall]

[
I AM a scientist and the climatologists pushing this crap are lazy, vain, venal pricks who DO think that way.

Simply put I don't believe the last part. I know two scientists who work in the climate field. Two very hard working individuals. Anybody who puts a type of person into a stereotype loses all credibility.
As for being a scientist. What type? And who for?

I'm a retired geologist. Owned my own environmental cleanup company for decades but got my start in the field with Dames and Moore. Before they would hire me they wanted me to work for a petroleum company to see how it shouldn't be done so my first real job after my PhD was with BP. Two years of sheer hell. Gosh I was glad to leave them. They were everything that was bad about the corporate world.

Climatologists are like any other group. There are good and bad. Unfortunately the bad rose to the top of the food chain and have done nothing but give all of the rest of the science community a bad rep.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Westwall claims to be a Phd Geologist. I have met many Phd Geologists, none that make the claims that he does. Nor any that show the inability to read scientific papers, as he has demonstrated on this board many times.

 

[Lewdog]

“It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia. This is unprecedented for November,” said research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers university.

Temperatures have been only a few degrees above freezing when -25C should be expected, according to Francis. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary,” she said.

'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists