Polar Ice

[Missourian]

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.


And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0hSZ8KLpD
​

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

 

[rdean]

Over geologic time, they have ebbed and flowed with natural climate cycles. Today, the world’s glaciers are in retreat, sped up by relatively rapid warming of the globe. In our own Glacier National Park in Montana, only 26 named glaciers remain out of the 150 known in 1850. They are predicted to be completely gone by 2030 if current warming continues at the same rate.

Stunning Views of Glaciers Seen From Space | Wired Science | Wired.com

Part of the Southern Patagonian Ice Field of Chile and Argentina, Grey Glacier covered 104 square miles when it was measured in 1996. By 2007, when this photograph was taken by astronauts from the International Space Station, the glacier had shrunk considerably, as seen in a comparative false-color image. Scientists think increased regional temperatures and changes in the amount of precipitation have led to more ice calving off as free-floating chunks, and less ice being replenished each year.

Upsala Glacier is the third largest glacier of the Southern Patagonian Ice Field at around 300 square miles and ends in Lake Argentino. Patagonian glaciers have been retreating rapidly in recent decades, some as much as 2.5 miles between the late 1960s and mid 1990s, making them a target for International Space Station crew observations. Upsala appears to still be retreating with visible changes between this photo taken in 2004 and another from 2000.

European glaciers have been rapidly retreating in recent years, due to higher summer temperatures and lower winter precipitation. Pasterze Glacier has been shrinking since 1856. Satellite data such as this image is used by scientists to keep track of the movement of glaciers around the world.

Bering Glacier, combined with the ice field that feeds it, is the largest glacier in North America at 2,000 square miles, as well as the longest at 118 miles. This glacier has retreated around 7.5 miles and thinned by several hundred yards over the last century, though it is still around 2,500 feet thick in some places. Scientists think the shrinking of Alaskan glaciers such as Bering has reduced the pressure on the boundary between tectonic plates beneath them and consequently increased the number of earthquakes in the region.

Images of the glacier atop Mount Stanley—one of Africa's Ruwenzori Mountains—from 1952 (left) and 2008 (right) show a dramatic drop in ice coverage over the past 50 years.

According to the conservation group WWF, these famed Mountains of the Moon have lost more than 50 percent of their ice in that time, raising concerns for the area's unique wildlife.

---------------------------------------------------------

It's not like it's just "data". You can actually "see it". Once glaciers are gone, no more cycle of evaporation, condensation, and fresh water. It will be just desert.

Some Republicans call the theory of evaporation "wild speculation".

 

[code1211]

It's not like it's just "data". You can actually "see it". Once glaciers are gone, no more cycle of evaporation, condensation, and fresh water. It will be just desert.

Some Republicans call the theory of evaporation "wild speculation".

Glaciers have grown and shrunk before. We know that glaciers result from snow that falls and does not melt year to year. We know that patterns of precititation can and do change. Dust Bowl in 30's. East Coast this winter.

The question is why the glaciers are shrinking right now, not if the glaciers are shrinking right now. If the cause is uniquely CO2, then you have something. if not, it's just an interesting observation.

The craze of noting that glaciers are shrinking seems to have cropped up pretty recently. Is there a record of shrinking glaciers that is more concurrent with the Industrial Revolution? Is there a record of growing Glaciers that pre-dates the industrial revolution? Is there any referance at all to change of any type in glaciers in recorded history?

We know for sure and for certain that we have only recently returned to a glacial extent in at least one place, Northern Italy, that we were at about 5000 years ago by the melting glacier that revealed Otsi lying on bare ground where he died 5 millenia ago.

We also are pretty sure that we are 1 degree cooler than we were 8000 ago. It's quite possible that our world has been unusually cool for the last 5000 years or so and it is now just returning to normalcy.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Old Rocks]

Glaciers have grown and receded before, oceans have gone acidic and anoxic before, there have been major extinctions from rapid climate change before. So why the hell should we worry because we are the cause of the present major changes?

No, we are not returning to 'normalcy'. The GHG level has not been where it is now for about 15 million years. And the increase in GHGs is accelerating, as the natural sources are now kicking in, the rate of acceleration will increase.

To see where we are headed one must look at what happened in the PETM. This is just the results in one locality;

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/50160kraus/ndx_kraus.pdf

Rapid Paleoenvironmental Change during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), Bighorn
Basin, WY*
Mary J. Kraus1, Daniel Woody1, Jon Smith2, and Stephen Hasiotis2
Search and Discovery Article #50160 (2009)
Posted January 16, 2009
*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX, April 20-23, 2008
1Dept of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. ([email protected])
2Department of Geology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Abstract
Interbedded alluvial paleosols and avulsion deposits were analyzed through a PETM section. Based on morphologic features, paleosol
profiles can be assigned to a particular position along a paleosol continuum that ranges from well drained to poorly drained end
members. Using this qualitative approach, paleosols in the main PETM interval developed under drier conditions than pre-PETM
paleosols. Quantitative estimates of mean annual precipitation (MAP) using a paleosol climofunction confirm this conclusion. The
paleosols also show that seasonality increased during the PETM. The stratigraphic distributions of manganiferous rhizoliths and
crayfish burrows, both of which are absent or less common in the PETM part of the section, also show lower water tables and
increased seasonality during the warming event.
The alluvial architecture also changes in the PETM interval. Avulsion deposits separate successive paleosols from one another through
the section. Those in the main body of the carbon isotope excursion (CIE) are finer grained and less well developed than those below
or above the PETM interval. Consequently, the avulsion deposits tend to be incorporated into the paleosols, and paleosols are more
densely spaced. The thick red paleosols that characterize the PETM interval are the result of the welding of vertically superposed
paleosols. Paleosol complexity also changes. Multiple horizons and intense overprinting of pedogenic features dominate paleosols in
the main body of the CIE. In contrast, paleosols directly above and below the PETM interval are relatively simple, with few
subdivisions of the B horizon(s) and fewer signs of pedogenic overprinting. These features suggest that sediment accumulation was
slower and more episodic during the main body of the PETM interval than in deposits directly below and above. The changes in
deposition are linked to climatic controls.

 

[Old Rocks]

This directly relates to what we are seeing at present in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates;

Biogeochemical impacts of methane hydrate destabilization during the PETM

2009AGUFMPP41A1494C

Abstract
We use GENIE-1, an intermediate complexity Earth system model, to test the theory that thermal dissociation of methane hydrates contributed to rapid climate change at the PETM and to possibly determine the geographic location of this reservoir. Our model uses an early Eocene paleogeography configuration and HadCM3L-predicted 2-D wind stress fields. Previous work with GENIE has shown its utility in constraining the size and magnitude of carbon release during the PETM. Initial results indicate x4 preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 best match late-Paleocene proxy measurements. We will also run the model at x3 and x6 CO2. If methane is oxidized in the oceans, this should cause an oxygen deficiency in the deep oceans and we should be able to track the release of carbon along the path of ocean circulation. Depletion of bottom-water oxygen should be widespread in the reservoir where methane oxidation occurred. Modeled sediment records from GENIE will be compared to observations from geochemical proxies of bottom-water oxygen. Redox sensitive trace metal enrichment factors in marine sediments indicate reducing conditions prior, during, and in the recovery of the PETM at intermediate depth sites in the Atlantic and Southern Ocean while the Pacific sites remain oxygenated. These results suggest the Atlantic Ocean could have been the source for methane release during the PETM. However, decreases in oxygen can be related to a combination of methane oxidation, bottom-water warming, and changes in deep-ocean circulation. We will investigate potential reorganization of global ocean circulation in response to increasing atmospheric pCO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Manipulating data, changing methodologies when the results don't support you, and just plain greed for research dollars are what brought this science to the level of alchemy.

Old Rocks, did you miss the big release of methane in Siberia?
Methane Leaks off Siberian Coast, Speeding Climate Change: Scientific American

Ocean currents are causing that. Just like ocean currents are causing the shifts in regional heat or cooling.

Calling the men and women of science names when their results do not agree with the way you think things ought to be is the sign of a weak mind unable to face reality.

So, just ocean currents are causing the permafrost in Siberia and North America to outgas? Just ocean currents that have been warmed by an atmosphere that has been warmed because of the GHGs man has put into it.

The Arctic Ocean clathrates are outgassing far ealier than even the most pessimistic 'Alarmist' thought they would. The amount of GHGs being emitted in Siberian and North American permafrost has taken everyone by surprise. The amount of ice lost in the Artic Ocean in the last five years, and the resultant absorption of sunlight, has resulted in a significant increase in the temperature of the water. Which tranlates to a later freeze. Which creates more time to absorb even more heat, which.........

Now as the Arctic clathrates out gass, and the Yedoma does the same, there is a good deall higher amount of CH4 in the atmosphere over the Arctic. It does mix, but for a few months of the summer, the level is far higher than the present 1.8 ppm in the rest of the atmosphere. And, since CH4 is immediately 23 times as effective of a GHG as CO2, that is very significant. For more heat absorbed by the atmosphere there means more CH4 released by the yedoma, which means............

But, of cours, all this is irrelevant, a bunch of people that deny reality on an internet message board state that it is not happening, the Arctic Ice is not going away, the permafrost is not melting, the Inuit are in on the conspiracy to fool all the 'Libruls'.

And all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major universities. And everyone single person that hikes the mountains and notices that the glaciers have receded in a major way in almost all mountain ranges. Then there are those damned lying satellite pictures.

Why yes, ocean currents do cause regional heating and cooling. That is why it is so important to notice that over the past 50 years, the La Ninas have been getting warmer, as have the El Ninos. And the global temperature has been rising quite fast, even in Dr. Spencers graphs.

You have yet to prove that GHG's emitted by Man ar the cause. Just saying it's so don't make it so.

That no Alarmist was able to make this prediction indicates something. What might it be?

a. They have no clue what is happening.
b. They know exactly what they are talking about, but this outgassing is occurring due a different cause althogether. So, again, they don't know what they are talking about as this is concerned.

You are correct. We don't know enough about the feedback loops to make accurate predictions.

But your conclusions are pure idiocy.

You are saying that since the scientists are not predicting the rapidity with which our actions are causing the earth to change, that we should just continue as we are.

That is kind of like an alcoholic that thinks that just another bottle will make him feel better. Only it is the coming generations that will pay the price.

 

[code1211]

You have yet to prove that GHG's emitted by Man ar the cause. Just saying it's so don't make it so.

That no Alarmist was able to make this prediction indicates something. What might it be?

a. They have no clue what is happening.
b. They know exactly what they are talking about, but this outgassing is occurring due a different cause althogether. So, again, they don't know what they are talking about as this is concerned.

You are correct. We don't know enough about the feedback loops to make accurate predictions.

But your conclusions are pure idiocy.

You are saying that since the scientists are not predicting the rapidity with which our actions are causing the earth to change, that we should just continue as we are.

That is kind of like an alcoholic that thinks that just another bottle will make him feel better. Only it is the coming generations that will pay the price.

I think it's more like thinking that if we don't burn this witch, it probably won't do any harm.

You have to prove that the problem is CO2 before changing the whole world makes any sense. Going on a witch hunt to destroy any who think they drive a car is not particularly stupid so much as it is crazy.

Prove your case before you recomend the solution. Right now, you have not proven your case.

You say that I claim that scientists have not predicted "the rapidity with which our actions are causing the Earth to change." That is untrue. What I claim is that in the instance of CO2 driving climate change, scientists have yet to prove that our actions are causing the Earth to change at all.

They, too, have yet to prove their case.

 

[code1211]

This directly relates to what we are seeing at present in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates;

Biogeochemical impacts of methane hydrate destabilization during the PETM

2009AGUFMPP41A1494C

Abstract
We use GENIE-1, an intermediate complexity Earth system model, to test the theory that thermal dissociation of methane hydrates contributed to rapid climate change at the PETM and to possibly determine the geographic location of this reservoir. Our model uses an early Eocene paleogeography configuration and HadCM3L-predicted 2-D wind stress fields. Previous work with GENIE has shown its utility in constraining the size and magnitude of carbon release during the PETM. Initial results indicate x4 preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 best match late-Paleocene proxy measurements. We will also run the model at x3 and x6 CO2. If methane is oxidized in the oceans, this should cause an oxygen deficiency in the deep oceans and we should be able to track the release of carbon along the path of ocean circulation. Depletion of bottom-water oxygen should be widespread in the reservoir where methane oxidation occurred. Modeled sediment records from GENIE will be compared to observations from geochemical proxies of bottom-water oxygen. Redox sensitive trace metal enrichment factors in marine sediments indicate reducing conditions prior, during, and in the recovery of the PETM at intermediate depth sites in the Atlantic and Southern Ocean while the Pacific sites remain oxygenated. These results suggest the Atlantic Ocean could have been the source for methane release during the PETM. However, decreases in oxygen can be related to a combination of methane oxidation, bottom-water warming, and changes in deep-ocean circulation. We will investigate potential reorganization of global ocean circulation in response to increasing atmospheric pCO2.

Well, there you go again with that PETM canard. Some differences between today and the time of the PETM:

1. The PETM was about 55 million years ago.
2. Using the average temperature of that time extent as the baseline, out temperature today has an anamoly of about minus 3.5.
3. The comparitive Global Climate was about 14 degrees warmer immediately prior to the PETM at +10.
4. The continents were in entirely different places then vs. now.
5. Everything that the placement of the continents might affect like ocean and wind currents or polar formation of ice was affected.
6. The Moon was closer to the Earth by a factor of 65 million times the distance that it receeds annually which is about 3.8 cm. Tides were far more violent as a result.

From the perspective of the PETM and whether or not it might occur today based on current conditions, you might as well be comparing today's world to a different planet.


http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Very interesting.

Around march 1st, the Arctic Sea ice Extent curve bent up to almost touch the range of standard deviation for the average 1979 to 2000.

Meanwhile, at the South Pole, Sea Ice is about 90,000 square kilometers above the 30 year average.

Dr. Hansen must, we may assume, be rechecking his figures. Again.

If it's so freakin' hot, where is all this ice coming from?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure2.png

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure6.png

Yes, very interesting, indeed. The north polar ice is actually touching the bottom of the two standard deviation range for the present date.

It is only 106,000,000 square kilometers below the 30 year average.

In the mean time, the South Polar sea ice is 90,000 square kilometers above average.

So what you are saying is that 90,000 is larger and more significant than 106,000,000? Perhaps you should recheck your logic.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

I really think it is you that needs to re-check my logic.

What I said was that the South Pole's ice is above average and the North Pole's Ice has grown to almost within the range of standard deviation. The "logic" of the folks claiming iminent disaster is that it is warming and, as a result, the Polar ice will be completely melted in the next 30 or so years.

The ice, ice is so stupid, just can't seem to get on the program.

If it is going to be completely gone in 30 years, it better speed up already. It's current progress is simply glacial.

I wonder how THICK the ice is that would seem to have some importance RIGHT?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Ah no response, no surprise.

 

[rdean]

It's not like it's just "data". You can actually "see it". Once glaciers are gone, no more cycle of evaporation, condensation, and fresh water. It will be just desert.

Some Republicans call the theory of evaporation "wild speculation".

Glaciers have grown and shrunk before. We know that glaciers result from snow that falls and does not melt year to year. We know that patterns of precititation can and do change. Dust Bowl in 30's. East Coast this winter.

The question is why the glaciers are shrinking right now, not if the glaciers are shrinking right now. If the cause is uniquely CO2, then you have something. if not, it's just an interesting observation.

The craze of noting that glaciers are shrinking seems to have cropped up pretty recently. Is there a record of shrinking glaciers that is more concurrent with the Industrial Revolution? Is there a record of growing Glaciers that pre-dates the industrial revolution? Is there any referance at all to change of any type in glaciers in recorded history?

We know for sure and for certain that we have only recently returned to a glacial extent in at least one place, Northern Italy, that we were at about 5000 years ago by the melting glacier that revealed Otsi lying on bare ground where he died 5 millenia ago.

We also are pretty sure that we are 1 degree cooler than we were 8000 ago. It's quite possible that our world has been unusually cool for the last 5000 years or so and it is now just returning to normalcy.

Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Ironic that you mention "Dust Bowl in 30's". Some thought much of that was "man made".

The Dust Bowl

When settlers came to the area, they built farms and planted crops. Their crops replaced the natural grasses in the area, which had root systems more capable of sustaining life under the difficult conditions.
In addition, the farmers grazed their animals over large areas and plowed entire fields at the end of each harvest. These factors also hurt the soil and were causes of the Dust Bowl.

In 1890 and 1910, major droughts occurred. New and more severe droughts followed in the period 1926-1934. The condition of the area became even more fragile.

In 1934, windstorms covered the Great Plains. They easily uplifted the soil, blowing massive clouds of dust all over the plains.

Thousands of people were forced to leave their homes because of the Dust Bowl. 89 million acres of land were severely damaged or destroyed. The Dust Bowl only served to make the Great Depression even more miserable.

Fearing a recurrence of the disaster, or that crop land would be destroyed forever, the United States formed the Soil Conservation Service in 1935. It worked towards improving soil conservation methods throughout the Great Plains area.

--------------------------------------------------------

Then that dreaded "Government" stepped in to help and manage. I bet it was just filled with all those awful scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have yet to prove that GHG's emitted by Man ar the cause. Just saying it's so don't make it so.

That no Alarmist was able to make this prediction indicates something. What might it be?

a. They have no clue what is happening.
b. They know exactly what they are talking about, but this outgassing is occurring due a different cause althogether. So, again, they don't know what they are talking about as this is concerned.

You are correct. We don't know enough about the feedback loops to make accurate predictions.

But your conclusions are pure idiocy.

You are saying that since the scientists are not predicting the rapidity with which our actions are causing the earth to change, that we should just continue as we are.

That is kind of like an alcoholic that thinks that just another bottle will make him feel better. Only it is the coming generations that will pay the price.

I think it's more like thinking that if we don't burn this witch, it probably won't do any harm.

You have to prove that the problem is CO2 before changing the whole world makes any sense. Going on a witch hunt to destroy any who think they drive a car is not particularly stupid so much as it is crazy.

Prove your case before you recomend the solution. Right now, you have not proven your case.

You say that I claim that scientists have not predicted "the rapidity with which our actions are causing the Earth to change." That is untrue. What I claim is that in the instance of CO2 driving climate change, scientists have yet to prove that our actions are causing the Earth to change at all.

They, too, have yet to prove their case.

They have proven the case. And I have repeatedly posted that proof. Proof from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now if you can come up with real physicists that claim otherwise, do so. Note that I will check out their other work, and fruitcakes such as Lycklama, will do your arguement more harm than good.

And there is direct observational evidence;



Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

 

[saveliberty]

You are correct. We don't know enough about the feedback loops to make accurate predictions.

But your conclusions are pure idiocy.

You are saying that since the scientists are not predicting the rapidity with which our actions are causing the earth to change, that we should just continue as we are.

That is kind of like an alcoholic that thinks that just another bottle will make him feel better. Only it is the coming generations that will pay the price.

I think it's more like thinking that if we don't burn this witch, it probably won't do any harm.

You have to prove that the problem is CO2 before changing the whole world makes any sense. Going on a witch hunt to destroy any who think they drive a car is not particularly stupid so much as it is crazy.

Prove your case before you recomend the solution. Right now, you have not proven your case.

You say that I claim that scientists have not predicted "the rapidity with which our actions are causing the Earth to change." That is untrue. What I claim is that in the instance of CO2 driving climate change, scientists have yet to prove that our actions are causing the Earth to change at all.

They, too, have yet to prove their case.

They have proven the case. And I have repeatedly posted that proof. Proof from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now if you can come up with real physicists that claim otherwise, do so. Note that I will check out their other work, and fruitcakes such as Lycklama, will do your arguement more harm than good.

And there is direct observational evidence;



Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Gee if we are at the tipping point, the outgassing of methane (CH4) from Siberia probably means were past the point of no return huh? Yet ice caps continue a net growth pattern. Record cold in many places on the globe. Most predictions of the climatologists are not coming true and Al Gore continues to mislead us on the issue.

P.S. Your source said nothing about man as the source of this problem. Also, CFC-11 (Freon-11) was outlawed in the US in 1995 and concentrations are falling globally:
File:AYool CFC-11 history.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CFC-12 (Freon-12) was banned in the US in 1994 and cncentrations are stopped growing:
File:AYool CFC-12 history.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any more science bulldroppings you want to fling today?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Has the DEPTH of ice grown? Do you KNOW? OBVIOUSLY you DON'T because if you DID then you would understand that COVERAGE does NOT equal DEPTH so we have, in FACT, a LOSS of polar ice. A loss in the HUNDREDS of GIGATONNES!!!

 

[sherp]

Has the DEPTH of ice grown? Do you KNOW? OBVIOUSLY you DON'T because if you DID then you would understand that COVERAGE does NOT equal DEPTH so we have, in FACT, a LOSS of polar ice. A loss in the HUNDREDS of GIGATONNES!!!

Right!!! Moving the goalposts again. The Climate Warming thing is blown out of the water.
As James Delinpole wrote at the Telegraph.co.uk, " Sorry Chaps, it won't wash. The debate has moved on. It not about the "science" anymore. Its about Economics, Politics, Money and the Texpayer versus Big Government". With Emailgate, Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, Africagate and Hurricanegate, how anyone can keep touting the Hockey Team's stuff is a mysterty to me. Catch Phil Jones on Youtube in the UK investigation. The poor, pale, frightened old man exposes the scam himself. Their stuff has all been exposed and yet the Warmer's ignore the lies and deceipt to trump this discredited "science". There is a letter at the Stockholm Initiative where the hear Climate guy states that Jones was wrong about the Swedes not sharing its data with the world. All the Sweden data is in the public Domain. Big Al, the Warmers "science" and the Hockey Team are going down.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

HUNDREDS OF GIGATONNES OF ARCTIC ICE GONE. Pointing to the increase of ice COVERAGE doesn't change the FACT that hundres of GIGATONNES of ice has melted.

 

[code1211]

You are correct. We don't know enough about the feedback loops to make accurate predictions.

But your conclusions are pure idiocy.

You are saying that since the scientists are not predicting the rapidity with which our actions are causing the earth to change, that we should just continue as we are.

That is kind of like an alcoholic that thinks that just another bottle will make him feel better. Only it is the coming generations that will pay the price.

I think it's more like thinking that if we don't burn this witch, it probably won't do any harm.

You have to prove that the problem is CO2 before changing the whole world makes any sense. Going on a witch hunt to destroy any who think they drive a car is not particularly stupid so much as it is crazy.

Prove your case before you recomend the solution. Right now, you have not proven your case.

You say that I claim that scientists have not predicted "the rapidity with which our actions are causing the Earth to change." That is untrue. What I claim is that in the instance of CO2 driving climate change, scientists have yet to prove that our actions are causing the Earth to change at all.

They, too, have yet to prove their case.

They have proven the case. And I have repeatedly posted that proof. Proof from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now if you can come up with real physicists that claim otherwise, do so. Note that I will check out their other work, and fruitcakes such as Lycklama, will do your arguement more harm than good.

And there is direct observational evidence;



Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

We are 0.7 degrees warmer today than we were 2000 years ago.

We are 1.0 degrees cooler than we were 8000 years ago.

Which of your physicists can explain this by the increase in CO2?

Theories are all well and good, but results is what buys the groceries.

 

[code1211]

HUNDREDS OF GIGATONNES OF ARCTIC ICE GONE. Pointing to the increase of ice COVERAGE doesn't change the FACT that hundres of GIGATONNES of ice has melted.

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

 

[Chris]

HUNDREDS OF GIGATONNES OF ARCTIC ICE GONE. Pointing to the increase of ice COVERAGE doesn't change the FACT that hundres of GIGATONNES of ice has melted.

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

HUNDREDS OF GIGATONNES OF ARCTIC ICE GONE. Pointing to the increase of ice COVERAGE doesn't change the FACT that hundres of GIGATONNES of ice has melted.

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Ahhh "Climate Change" season... I haven't gone through the thread, but out of curiosity... how many posts do we have from those desperate to point out the recent spikes in the ICE melt in Antartica>? Which are a result of the recent spike in the average daily temperatures in Antartica... which are due to it being SUMMER in Antartica?

ROFL...
















Leftists...

OH! Isn't it odd that with all that melting ice... that sea-levels haven't increased a scintilla?

Not a Giga-inch...