Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[Crick]

The main cause of todays localized melting is due to active Volcanoes which you and other warmist/alarmist loons ignore continually as it has been posted in this forum many times.

Melting is taking place where there is no geothermal heating. The destabiliation of the WAIS ice shelf is due to warm ocean water melting it from below. That water is not being warmed by volcanos. The volcanos found under the WAIS may be accelerating the sheet's movement to the sea, but multiple studies have concluded their effect is minimal and the largest factor in that acceleration is the loss of the shelf that had been blocking the sheet's movement off the coast. And, as the OP's linked study tells us, the geological record indicates that at no time in the past 45 million years has Antarctica been able to support an ice shelf with CO2 above 400 ppm

The region as a whole is simply too cold to melt much of any on the surface and the Continent whole continent just endured the COLDEST summer then winter on record last year.

And set a new all time high back in March, 37.2 degrees Centigrade (67F) warmer than usual. That would make a cool 70 degree spring day 137 degrees.

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record​

You need to drop this stupid infatuation of a feeble trace gas with negligible warm forcing effect at the 400-ppm level as most of it was already done in the first 100 pm level thus any additional CO2 at the 430 level is simply negligible.

You are probably the most snookered warmist/alarmist in the forum.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Melting is taking place where there is no geothermal heating. The destabiliation of the WAIS ice shelf is due to warm ocean water melting it from below. That water is not being warmed by volcanos. The volcanos found under the WAIS may be accelerating the sheet's movement to the sea, but multiple studies have concluded their effect is minimal and the largest factor in that acceleration is the loss of the shelf that had been blocking the sheet's movement off the coast. And, as the OP's linked study tells us, the geological record indicates that at no time in the past 45 million years has Antarctica been able to support an ice shelf with CO2 above 400 ppm

And set a new all time high back in March, 37.2 degrees Centigrade (67F) warmer than usual. That would make a cool 70 degree spring day 137 degrees.

Now you completely avoided the well-known Volcanoes melting effect because threat doesn't support your delusions as they are also the most talked about melting areas which means you are trying to lie your way out of this.

Plate Climatology

Geological ‘Hotspot’ Melting Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers, N…​

Written by James Edward Kamis on February 25, 2019

Excerpt:

Figure 1: Glacial melt areas (1992-2017) shaded in red, West Antarctica’s sub-glacial Marie Byrd Bedrock Mantle Plume “Hotspot” outlined in red and a sub-glacial Pluton Rich “hotspot” outlined in red. (Credit NASA and J. Kamis).

Rapid melting of Antarctica’s Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers is the result of subglacial bedrock heat flow from a well-known and precisely mapped regional geological “Hotspot” called the Marie Byrd Mantle Plume, not Global Warming/Climate Change (Figure 1).

This massive 620,000 square mile Hotspot and its associated 100 active or erupting subglacial volcanoes, are acting to bottom melt a significant portion of West Antarctica's ice sheet. Even more telling, 46 of these active subglacial volcanoes are positioned directly beneath the Pine Island Glacier and Thwaites Glaciers. Recent research proves that one volcano is currently erupting beneath the Pine Island Glacier.

LINK

======

This has been covered in some detail in this forum.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick stupidly writes:

And set a new all time high back in March, 37.2 degrees Centigrade (67F) warmer than usual. That would make a cool 70 degree spring day 137 degrees.

A SINGLE DAY versus an entire 6 month winter cold record!

My link states:

Between April and September, a research station sitting on a high plateau in Antarctica, registered an average temperature of minus 78 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 61 degrees Celsius). That's the coldest temperature recorded since record keeping began in 1957, and about 4.5 F (2.5 C) lower than the most recent 30-year average, according to The Washington Post.

The previous record for the coldest winter was minus 77 F (minus 60.6 C) in 1976, Stefano Di Battista, a journalist wrote on Twitter. The Post learned of this record through Battista, but then confirmed the information with Richard Cullather, a research scientist at NASA's Global Modeling and Assimilation Office.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Crick]

Crick stupidly writes:



A SINGLE DAY versus an entire 6 month winter cold record!

My link states:



BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!

Your cold spell beat the record by 1 degree. That heat spike was 70 degrees warmer than normal.

 

[Crick]

The rate for the last 170 years was still five times the rate of that interglacial spike.

So if you go back over the last 170,000 years.....how many other 170 year spikes were
as large as the one since 1850?

Remember, it has to come on and go away within your resolution window. Do YOU know of a mechanism that could accomplish that?

And what is your aim here?

That anyone who says recent increases are "larger than.........fill in the blank with a long period of time" don't understand the resolution of that older data.

I do understand the resolution of that data and I still say the rate of increase for both CO2 and temperature are greater than anything seen in a million years.

Even if there were spikes of similar characteristic in the past, it does not refute AGW.

I would never claim it did.

Good.

If you want to suggest some other cause for the warming you have to identify it AND show us why the massive CO2 increase has NOT caused it.

I'm with Lindzen. It warmed a bit. Part of that is us. It's probably not much of an issue.

What is Lindzen's explanation for the effect of CO2 not being as large as all his peers believe it to be?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember, it has to come on and go away within your resolution window. Do YOU know of a mechanism that could accomplish that?

I do understand the resolution of that data and I still say the rate of increase for both CO2 and temperature are greater than anything seen in a million years.

Good.

What is Lindzen's explanation for the effect of CO2 not being as large as all his peers believe it to be?

Remember, it has to come on and go away within your resolution window.

So what is the resolution window, 20,000 years ago?

I do understand the resolution of that data and I still say the rate of increase for both CO2 and temperature are greater than anything seen in a million years.

You say that. Without the temperature evidence to back it up.

What is Lindzen's explanation for the effect of CO2 not being as large as all his peers believe it to be?

Experience. Seeing how the sausage is made. Not needing to conform for grants.

 

[ding]

An examination of the temperature and CO2 record back to 45 million years indicates that CO2 levels above 400 ppm will not allow the continued existence of the Antarctic ice shelves.

Fake news.

 

[ding]

The rate for the last 170 years was still five times the rate of that interglacial spike. And what is your aim here? Even if there were spikes of similar characteristic in the past, it does not refute AGW. This issue has been studied to death and AGW deniers have suggested every cause from magic solar spectra to George Santos and all have failed. If you want to suggest some other cause for the warming you have to identify it AND show us why the massive CO2 increase has NOT caused it.

It’s an interglacial period, dummy. The previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think we all got that obliquity doesn't change insolation. Neither would painting the planet black or painting it white or filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. But, hey, guess what? It can affect the Earth's energy budget just the same.

No, it doesn't effect the energy budget ... do the math or SHUT THE FUCK UP ..

Goddam LIAR ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The rate for the last 170 years was still five times the rate of that interglacial spike. And what is your aim here? Even if there were spikes of similar characteristic in the past, it does not refute AGW. This issue has been studied to death and AGW deniers have suggested every cause from magic solar spectra to George Santos and all have failed. If you want to suggest some other cause for the warming you have to identify it AND show us why the massive CO2 increase has NOT caused it.

Hey STUPID ... there's NOTHING to refute until you PROVE AGW ... start with the math or you got nothing ... filthy LIAR ...

 

[ReinyDays]

An examination of the temperature and CO2 record back to 45 million years indicates that CO2 levels above 400 ppm will not allow the continued existence of the Antarctic ice shelves. The loss of those shelves, even without a catastrophic collapse of the WAIS, will facilitate an enormous movement of land-based glacial ice into the seas raising global sea level by tens of feet.

Our Atmospheric CO2 is now past the point that in the Deep Past has Meant the Melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheets

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - So as a historian, I am particularly interested in what the past tells us about the present. I've taught courses on climate change in history. But of course my kind of history doesn't go back very far from the point of view of physical scientists. The academic...

www.juancole.com

Fucking LIAR ... two feet you stupid son-of-a-bitch ... the evidence says two feet ... you're such a bastard ...

 

[Crick]

Remember, it has to come on and go away within your resolution window.

So what is the resolution window, 20,000 years ago?

The spike in questiion was 140,000 BP. I found this statement in Ice core basics

I looked at a handful of datasets on the NOAA ice core website which are for periods of over 150k years. They generally have a resolution in the hundreds of years (with some exceptions of higher resolution).

So I would be willing to say that the chronological resolution of that data was approximately 500 years. Aside from your imaginary mechanism that can cause a 2 degree spike to come and go in that span, you all have misunderstanding of what "resolution" means in this context. The resolution of an ice core is a combination of the rate of snowfall that produced it, its compression under the snow and ice above it and how far apart samples can and are taken. For example, no lab is going to sample a 1,000 foot ice core every thousandth of an inch. An example in the text at this link spoke of a 50 meter core sampled at 2.5 cm intervals. My point with all this is that having a 500 year resolution does NOT mean you will not see events less than 500 years in length. It means you might not see them. And the larger they are, the greater the chance that they will get caught in the sample.

I do understand the resolution of that data and I still say the rate of increase for both CO2 and temperature are greater than anything seen in a million years.

You say that. Without the temperature evidence to back it up.

I do have data to back that up. Remember, it is evidence, not proof. And that evidence is supported by the fact that there is no known mechanism that could produce the imaginary spike you've all tried to use as a defense against AGW.

What is Lindzen's explanation for the effect of CO2 not being as large as all his peers believe it to be?

Toddsterpatriot: Experience. Seeing how the sausage is made. Not needing to conform for grants.

I was hoping you would look for Lindzen's scientific reasoning, the evidence he is relying on for that conclusion.

 

[Crick]

Hey STUPID ... there's NOTHING to refute until you PROVE AGW ... start with the math or you got nothing ... filthy LIAR

Your anger is really getting out of hand. I suspect you're drinking but maybe you're just really angry sometimes. Is there some point to it?

As you've read me say on numerous occasions, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. AGW will never be "proven" but it is already supported by an enormous amount of evidence that has convinced very close to every climate scientist on the entire planet that it is true; that convinced the IPCC in their last assessment of the science to say "Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact: The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated in 2007 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’, and AR5 stated in 2013 that ‘human influence on the climate system is clear’. Combined evidence from across the climate system strengthens this finding. It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the main driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. (Sections TS.1.2, TS.2.1 and TS.3.1)"
Emphasis mine
AR6, Technical Summary, pg 41

 

[Crick]

Fucking LIAR ... two feet you stupid son-of-a-bitch ... the evidence says two feet ... you're such a bastard ...

Two feet from the collapse of the WAIS? Where does it say that? The study referenced in this article says over 4 meters Study says Antarctic Ice Sheet melt to lift sea level higher than thought

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The spike in questiion was 140,000 BP. I found this statement in Ice core basics

I looked at a handful of datasets on the NOAA ice core website which are for periods of over 150k years. They generally have a resolution in the hundreds of years (with some exceptions of higher resolution).

So I would be willing to say that the chronological resolution of that data was approximately 500 years. Aside from your imaginary mechanism that can cause a 2 degree spike to come and go in that span, you all have misunderstanding of what "resolution" means in this context. The resolution of an ice core is a combination of the rate of snowfall that produced it, its compression under the snow and ice above it and how far apart samples can and are taken. For example, no lab is going to sample a 1,000 foot ice core every thousandth of an inch. An example in the text at this link spoke of a 50 meter core sampled at 2.5 cm intervals. My point with all this is that having a 500 year resolution does NOT mean you will not see events less than 500 years in length. It means you might not see them. And the larger they are, the greater the chance that they will get caught in the sample.

I do have data to back that up. Remember, it is evidence, not proof. And that evidence is supported by the fact that there is no known mechanism that could produce the imaginary spike you've all tried to use as a defense against AGW.

Toddsterpatriot: Experience. Seeing how the sausage is made. Not needing to conform for grants.

I was hoping you would look for Lindzen's scientific reasoning, the evidence he is relying on for that conclusion.

So I would be willing to say that the chronological resolution of that data was approximately 500 years. Aside from your imaginary mechanism that can cause a 2 degree spike to come and go in that span, you all have misunderstanding of what "resolution" means in this context.

2 degree spike? You were talking about since 1980.

I do have data to back that up. Remember, it is evidence, not proof.

You don't have the evidence to back the claim that the temperature change in the last 170 years is unique over the last million years.

I was hoping you would look for Lindzen's scientific reasoning, the evidence he is relying on for that conclusion.

He didn't get very deep into that in the video I linked. But he's seen the pressure change. The
science is still the same, but cancel culture and grant seeking has perverted the process.
And he was involved in one of the IPCC reports.

 

[ReinyDays]

Your anger is really getting out of hand. I suspect you're drinking but maybe you're just really angry sometimes. Is there some point to it?

As you've read me say on numerous occasions, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.

Not angry, just enjoy calling out LIARS ... if you're sick of it, stop engaging me ... stupid motherfucker ...

There are mathematical proofs ... and these are required in physics ... and Atmospheric Science ... which is why calculus is required for climatology ... stupid motherfucker ... you're ignorant in all these subjects and it shows ... stupid motherfucker ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Two feet from the collapse of the WAIS? Where does it say that? The study referenced in this article says over 4 meters Study says Antarctic Ice Sheet melt to lift sea level higher than thought

You said without the collapse of the WAIS ... stupid motherfucker ... changing your argument because you're a LIAR ...

 

[Crick]

You said without the collapse of the WAIS ... stupid motherfucker ... changing your argument because you're a LIAR ...

Here is precisely what I said: "The loss of those shelves, even without a catastrophic collapse of the WAIS, will facilitate an enormous movement of land-based glacial ice into the seas raising global sea level by tens of feet." Your drinking may have compromised your comprehension.

 

[ding]

The spike in questiion was 140,000 BP. I found this statement in Ice core basics

I looked at a handful of datasets on the NOAA ice core website which are for periods of over 150k years. They generally have a resolution in the hundreds of years (with some exceptions of higher resolution).

So I would be willing to say that the chronological resolution of that data was approximately 500 years. Aside from your imaginary mechanism that can cause a 2 degree spike to come and go in that span, you all have misunderstanding of what "resolution" means in this context. The resolution of an ice core is a combination of the rate of snowfall that produced it, its compression under the snow and ice above it and how far apart samples can and are taken. For example, no lab is going to sample a 1,000 foot ice core every thousandth of an inch. An example in the text at this link spoke of a 50 meter core sampled at 2.5 cm intervals. My point with all this is that having a 500 year resolution does NOT mean you will not see events less than 500 years in length. It means you might not see them. And the larger they are, the greater the chance that they will get caught in the sample.

I do have data to back that up. Remember, it is evidence, not proof. And that evidence is supported by the fact that there is no known mechanism that could produce the imaginary spike you've all tried to use as a defense against AGW.

Toddsterpatriot: Experience. Seeing how the sausage is made. Not needing to conform for grants.

I was hoping you would look for Lindzen's scientific reasoning, the evidence he is relying on for that conclusion.

Greenland ice cores are the exception because of layers of dust. Their resolution is exceptional. Look it up.

 

[jc456]

Your call. But I guess you've probably built up some tolerance considering how many people must hold opinions of you similar to the one I'm beginning to develop.

Look out now, here comes some of my famous misinformation. Of course, the one I really want to read this is poster miketx.

How Do Scientists Study Ancient Climates?

Paleoclimatologists study ancient climates by looking for clues in Earth’s natural environmental records.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time scale. The Paleoclimatology team operates the...

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Paleoclimatology - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Understanding how climate naturally varied over thousands and millions of years teaches us how Earth’s climate system works and sheds light on current, human-induced changes.

www.whoi.edu

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

Created by Monica Bruckner, Montana State University. What is Paleoclimatology? Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, ...

serc.carleton.edu

Investigating Past Climates | Center for Science Education

To understand how and why the climate has changed in the past scientists study evidence such as ice cores, coral reefs, and more. Learn about different types of paleoclimate proxies and how they tell the story of Earth's past climate.

scied.ucar.edu

Paleoclimatology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Methods for Determining Past Climates - Lesson | Study.com

Paleoclimatology is the study of climate change throughout history. Explore scientists' methods for determining past climates, such as studying ice...

study.com

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Greta is your hero right?