Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[Foxfyre]

I used to have as my sig line:

I pledge from this day forward, to the best of my ability, not to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of utter futility."

I of course break my pledge now and then, but I do find it helpful to remind myself of it now and then. Makes the world a whole lot less frustrating.

 

[RollingThunder]

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths:
Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH....

No, what is UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH IS YOU, G'TARD. What I posted is sound science, something you're totally unfamiliar with, you little twit.

BUllshit... On various levels...

That's you and your posts all right - pure bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about. You just make up your own pseudo-"facts" and pretend you know more than the scientists who have spent their lives researching all this.

1. CO2 varies by temperature as well.... Its a fact warmer oceans release more CO2, colder water much, much less CO2...

More of your bullshit, g'tard. CO2 levels do not vary significantly by temperature. This is another example of you just making it up without any scientific backing for your drivel.

2. This sentence in the above quote.. "It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds."

Really??? Including clouds??? Water vapor forms clouds you idiot, so yeah including clouds...... Yeah, bullshit alarm going off yet?

My bullshit alarm goes off whenever you post anything, slack-jawed. Water vapor has a different effect than clouds so they are often considered separately. This is just more of your general ignorance of science.

3. This sentence above...."It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."

Really?? Then since CO2 varies with temperature its is not considered a "forcing" either....

But CO2 levels do not vary significantly with temperature. You try to 'reason' from idiotically wrong premises and you just wind up with more bullshit. You are very apparently far too stupid and ignorant to even understand the difference between a climate 'forcing' and a climate 'feedback', moron.

Unbelievable, the lack of critical thought shown by anyone buying this bunch of pseudo-science BS..... Dude they are making fun of you, and you not only allow it, but you think buying this bullshit makes you appear smart or intelligent.....

G'tard, you are an idiot so don't even think of talking about "critical thought". What is really unbelievable is that you seem to be able use a computer. I would have guessed that you would have trouble tying your own shoes.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

BULLSHIT!

1. What the fuck does "(in terms of climate response times)" mean exactly? pretty ambiguous statement really, could mean anything... We call that a bullshit statement.

You don't know what it means so it must be bullshit. LOL. Classic. I know what it means and so do the scientists and most everybody else who reads that. You're just too retarded to comprehend plain English. Everything you say is a "bullshit statement" because you are so ignorant about science.

Its one of these weaselly things you can say that is neither true nor false because its entirely interpretive. They don't have to prove that, so they use it to make it sound scary....Some scientists...

No, it's not, it is actually quite clear and straightforward. You're just too idiotic and deluded to be able to comprehend it.

2. THis sentence.... "If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times)."

Really??? So if I spray a hose into the air all day it will rain some time in my yard or nearby because of it? LOL, sure it will pal sure....

Are you really that stupid? Oh, what am I saying, of course you are. You're actually stupid enough to imagine that the tiny amount of water you could put in the air changes the overall humidity for your area. You are a true retard, g'sock.

Rain has much more to do with temperatures than simply how much H2O is in the air... Why does it hardly rain in Los Angeles despite all the people using water every minute for everything??? Well tool its because of its unique position and the weather patterns and winds prone to that area. All the H2O they use is evaporated and then where does it go? Well it follows the weather, winds, and temps in that area, and a great deal of it ends up dumped in places like rain forests...

You are soooo ignorant. LA sits next to an ocean and the amount of water vapor in the air moving over LA has almost nothing to do with the water usage of its inhabitants. It sometimes doesn't rain that much there because most of the water in the air blows east and only condenses when it rises to go over the mountains. Other times it pours there and they have floods. Nobody said the rain happens exactly where the water is evaporating. The fact is though that if the amount of water vapor in the air get high then it rains out somewhere.

Completely ignorant ... a complete moron....

Yes, you are indeed. As you demonstrate with every post you make.

3. This entire paragraph really....."This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans."

OMFG!!!! Dude seriously prove any bit of that anyway you can, I would love to see it..

precipitation would remove H2O from the air??? And that would make the earth even colder?????

Precipitation = rain
H2O = water
Precipitation removes H2O from the air. Too bad you're too stupid to understand that, g'tard.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas so yes, removing the water vapor from the air would cause more cooling which would cause more water to condense and rain out causing more cooling. Exactly what they said, dumbass.

The author of that crap is an IDIOT!!!! And anyone who cites him is a moron!!!

You can't understand it so the author is an idiot? LOLOLOL. No, slack-jawed, it is obvious to anyone with an above room temperature IQ that it is you that is the moronic idiot.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

More bullshit....

1. The following sentence..... "CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess."

Oh Really???? So CO2 from fossil fuels is different than other CO2? And natural sinks are the only way it is removed from the atmosphere now? Meaning of course no ocean acidification from man made CO2 emissions... If fossil fuel CO2 (man made) relies on sinks to be removed from the atmosphere than no way it can be adding to the oceans acidity....

Your previous nonsense was very stupid but this is ultra-stupid. Fossil fuel CO2 is the same as natural CO2 except for a very slight difference in the isotope ratios. Since we haven't yet come up with any good ways to artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, natural carbon sinks are, in fact, the way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Natural carbon sinks include the oceans, moron. I think you have 'sinks', as it is used here, confused with that thing in your kitchen, as might be expected from such a complete retard as you.

You fucking idiots will cite anything and call it evidence even if its claims nullify all your other claims... LOL too funny...

It is very funny that you are sooooo clueless and yet so sure that your idiotic misinterpretations of all the info in that article are correct.

Carbon sink
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.

The main natural sinks are:

* Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans
* Photosynthesis by plants and algae

Seriously, did you actually READ ANY OF IT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT?????

I not only read it, I understood it. Something you failed to do, as usual.

 

[RollingThunder]

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!

You posted the exact same excuse old socks posted...... How coincidental is that??????

It is hardly "coincidental" that when two people have the correct information, they would agree.

you can lie all you want to but this is from the AMS site itself tool..

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM

yeah you are fucking outted and so is sourcewatch they lied plain and simple.....

If you can turn up some direct evidence showing that Watts actually got a degree in Meteorology, then you might have a case but I don't think you can. Do you really think that if he had a degree, he would keep it secret? LOL.

And as I said before, none of that really affects the fact that his efforts to discredit the US temperature records have been repeatedly debunked by professional climate scientists. Watts is professional denier but he is no climate scientist and his blog, 'Wattatwat', is filled with denier cult propaganda and idiotic misinformation.

 

[westwall]

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!

You posted the exact same excuse old socks posted...... How coincidental is that??????

It is hardly "coincidental" that when two people have the correct information, they would agree.

you can lie all you want to but this is from the AMS site itself tool..

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM

yeah you are fucking outted and so is sourcewatch they lied plain and simple.....

If you can turn up some direct evidence showing that Watts actually got a degree in Meteorology, then you might have a case but I don't think you can. Do you really think that if he had a degree, he would keep it secret? LOL.

And as I said before, none of that really affects the fact that his efforts to discredit the US temperature records have been repeatedly debunked by professional climate scientists. Watts is professional denier but he is no climate scientist and his blog, 'Wattatwat', is filled with denier cult propaganda and idiotic misinformation.

Little boy,

I have had the displeasure of dealing with twerps far more intelligent than you ever will be. You are a cretin, a bufoon, someone of no account. You have demonstrated that you are no better than the pimple on a mosquito's bum.

Until you apologise to gslack for your incredibly inafantile behavior you are not welcome in the adult world. Until you apologise to gslack I am ostracizing you and I suggest the other adults do likewise.

 

[RollingThunder]

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!

You posted the exact same excuse old socks posted...... How coincidental is that??????

It is hardly "coincidental" that when two people have the correct information, they would agree.

you can lie all you want to but this is from the AMS site itself tool..

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM

yeah you are fucking outted and so is sourcewatch they lied plain and simple.....

If you can turn up some direct evidence showing that Watts actually got a degree in Meteorology, then you might have a case but I don't think you can. Do you really think that if he had a degree, he would keep it secret? LOL.

And as I said before, none of that really affects the fact that his efforts to discredit the US temperature records have been repeatedly debunked by professional climate scientists. Watts is professional denier but he is no climate scientist and his blog, 'Wattatwat', is filled with denier cult propaganda and idiotic misinformation.

Little boy,

I have had the displeasure of dealing with twerps far more intelligent than you ever will be. You are a cretin, a bufoon, someone of no account. You have demonstrated that you are no better than the pimple on a mosquito's bum.

Until you apologise to gslack for your incredibly inafantile behavior you are not welcome in the adult world. Until you apologise to gslack I am ostracizing you and I suggest the other adults do likewise.

I really don't give a fuck what you think, dirtbag. You're a total retard and your threads are all nonsense, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Now you're going to run away because you can't handle being exposed as such a lying loon.

 

[gslack]

LOL trolling thunder blew a gasket.... he's repeating himself like an idiot now....

LOL what's wrong little fella you crying again?????

 

[gslack]

A few simple points for the idiot tool trolling blunder....

You said...

Your previous nonsense was very stupid but this is ultra-stupid. Fossil fuel CO2 is the same as natural CO2 except for a very slight difference in the isotope ratios. Since we haven't yet come up with any good ways to artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, natural carbon sinks are, in fact, the way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Natural carbon sinks include the oceans, moron. I think you have 'sinks', as it is used here, confused with that thing in your kitchen, as might be expected from such a complete retard as you.

Yeah I was making fun of your article you cited.. it said this....

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

SO..... Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature?? yeah pretty fucking stupid huh just like you said tool..... Ok so now We are really laughing at you....

And (there is more) why did YOUR articel try and imply "natural sinks" were some kind of extra thing? yeah they tried to sell it differently in that part above.. By reading your cited article it gives the distinct impression natural sinks are something outside the normal CO2 cycle and man made CO2 is only removed by them... So... again its called pointing out your articles stupidity and bullshit... Got it yet???

All of my answers were responsive to your article tool.... LOL, you really are this ignorant aren't you... OMG.... Dude get out and talk to people in the real world for a while... Seriously...

 

[gslack]

This all too true especially when it comes to these warmers...

 

[RollingThunder]

A few simple points for the idiot tool trolling blunder....

You said...

Your previous nonsense was very stupid but this is ultra-stupid. Fossil fuel CO2 is the same as natural CO2 except for a very slight difference in the isotope ratios. Since we haven't yet come up with any good ways to artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, natural carbon sinks are, in fact, the way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Natural carbon sinks include the oceans, moron. I think you have 'sinks', as it is used here, confused with that thing in your kitchen, as might be expected from such a complete retard as you.

Yeah I was making fun of your article you cited.. it said this....

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

SO..... Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature??

They didn't try to "imply" that at all. You're just too retarded to comprehend what people are saying. Mankind is putting 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and that extra CO2 swamps the natural processes of carbon emission and sequestration that has been in a natural balance for many thousands of years. The natural carbon sinks get overwhelmed and can't take the excess CO2 out of the air so it accumulates in the atmosphere, as the records of rising CO2 levels illustrate. Basic climate science, which you are, of course, completely ignorant of.

yeah pretty fucking stupid huh just like you said tool..... Ok so now We are really laughing at you....

No moron, I said you were pretty fucking stupid, as you've just now once again demonstrated.

And (there is more) why did YOUR articel(sic) try and imply "natural sinks" were some kind of extra thing?

They stated the matter clearly and didn't "imply" any such thing. The natural sinks are what is currently removing the natural CO2 emissions and a portion of mankind's emissions too but their capacity is limited and excess CO2 is accumulating and raising atmospheric levels of this powerful greenhouse gas.

yeah they tried to sell it differently in that part above.. By reading your cited article it gives the distinct impression natural sinks are something outside the normal CO2 cycle and man made CO2 is only removed by them...

That's just your inability to understand simple English because you're so retarded, g'tard. Natural sinks are half of the normal CO2 cycle, the other half being the natural carbon emissions. You're an idiot.

So... again its called pointing out your articles stupidity and bullshit... Got it yet???

No, it's called you making a fool of yourself again because you're too brain-damaged to comprehend simple science, slack-jawed.

All of my answers were responsive to your article tool....

No, all your answers were just more of your senile bullshit based on your total inability to understand what the article was saying, g'turd.

LOL, you really are this ignorant aren't you... OMG.... Dude get out and talk to people in the real world for a while... Seriously...

I think everybody but your denier cult butt-buddies can see clearly who is the ignorant one here, g'sock. In the real world, you and the other denier cultists are seen as the new 'flat earth society' and all the intelligent people laugh at you.

 

[gslack]

LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you... You tell me I am too stupid to get it..... Okay.....LOL, so then why didn't you understand who made the points you attributed to me?

LOL, if ya had read it like you claim, you would have known I was using their claims and speaking fo their statements. But clearly you thought they were my own or that i was making them up using bits of your article... So any explanation for that??? Or am I too stupid to understand its all part of your master plan????

LOL, you set yourself up to look like a moron for what purpose exactly??????

 

[Foxfyre]

The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him. That is pretty effective.

Meanwhile, I was reading that on this day in 1783, the volcano Laki, in Iceland, erupted and continued to do so for eight months killing over 9,000 people. That eruption was credited for a seven-year famine.

Given the mentality of some of our brethren these days, they would have blamed that on anthropogenic global warming too. Or would have considered it insignificant in face of the comparably miniscule effect on climate that can be attributed to modern human activity.

 

[gslack]

The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him. That is pretty effective.

Meanwhile, I was reading that on this day in 1783, the volcano Laki, in Iceland, erupted and continued to do so for eight months killing over 9,000 people. That eruption was credited for a seven-year famine.

Given the mentality of some of our brethren these days, they would have blamed that on anthropogenic global warming too. Or would have considered it insignificant in face of the comparably miniscule effect on climate that can be attributed to modern human activity.

you're probably right fox, but I have difficulty letting deliberate liars off the hook... Its the Libra in me coming out I suppose LOL...

 

[Foxfyre]

The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him. That is pretty effective.

Meanwhile, I was reading that on this day in 1783, the volcano Laki, in Iceland, erupted and continued to do so for eight months killing over 9,000 people. That eruption was credited for a seven-year famine.

Given the mentality of some of our brethren these days, they would have blamed that on anthropogenic global warming too. Or would have considered it insignificant in face of the comparably miniscule effect on climate that can be attributed to modern human activity.

you're probably right fox, but I have difficulty letting deliberate liars off the hook... Its the Libra in me coming out I suppose LOL...

Yeah well I'm Virgo. Practical to the core.

 

[gslack]

The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him. That is pretty effective.

Meanwhile, I was reading that on this day in 1783, the volcano Laki, in Iceland, erupted and continued to do so for eight months killing over 9,000 people. That eruption was credited for a seven-year famine.

Given the mentality of some of our brethren these days, they would have blamed that on anthropogenic global warming too. Or would have considered it insignificant in face of the comparably miniscule effect on climate that can be attributed to modern human activity.

you're probably right fox, but I have difficulty letting deliberate liars off the hook... Its the Libra in me coming out I suppose LOL...

Yeah well I'm Virgo. Practical to the core.

Touche'... LOL scary combo....

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you...

The only thing I've faced here is your abysmal ignorance and your insane bullshit, g'tard.

You tell me I am too stupid to get it..... Okay....

Absolutely!!! As you have made obvious to everyone but your denier cult buttbuddies who are almost as stupid as you are.

LOL, so then why didn't you understand who made the points you attributed to me?

I was addressing the fallacious and pretty idiotic 'points' you imagined you were making based on your total inability to understand what was being said in that article.

if ya had read it like you claim, you would have known I was using their claims and speaking fo their statements.

I read it and I understood the article. You read it in your own retarded, half-assed way and couldn't comprehend what was being said. All of your idiotic misinterpretations were ridiculously wrong, as I pointed out in detail. You are a moronic nutjob and you can't understand plain English.

But clearly you thought they were my own or that i was making them up using bits of your article...

Your stupid misunderstandings of what was being said were definitely your own. Like this one: "Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature??". The article did not say or imply that. You're just too moronic to see that.

So any explanation for that???

Sure. You're an ignorant idiot. Same explanation for all of your drivel and lies.

Or am I too stupid to understand????

Why yes, you are way too stupid to understand what is being said by those scientists. As you have made very obvious in all of your retarded posts.

 

[gslack]

LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you...

The only thing I've faced here is your abysmal ignorance and your insane bullshit, g'tard.

You tell me I am too stupid to get it..... Okay....

Absolutely!!! As you have made obvious to everyone but your denier cult buttbuddies who are almost as stupid as you are.



I was addressing the fallacious and pretty idiotic 'points' you imagined you were making based on your total inability to understand what was being said in that article.





I read it and I understood the article. You read it in your own retarded, half-assed way and couldn't comprehend what was being said. All of your idiotic misinterpretations were ridiculously wrong, as I pointed out in detail. You are a moronic nutjob and you can't understand plain English.




Your stupid misunderstandings of what was being said were definitely your own. Like this one: "Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature??". The article did not say or imply that. You're just too moronic to see that.

So any explanation for that???

Sure. You're an ignorant idiot. Same explanation for all of your drivel and lies.

Or am I too stupid to understand????

Why yes, you are way too stupid to understand what is being said by those scientists. As you have made very obvious in all of your retarded posts.

Funny how you adopted the same lame tactic 3 of your ilk tried to use when they couldn't hang any longer..... Separating each line or two like a OCD victim in the hopes you can make the thread too asinine and redundant for anyone to bother reading or caring...

So either you been following me around, talking with the other 3 morons who tried it lately, or you are one of the many proxies or socks.... matters little really, all it does is show your lack of ability to think critically and hang when you get called out in such an obvious and undeniable manner....

So how many identities can we expect to see on here? Come on tool we already know you're someones sock, out with it now... How many do you have here? you go ahead and keep it up, make sure no one doubts you are a cowardly puppet master douchebag...

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you...

The only thing I've faced here is your abysmal ignorance and your insane bullshit, g'tard.

Absolutely!!! As you have made obvious to everyone but your denier cult buttbuddies who are almost as stupid as you are.

I was addressing the fallacious and pretty idiotic 'points' you imagined you were making based on your total inability to understand what was being said in that article.

I read it and I understood the article. You read it in your own retarded, half-assed way and couldn't comprehend what was being said. All of your idiotic misinterpretations were ridiculously wrong, as I pointed out in detail. You are a moronic nutjob and you can't understand plain English.

Your stupid misunderstandings of what was being said were definitely your own. Like this one: "Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature??". The article did not say or imply that. You're just too moronic to see that.

Sure. You're an ignorant idiot. Same explanation for all of your drivel and lies.

Or am I too stupid to understand????

Why yes, you are way too stupid to understand what is being said by those scientists. As you have made very obvious in all of your retarded posts.

Funny how you adopted the same lame tactic 3 of your ilk tried to use when they couldn't hang any longer..... Separating each line or two like a OCD victim in the hopes you can make the thread too asinine and redundant for anyone to bother reading or caring...

So either you been following me around, talking with the other 3 morons who tried it lately, or you are one of the many proxies or socks.... matters little really, all it does is show your lack of ability to think critically and hang when you get called out in such an obvious and undeniable manner....

So how many identities can we expect to see on here? Come on tool we already know you're someones sock, out with it now... How many do you have here? you go ahead and keep it up, make sure no one doubts you are a cowardly puppet master douchebag...

I see you still have no actual response to the exposure of your idiotic errors and misunderstandings of the article on the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Very typical of you to try to divert the debate into your obsession with 'socks' and how persecuted you imagine yourself to be. LOLOLOLOL. You are such a retard, g'tard.

 

[gslack]

The only thing I've faced here is your abysmal ignorance and your insane bullshit, g'tard.

Absolutely!!! As you have made obvious to everyone but your denier cult buttbuddies who are almost as stupid as you are.

I was addressing the fallacious and pretty idiotic 'points' you imagined you were making based on your total inability to understand what was being said in that article.

I read it and I understood the article. You read it in your own retarded, half-assed way and couldn't comprehend what was being said. All of your idiotic misinterpretations were ridiculously wrong, as I pointed out in detail. You are a moronic nutjob and you can't understand plain English.

Your stupid misunderstandings of what was being said were definitely your own. Like this one: "Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature??". The article did not say or imply that. You're just too moronic to see that.

Sure. You're an ignorant idiot. Same explanation for all of your drivel and lies.


Why yes, you are way too stupid to understand what is being said by those scientists. As you have made very obvious in all of your retarded posts.

Funny how you adopted the same lame tactic 3 of your ilk tried to use when they couldn't hang any longer..... Separating each line or two like a OCD victim in the hopes you can make the thread too asinine and redundant for anyone to bother reading or caring...

So either you been following me around, talking with the other 3 morons who tried it lately, or you are one of the many proxies or socks.... matters little really, all it does is show your lack of ability to think critically and hang when you get called out in such an obvious and undeniable manner....

So how many identities can we expect to see on here? Come on tool we already know you're someones sock, out with it now... How many do you have here? you go ahead and keep it up, make sure no one doubts you are a cowardly puppet master douchebag...

I see you still have no actual response to the exposure of your idiotic errors and misunderstandings of the article on the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Very typical of you to try to divert the debate into your obsession with 'socks' and how persecuted you imagine yourself to be. LOLOLOLOL. You are such a retard, g'tard.

Response???? TO what you calling me stupid for two posts????

LOL, dude you are an idiot....

 

[RollingThunder]

DENIER MYTH#18: The influence of CO2 cannot match the influence of water vapor, and since the impacts of water vapor are largely unknown and outside direct human control, human beings cannot be the source of global heating

Debunking: First off, there is no doubt that water vapor is directly responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse effect (~60% according to Table 3 of “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget”). As such, water vapor could far outweigh the direct effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of the Earth’s water cycle, figuring out what the effects of water will be isn’t simple.

As the atmosphere heats up, it can hold more water vapor. As such, we can reasonably expect that the hotter the air is, the more humid it can be and, because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, the hotter the air will get. This positive feedback leads us to an obviously erroneous conclusion – that we should already be boiling. Since we’re not, there must be something that provides negative feedback to at least partly compensate for the positive feedback, and there is – precipitation in the form of rain, snow, sleet, hail, etc. Small local variations in temperature can create massive differences in the amount of water vapor present in the local atmosphere – a hot high pressure system drives the humidity down and stops precipitation, while a cooler low pressure system permits condensation and then rain or snow. All in all, this means that water vapor that enters the atmosphere persists there a very short period of time – about 11 days – while CO2 persists in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.

Now, since people can’t directly control water vapor, the only way we have to influence it is via temperature. If the greenhouse effect boosts global temperature somewhat, we should realistically expect that the amount of water vapor in the air should be increasing. Similarly, if global temperatures drop for some reason (for example, a large volcanic eruption dumping massive amounts of aerosols into the air), we should expect to see water vapor concentrations decrease. In the lower atmosphere, the available data points to increasing water vapor content, but because of large variations in local humidity from day to night, from day to day, and from season to season, no-one currently knows exactly how much more water vapor is going into the air (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”, page 273). And unfortunately, the upper troposphere (the region of the atmosphere believed to be most important for water vapor’s effects on global heating) has no conclusive direct data on water vapor concentrations. Instead, the increase in water vapor in this part of the atmosphere has been indirectly checked by the increase in this region’s temperature. Since water vapor is such a powerful greenhouse gas, any increase in temperature in this region of the atmosphere should be largely a result of the effects of water vapor (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”, Figure 3.21, page 275).

But perhaps most importantly, the fact that the concentration of water vapor does increase and decrease along with external temperature changes was proven as a result of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The temperature dropped for several years, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere dropped at the same time, and roughly in the same pattern (Figure 2, below).

When the authors of the paper looked at their general climate models, they discovered that, once they corrected for an El Nino that occurred right after Pinatubo erupted, the model only produced roughly equivalent cooling if water vapor feedback was included in the model (Figure 4, below).

What does all of this mean? Basically, water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but because CO2 will cause heating independently of water vapor, as man-made CO2 increases global heating, water vapor will increase too, boosting the amount of warming with a positive feedback loop. How much exactly is up for debate, and there’s not a long enough data series on water vapor in the atmosphere to know everything. But just because humans can’t increase or decrease water vapor in the air directly doesn’t mean that CO2 heating of the air won’t do so indirectly.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[RollingThunder]

After a late start to the melt season in the Arctic, the ice is melting faster than ever and is already below the levels of the 2007 season which was the lowest on record overall and also below the 2006 levels for May which were the lowest for this month. Here's the latest from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May


NSIDC
June 8, 2010

In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace. At the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Analysis from scientists at the University of Washington suggests that ice volume has continued to decline compared to recent years. However, it is too soon to say whether Arctic ice extent will reach another record low this summer—that will depend on the weather and wind conditions over the next few months.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 square miles) for the month of May, 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was -68,000 kilometers (-26,000 square miles) per day, almost 50% more than the average rate of -46,000 kilometers (18,000 square miles) per day. This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.

Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea, and below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay.
graph with months on x axis and extent on y axis

Figure 2. The graph above shows daily sea ice extent as of June 7, 2010. The solid light blue line indicates 2010; dashed green shows 2007; solid pink shows 2006, and solid gray indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Conditions in context

As we noted in our May post, several regions of the Arctic experienced a late-season spurt in ice growth. As a result, ice extent reached its seasonal maximum much later than average, and in turn the melt season began almost a month later than average. As ice began to decline in April, the rate was close to the average for that time of year.

In sharp contrast, ice extent declined rapidly during the month of May. Much of the ice loss occurred in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, indicating that the ice in these areas was thin and susceptible to melt. Many polynyas, areas of open water in the ice pack, opened up in the regions north of Alaska, in the Canadian Arctic Islands, and in the Kara and Barents and Laptev seas.

The polynyas are clearly visible in high-resolution passive microwave images from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Radiometer (AMSR-E) aboard NASA’s Aqua satellite. What do current ice conditions mean for the minimum ice extent this fall? It is still too soon to say: although ice extent at present is relatively low, the amount of ice that survives the summer melt season will be largely determined by the wind and weather conditions over the next few months.
average monthly data from 1979-2009. Monthly May ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade.

May 2010 compared to past years

Average ice extent for May 2010 was 480,000 square kilometers (185,000 square miles) greater than the record low for May, observed in 2006, and 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the average extent for the month. The linear rate of decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.

The rate of decline through the month of May was the fastest in the satellite record; the previous year with the fastest daily rate of decline in May was 1980. By the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Despite the rapid decline through May, average ice extent for the month was only the ninth lowest in the satellite record.

Persistent warmth in the Arctic

Arctic air temperatures averaged for May were above normal, continuing the temperature trend that has persisted since last winter. Temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean. A strong anticyclone centered over the Beaufort Sea produced southerly winds along the shores of Siberia (in the Laptev and East Siberian seas), resulting in warmer-than-average temperatures in this area. The Canadian Arctic Islands were an exception to the general trend, with temperatures slightly cooler than average over much of the region.

figure 5: chart of ice volume model Figure 5. The chart above, from the University of Washington Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System, shows anomalies in ice volume by month. Ice volume is expressed in units of 1000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles), and is computed relative to averages for the period 1979 to 2009.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy University of Washington


Models indicate low ice volume

Ice extent measurements provide a long-term view of the state of Arctic sea ice, but they only show the ice surface. Total ice volume is critical to the complete picture of sea ice decline. Numerous studies indicate that sea ice thickness and volume have declined along with ice extent; unfortunately, there are no continuous, Arctic-wide measurements of sea ice volume. To fill that gap, scientists at the University of Washington have developed regularly updated estimates of ice volume, using a model called the Pan Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).

PIOMAS uses observations and numerical models to make ongoing estimates of changes in sea ice volume. According to PIOMAS, the average Arctic sea ice volume for May 2010 was 19,000 cubic kilometers (4,600 cubic miles), the lowest May volume over the 1979 to 2010 period. May 2010 volume was 42% below the 1979 maximum, and 32% below the 1979 to 2009 May average. The May 2010 ice volume is also 2.5 standard deviations below the 1979 to 2010 linear trend for May (–3,400 cubic kilometers, or -816 cubic miles, per decade).

PIOMAS blends satellite-observed sea ice concentrations into model calculations to estimate sea ice thickness and volume. Comparison with submarine, mooring, and satellite observations help increase the confidence of the model results. More information on the validation methods and results is available on the PIOMAS ice volume Web site.