Arctic heat

[Crick]

So, you believe the negative glacier ice mass balance is simply due to the glacial cycle? You believe it has nothing to do with global warming? You look at these data and you believe the time scale correlates with the glacial-interglacial cycle? Nothing to do with AGW?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Meanwhile we froze our ass off in TX last night...

So let me get this right, OldCocks posts a graph which should leave one to conclude that the Northern Ice cap has lost about 1/3 of it's ice JUST THIS YEAR.

Logically then one can assume the sea level would have increased noticeably.

Of course it hasn't, and the pattern of deceit by the MMGW hoaxers continues unabated.

Now lets suppose you're the newly elected POTUS, and you're about to outline a budget for the next FY.

I wonder how terrified bed wetters are that a lot of the government funding that advanced this hoax may be cut off.

yes more so when the president elect

said he wants folks like nasa get into the real sciences again like space exploration

--LOL

 

[Crick]

So we can stop all that useless satellite data gathering they've been feathrbedding themselves with all these years. Weather, crops, ocean... all useless. Right?

 

[ding]

So, you believe the negative glacier ice mass balance is simply due to the glacial cycle? You believe it has nothing to do with global warming? You look at these data and you believe the time scale correlates with the glacial-interglacial cycle? Nothing to do with AGW?

Again... who are you talking to? Yourself?

 

[ding]

So we can stop all that useless satellite data gathering they've been feathrbedding themselves with all these years. Weather, crop, ocean... all useless. Right?

Same question... who are you talking to?

 

[Crick]

The public. You?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.

That's what happens in an interglacial period. Nothing new there.

By the Milancovitch Cycles, we should already be in a very gradual cooling, not a rapid warming. And you are beginning to sound like the rest of the ignoramouses here, flapping yap with no basis.

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

NATURAL CYCLE DEPARTURE
The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.

Natural vs. Modern Forcing


Natural vs. Modern Climate Path

 

[ding]

Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.

That's what happens in an interglacial period. Nothing new there.

By the Milancovitch Cycles, we should already be in a very gradual cooling, not a rapid warming. And you are beginning to sound like the rest of the ignoramouses here, flapping yap with no basis.

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

NATURAL CYCLE DEPARTURE
The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.

Natural vs. Modern Forcing


Natural vs. Modern Climate Path

Given that we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was above 400 ppm, they are wrong.

 

[ding]

The public. You?

I see. I believe that everything that has occurred is because we are in an interglacial period and that CO2 does not drive climate change, it reinforces climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.

That's what happens in an interglacial period. Nothing new there.

By the Milancovitch Cycles, we should already be in a very gradual cooling, not a rapid warming. And you are beginning to sound like the rest of the ignoramouses here, flapping yap with no basis.

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

NATURAL CYCLE DEPARTURE
The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.

Natural vs. Modern Forcing


Natural vs. Modern Climate Path

Given that we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was above 400 ppm, they are wrong.

We entered the present glacial, interglacial period about 2 1/2 million years ago, not 15 million years ago.

http://phys.org/news/2009-10-carbon-dioxide-high-million-years.html

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

 

[Old Rocks]

The public. You?

I see. I believe that everything that has occurred is because we are in an interglacial period and that CO2 does not drive climate change, it reinforces climate change.

Argue with they physicists. And the Geo-physicists. They say otherwise.

 

[ding]

Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.

That's what happens in an interglacial period. Nothing new there.

By the Milancovitch Cycles, we should already be in a very gradual cooling, not a rapid warming. And you are beginning to sound like the rest of the ignoramouses here, flapping yap with no basis.

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

NATURAL CYCLE DEPARTURE
The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.

Natural vs. Modern Forcing


Natural vs. Modern Climate Path

Given that we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was above 400 ppm, they are wrong.

We entered the present glacial, interglacial period about 2 1/2 million years ago, not 15 million years ago.

http://phys.org/news/2009-10-carbon-dioxide-high-million-years.html

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

Actually the oxygen isotope curve would indicate that we entered it as early as 5 million years ago when the saw tooth behavior began. It is through climate models that the 2.7 million year threshold was established. What's your point? CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.

 

[Crick]

CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.

Really? They prove it? Please explain how.

 

[ding]

CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.

Really? They prove it? Please explain how.

 

[ding]

CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.

Really? They prove it? Please explain how.

And... when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2.

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.

Really? They prove it? Please explain how.

And... when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2.

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.

View attachment 99975

Your talking above their heads.. They do not understand how a buffered system works. Or why we would glaciate at near 6,700ppm global CO2 levels. They can not fathom how or why. Their religion is paramount.

A new study, being prepared, shows that LWIR above >6um is being absorbed by water near ground level and then released at could top in the 12-18um band. Trenbreth's missing heat has been found in space. The mid troposphere hot spot, which the AGW hypothesis demands must occur, is nonexistent due to other atmospheric energy escape routes..

Again, they have no understanding of how buffered systems work.

 

[Billy_Bob]

To which component of radiative forcing do you refer?

Ok, so 1.68 C, right?

LOL.. Crick's paper has been shown to be inaccurate by almost 100% exaggeration in the CO2 emitted bands and power.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?

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)

View attachment 99694

View attachment 99697

I'm not sure of your attribution..

But here is one done by Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. It has also been used in many publications.

In any event you are correct about 95% of what CO2 can do is already done. It currently appears that temp rise of below 1 deg C/doubling is where we reside (0.78 Deg C) by empirical observation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If polar heating is the result of AGW, why are we setting low temperature records in Antarctica?

 

[ding]

Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?

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)

View attachment 99694

View attachment 99697

I'm not sure of your attribution..

But here is one done by Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. It has also been used in many publications.

View attachment 99980

In any event you are correct about 95% of what CO2 can do is already done. It currently appears that temp rise of below 1 deg C/doubling is where we reside (0.78 Deg C) by empirical observation.

I used the radiative forcing equation in wiki and converted it to temperature using the 0.75 C per W/m^2 conversion factor to prepare my plot.