Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Old Rocks]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

The glaciers that we had at the beginning of the industrial age, as compared to those of today. Seems pretty straight forward, if one has basic level reading comprehension.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above 300 ppm, but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.

I am entirely right and what is disturbing is the fact that I think you know that I am entirely right. The fact that you asked why it has not gone above 300 ppm in the past 800K years tells me that you probably know that I am right and why. We have been in, and coming out of an ice age for the past 800K years Matthew. You know as well as I do that if you go back much more than 800K years to a point where the climate was still decending into the ice age, that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations quickly go above 300ppm, and 400ppm, and 500ppm, and 600ppm.

I am pretty sure that you know that the earth started decending into the present ice age with atmospheric CO2 concentrations at, or slightly above 1000ppm.

little ice age caused closer to 5 ppm charge...Why is it going up at 2 ppm per year?

Why? Because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. The little ice age didn't do much in the way of cooling the oceans. It didn't last long enough.

Can we agree that it's human driven?

No, I don't think we can. The evidence is there to tell us that it isn't human driven. Go back to the beginning of the present ice age and atmospheric CO2 levels were at, or above 1000ppm. That being right there in front of our faces, upon what hard evidence do you base the paltry increase we have seen in our lifetimes on the activities of man? Think about it Matthew, the entire CO2 output of man isn't even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.

Could we admit that humans are putting it into the atmosphere?

We can agree that humans are putting some small bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, but as I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year and more importantly, we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age and will be for a verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyy long time to come. We know that the atmospheric CO2 was at least 1000ppm upon entering the present ice age and there is no reason to suspect that when we finally get out of it, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should not be at least that.

As usual, you are full of shit, Bent. It has been more than 25 million years since CO2 was at 1000 ppm. In fact, maybe more than 30.

http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and ®nd an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

 

[bobgnote]

What a great link, O.R.

"Change in the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is commonly regarded as a likely forcing mechanism on global climate over geological time because of its large and predictable effect on temperature 48. Our d11 Bcc proxy for pCO2 broadly confirms the
prediction of Arrhenius 1 that early Cenozoic pCO2 levels were often several times modern values, and that a strong greenhouse effect probably contributed to global warmth at that time. These `super-greenhouse' conditions (pCO2. 1,000 p.p.m.) also imply considerably lower surface-ocean pH, higher alkalinity and higher levels of SCO2. We find that there was considerable fluctuation in these variables in the Palaeogene, but since the earliest Miocene the system seems to have been much more constant and more closely comparable to the present, despite continuing climate cooling. This suggests that other factors, such as complex feedbacks initiated by tectonic alteration of the ocean basins, were also important in determining global climate change."

http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf

 

[IanC]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above 300 ppm, but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.

That little ice age caused closer to 5 ppm charge...Why is it going up at 2 ppm per year? Can we agree that it's human driven? Even through it may cause NO effect on the climate. For a second lets say co2 is no harm and is in fact good...Could we admit that humans are putting it into the atmosphere?

I was going to say that it is obvious that humans are raising the CO2 levels and what sane person would deny it but......

I really dont think many people have looked at how these proxy records work. they are far from exact, only give info relative to other parts of the proxy record, and have a lot of leeway as to the absolute value.

 

[bobgnote]

All you have to do to understand human interaction with CO2 is humans deforest and defoliate, while increasing burning, of fossil fuels, dramatically, since the 19th Century began, which coincides with CO2 proliferation, carbonic acid concentration in water, and die-offs.

What sane person would deny human complicity and responsibility, to re-green, given deforestation and defoliation? The answer happens to be no sane person would deny human participation and responsibility, to re-green.

But in a given sample of forum participants, only a few sane people persist, among a lot of crazy fucktards, supporting skepticism of all kinds, against global warming. All kinds of spam comes from the skeptics, who are like now-dead homosexuals used to be, at their bath-houses, tricking, shooting speed, and tricking, until their doses went from HIV to full-blown AIDS to death. The sane people are gaining, even at USMB. We are still too few.

 

[Zander]

Must have been all those SUV's in the 30's. It's clearly the fault of humans. They are the problem. If we just let animals run things we'd have lots of ice and stuff.

 

[bobgnote]

Must have been all those SUV's in the 30's. It's clearly the fault of humans. They are the problem. If we just let animals run things we'd have lots of ice and stuff.

If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters. If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster. I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.

 

[code1211]

Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.

All else is just human speculation.

I see. The worldwide deglaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the differance between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.

Correlation does not prove causation.

The number of soft and furry little kittens has also increased over this period.

There are more electronic recording devices now than there were before.

The number of storage shed in back yards is way up.

 

[code1211]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Very scientific.

NOT!

There is plenty that scientists DON'T know I'll admit that. But they've got a pretty good fix on what is "natural" and what is not on this planet.

Almost unanimously all CREDIBLE scientists agree that the rate the climate has been changing in the last 50 years does NOT fit any "natural" cycles of the planet.

Reliable instrument records only state in about 1980.

Prior to that, for all of the planet's long history, it was proxies and estimates for most of the world.

 

[code1211]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

Each doubling of CO2 may add 1 degree to the climate. We have another part of the current doubling to accomplish and then can start on the next one.

CO2 serves to increase your hysteria more effectively than it affects the climate.

 

[code1211]

So, let's look at the whole article by the scientists.


Analyzing the images, the researchers found two events that stood out most over the past 80 years: glacial retreats in 1933-34 and from 2000 to 2010. In the 30s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning they had no contact with the sea.
But those that were melting were retreating at the average rate of 65 feet per year and up to 1,225 feet per year. More than 50 percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates in the 30s than they do today.

While melting rates are not occurring as fast as they were in the 30s, more glaciers are retreating today. And, while the average ice loss is around 150 feet per year, that is because a few glaciers have very fast melting rates, driving the average up.

Source: redOrbit (80-Year-Old Photos Aid In Greenland Ice Melt Study - Science News - redOrbit)

And you should please discredit then glacier melt water adds the equal to one cup of water being added to a swimming pool.

Supposedly 385 billion tons of ice equal at 2,000 lbs/ton at 64 oz per gallon a total of
12,031,250,000,000 gallons (12.03 trillion)

But with 343 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
How many gallons of water does the ocean have

that is equal to 0.0000351% or equal to adding a cup of water to a swimming pool!


Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed

Lordy, lordy. You really are that stupid. No one is saying that Greenland will lose all it's ice by 2035. What they are talking about is the possibility that by present trends of melting, the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free for part of the summer by 2035. Really, you should ramp up your reading comprehension.

And the fact that the Arctic Ice has stopped receding?

This year is currently tied with 2009 and has more ice than either 2010 or 2011.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure2.png

 

[code1211]

Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.

All I see are links with agendas. From both sides. Can no one argue the points with their own brain?

Yes, I can argue that point. However, in a scientific arguement one has to go to the source of the evidence. That you object to that simply demonstrates that you have no such evidence for your side. Just political yap-yap.

A 100 ppm increase, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, in CO2 caused the continental glacier to melt. During the last interglacial, the CO2 level hit 300 ppm and the sea level was roughly 10 meters higher than today.

Now we are at 390+ ppm of CO2. While the glaciers cannot respond quickly to the rise, they are responding. And the melting of the continental glaciers will raise the sea level far higher than the last interglacial. Not in my lifetime, nor those of my children, but it will happen. And the cost will be major, far more than it would have cost to address this issue 40 years ago.

By the midpoint of this century, I expect the CO2 level to be around 500 ppm, and the CH4 to be near 4 ppm.

Always the prediction of the dire consequence.

Have you found those photographs that show the increase of the sea level on the shores of the major coastal cities of the world?

There should be plenty. Start with Houston.

 

[bobgnote]

In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

Each doubling of CO2 may add 1 degree to the climate. We have another part of the current doubling to accomplish and then can start on the next one.

CO2 serves to increase your hysteria more effectively than it affects the climate.

CodePunk, the CO2 will kill, by carbonic acid; the CH4 is methane, where the real runaway warming will originate. Demonstrate a brain, bitch.

 

[skookerasbil]

All you have to do to understand human interaction with CO2 is humans deforest and defoliate, while increasing burning, of fossil fuels, dramatically, since the 19th Century began, which coincides with CO2 proliferation, carbonic acid concentration in water, and die-offs.

What sane person would deny human complicity and responsibility, to re-green, given deforestation and defoliation? The answer happens to be no sane person would deny human participation and responsibility, to re-green.

But in a given sample of forum participants, only a few sane people persist, among a lot of crazy fucktards, supporting skepticism of all kinds, against global warming. All kinds of spam comes from the skeptics, who are like now-dead homosexuals used to be, at their bath-houses, tricking, shooting speed, and tricking, until their doses went from HIV to full-blown AIDS to death. The sane people are gaining, even at USMB. We are still too few.

s0n............you are far, far too few. In fact, you and the few nutters here who support the hysterical have little support. But we are the insane? Hmmm......Sammy above seems to disagree. Oh......and the poll from the Pew Institute confirms what Ive been saying for years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14553/Dead-Last-Pew-Poll-Global-warming-finishes-22nd-of-22-top-policy-priorities-of-2012-A-quarter-of-Americans-now-find-climate-change-a-top-concern-down-from-almost-4-in-10-in-2007






The hyper-hysterical bomb throwers are indeed a fringe group.......which is why in the area of public policy, the prevailing science isnt mattering.


Just here to bring it back to Realville s0n...........

 

[bobgnote]

'The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth's climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
The findings also demonstrate that the climate of modern times more readily responds to changing carbon dioxide levels than it has during the past 12 million years."

Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

Your link is off-topic, skookerasbil.

 

[bobgnote]

The OP is part of propaganda, to discredit global warming, when in fact, Greenland has been warming up, and recent temperatures are record-setting:

Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F | ThinkProgress

Thick, perennial Arctic ice is melting at a faster rate, as opposed to the annually formed ice, which melts and re-forms:

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

Moreover, the expected runaway increase in global warming may only have to cause an increase, of 1.6 C, to completely melt Greenland's ice:

Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees of global warming

When this happens, we may have to consider prison or mandatory birth-control, for skeptics. At least, skookerasbil should get his off-topic posts over to some zone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I understand that the co2 level was 1,000+ ppm before the ice age started around 30,000,000 years ago. Ice age=ice sheets at the poles.

 

[Old Rocks]

At that time, the geography of the continents was considerably differant. Which created quite differant ocean currents. Hard to make any judgements for or against that argueing for less or more change from increasing the levels currently. Just another item that is being studied as well as quickly as we can.

 

[Old Rocks]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Very scientific.

NOT!

There is plenty that scientists DON'T know I'll admit that. But they've got a pretty good fix on what is "natural" and what is not on this planet.

Almost unanimously all CREDIBLE scientists agree that the rate the climate has been changing in the last 50 years does NOT fit any "natural" cycles of the planet.

Reliable instrument records only state in about 1980.

Prior to that, for all of the planet's long history, it was proxies and estimates for most of the world.

Bullshit. We have weather records for many places for at least a couple of hundred years with thermometers. And general weather records going back a couple of thousand years in Europe and the Mideast, farther than that in some parts of Asia.

 

[Old Rocks]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

Each doubling of CO2 may add 1 degree to the climate. We have another part of the current doubling to accomplish and then can start on the next one.

CO2 serves to increase your hysteria more effectively than it affects the climate.

The source for 1 degree is??? Or is that something you have pulled out of your asshole?

Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf