East Antarctica may be just as unstable as West

[Wuwei]

Sorry, as with your inability to differentiate between weather and climate, you fail to differentiate between a factor that has been accurately assessed and disregarded and a factor that has been underestimated by orders of magnitude and disregarded.

go learn something and come back then.

You have no idea of the history of undersea volcanic activity. Another of your vacuous posts with nothing but insults. It's a sign you have given up.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

Here...read something to challenge your faith...by the way, the origin of el nino is to precise even be the result of ocean currents alone.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

There ... you've claimed proof-positive something that's strictly speculation ... (didn't take long) ...

 

[SSDD]

Here...read something to challenge your faith...by the way, the origin of el nino is to precise even be the result of ocean currents alone.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

There ... you've claimed proof-positive something that's strictly speculation ... (didn't take long) ...

where did I claim proof positive? You people have a serious reading deficiency. I did say that CO2 and ocean currents can’t account for the precise unmoving geographical location for the origin of El Niño so by all means let’s hear a rational explanation that doesn’t depend on the geothermal energy emitting at that precise unmoving geographical location...

 

[SSDD]

Sorry, as with your inability to differentiate between weather and climate, you fail to differentiate between a factor that has been accurately assessed and disregarded and a factor that has been underestimated by orders of magnitude and disregarded.

go learn something and come back then.

You have no idea of the history of undersea volcanic activity. Another of your vacuous posts with nothing but insults. It's a sign you have given up.
.

You are the one who seems to be claiming that undersea volcanic activity is new and hasn’t been grossly underestimated even though science now freely admits that it has been grossly underestimated.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So?
They weren't new volcanoes.
And they're still short in heat output by a factor of about 10 thousand to melt that much ice.
But then, you're a denier, so what's a factor of ten thousand? Facts and numbers are for those stupid egghead scientists and rational people, which is why all deniers reject such things.

How much ice is melting? ... or should I ask ... where's all this melt water going? ...

Sea level isn't rising much faster today than it was 50 years ago ... ergo, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting away isn't happening yet ... this is just another bit of "ah ha, mine eye hath seen it" type of story ... one tiny little sliver of ice is moving slightly faster than what was expected ... not that this has been measured before, just that we can make scary headlines with it ...

Show me the extra water, because it isn't in the oceans ... or if it is, it's a trivial amount ...

Sea ice melting will not raise sea level by 1 mL. Fill a glass half full of ice and carefully top it off with water. Let it melt completely. It will never overflow.

 

[Wuwei]

You are the one who seems to be claiming that undersea volcanic activity is new and hasn’t been grossly underestimated even though science now freely admits that it has been grossly underestimated.

That is a total lie. I never said anything about the current magnitude of the activity. My point is that you have never said anything about the magnitude of activity changing over the last hundred years. If the actual magnitude of activity does not change, it will have no effect on climate change. The only conclusion is that volcanic activity has not been proven to be a factor in climate change.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

where did I claim proof positive?

Try reading your own posts on occasion ...

 

[ReinyDays]

... ergo, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting away isn't happening yet ...

Sea ice melting will not raise sea level by 1 mL. Fill a glass half full of ice and carefully top it off with water. Let it melt completely. It will never overflow.

Good thing I specified continental ice sheets ... this is the ice sitting on land, above current sea level ... when this ice melts, it flows down into the ocean adding to it's volume ... I didn't mention sea ice ...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

... ergo, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting away isn't happening yet ...

Sea ice melting will not raise sea level by 1 mL. Fill a glass half full of ice and carefully top it off with water. Let it melt completely. It will never overflow.

Good thing I specified continental ice sheets ... this is the ice sitting on land, above current sea level ... when this ice melts, it flows down into the ocean adding to it's volume ... I didn't mention sea ice ...

You also failed to account for the topography under the ice sheet. Antarctica is one huge bowl that would fill up with water over the centuries.

 

[ReinyDays]

You also failed to account for the topography under the ice sheet. Antarctica is one huge bowl that would fill up with water over the centuries.

That's only in West Antarctica ... East Antarctica is continental material ... you still have the problem of ice above sea level ... that's a tricky word there, "above", if we suspend the ice "above" the full glass of liquid water and let the ice drip "into" the glass, then indeed the glass will overflow ... strange but true, you can try this at home easy enough ...

You just didn't read my post correctly the first time ... now you're trying to justify you own mistake through a series of "what ifs" ... here's an image showing the ground levels in relation to mean sea level ... note this is after isostatic rebound ... another tricky word "after" ...

 

[SSDD]

You are the one who seems to be claiming that undersea volcanic activity is new and hasn’t been grossly underestimated even though science now freely admits that it has been grossly underestimated.

That is a total lie. I never said anything about the current magnitude of the activity. My point is that you have never said anything about the magnitude of activity changing over the last hundred years. If the actual magnitude of activity does not change, it will have no effect on climate change. The only conclusion is that volcanic activity has not been proven to be a factor in climate change.
.

You tend to be really thick...I am talking about grossly underestimating one Source of energy while at the same time attributing that energy to another source entirely. CO2 was never the cause of climate change....it has always been natural variability...this is just one example of grossly underestimating one source of energy and attributing it to the wrong thing...

most of the 20th century warming can be traced to el nino events....it appears that El Niño is the result of geothermal energy release and CO2 is not even a bit player...

 

[SSDD]

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

where did I claim proof positive?

Try reading your own posts on occasion ...

So let’s see the quote...I didn’t write the title of the article...

 

[ReinyDays]

So let’s see the quote...I didn’t write the title of the article...

You posted it ... you own it ...

 

[SSDD]

So let’s see the quote...I didn’t write the title of the article...

You posted it ... you own it ...

feel free to disprove the man‘s theory...he has more empirical evidence in support of his theory than all of climate science has for the radiative greenhouse hypothesis....

but I never said anything was proven...very mamoothish of you to claim that I said something I never did...i asked for a quote from me which woud be what I actually said knowing full well that you wouldn’t be able to provide any such thing.

 

[ReinyDays]

feel free to disprove the man‘s theory

Makes no account of the La Nina phase ... as they say in the profession: || ...

 

[SSDD]

feel free to disprove the man‘s theory

Makes no account of the La Nina phase ... as they say in the profession: || ...

Of course he does...read more carefully...here is further explanation....

Why El Nino And La Nina Are One Continuous Geological Event

The reason El Ninos And La Ninas look and act so similar is that they are actually one geologically induced and continuous event.

climatechangedispatch.com

 

[Wuwei]

You are the one who seems to be claiming that undersea volcanic activity is new and hasn’t been grossly underestimated even though science now freely admits that it has been grossly underestimated.

That is a total lie. I never said anything about the current magnitude of the activity. My point is that you have never said anything about the magnitude of activity changing over the last hundred years. If the actual magnitude of activity does not change, it will have no effect on climate change. The only conclusion is that volcanic activity has not been proven to be a factor in climate change.
.

You tend to be really thick...I am talking about grossly underestimating one Source of energy while at the same time attributing that energy to another source entirely. CO2 was never the cause of climate change....it has always been natural variability...this is just one example of grossly underestimating one source of energy and attributing it to the wrong thing...

most of the 20th century warming can be traced to el nino events....it appears that El Niño is the result of geothermal energy release and CO2 is not even a bit player...

This does not agree with you:

NASA Satellite Reveals Source of El Niño–Fueled Carbon Dioxide Spike

The OCO 2 mission serendipitously coincided with one of the strongest El Niños on record

www.scientificamerican.com

The rest of your post is just your usual unsubstantiated opinion.
.

 

[SSDD]

You are the one who seems to be claiming that undersea volcanic activity is new and hasn’t been grossly underestimated even though science now freely admits that it has been grossly underestimated.

That is a total lie. I never said anything about the current magnitude of the activity. My point is that you have never said anything about the magnitude of activity changing over the last hundred years. If the actual magnitude of activity does not change, it will have no effect on climate change. The only conclusion is that volcanic activity has not been proven to be a factor in climate change.
.

You tend to be really thick...I am talking about grossly underestimating one Source of energy while at the same time attributing that energy to another source entirely. CO2 was never the cause of climate change....it has always been natural variability...this is just one example of grossly underestimating one source of energy and attributing it to the wrong thing...

most of the 20th century warming can be traced to el nino events....it appears that El Niño is the result of geothermal energy release and CO2 is not even a bit player...

This does not agree with you:

NASA Satellite Reveals Source of El Niño–Fueled Carbon Dioxide Spike

The OCO 2 mission serendipitously coincided with one of the strongest El Niños on record

www.scientificamerican.com

The rest of your post is just your usual unsubstantiated opinion.
.

So do explain how CO2 manages to start every el nino in a precise, unmoving geographical location every year...NASA sure doesn’t....in fact they don’t point to any actual empirical evidence...in usual fashion, they just pull numbers from space and attach them to massive assumptions.

further, the article is about the response of the carbon cycle to El Niño....no mention was made suggesting that el nino is caused by CO2....keep trying...keep denying...

 

[Wuwei]

So do explain how CO2 manages to start every el nino in a precise, unmoving geographical location every year...NASA sure doesn’t....in fact they don’t point to any actual empirical evidence...in usual fashion, they just pull numbers from space and attach them to massive assumptions.

further, the article is about the response of the carbon cycle to El Niño....no mention was made suggesting that el nino is caused by CO2....keep trying...keep denying...

Read it again. I will believe volcanoes when I see explicit science showing that specific volcano(s) have heated up the water. You have not done that.
.

 

[SSDD]

So do explain how CO2 manages to start every el nino in a precise, unmoving geographical location every year...NASA sure doesn’t....in fact they don’t point to any actual empirical evidence...in usual fashion, they just pull numbers from space and attach them to massive assumptions.

further, the article is about the response of the carbon cycle to El Niño....no mention was made suggesting that el nino is caused by CO2....keep trying...keep denying...

Read it again. I will believe volcanoes when I see explicit science showing that specific volcano(s) have heated up the water. You have not done that.
.

Of course I have...I provided all the info in the links. Including documented seismic activity coinciding precisely with the originating location,the beginning and rewarming phases of El Niño.

it is all in the links...your failure to read isnt my problem.