North polar ice volume

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
University of Washington site. It demonstrates very well how radically the ice volume is diclining.

Polar Science Center - APL-UW - Arctic Sea Ice Volume
Good site, good info. Thanks. I think the graphs speak volumes and demonstrate the decline in sea ice unmistakably. Of course these deranged, delusional denier cultists who troll this forum will fail to comprehend them and/or come up with a breathtakingly stupid, paranoid conspiracy theory to explain them away. Their ability to deny the reality in front of their faces is awesomely insane and occasionally hilarious.




 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,715
Reaction score
9,730
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Now provide some real evidence man caused any of it. SO far we are told CO2 caused it. yet scientific fact is that historically rising CO2 FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. Further the CO2 has continued to rise since 1998 and there has been NO increase in temperature for the Earth.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,491
Reaction score
4,133
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Now provide some real evidence man caused any of it. SO far we are told CO2 caused it. yet scientific fact is that historically rising CO2 FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. Further the CO2 has continued to rise since 1998 and there has been NO increase in temperature for the Earth.



LMAO..............indeed...............and one nice big volcano eruption PWNS anything man has done in the last 125 years!!!!!!!!!!!

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?



PWNS!!!!!!!
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
LMAO 2; kook and RGS make Old Rocks prescient: "Of course these deranged, delusional denier cultists who troll this forum will fail to comprehend them and/or come up with a breathtakingly stupid, paranoid conspiracy theory to explain them away. Their ability to deny the reality in front of their faces is awesomely insane and occasionally hilarious."
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,668
Reaction score
26,811
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
It the Antarctic melting too? I mean it would be weird if only the Arctic were melting due to "Global" Warming, right? Isn't Global Warming a global phenomenon?

Where's the data for the Antarctic?

And how come the Maldives aren't underwater as a result of this imaginary ice loss

"Let me summarize a few facts.

(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.

(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today

(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level

(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

(5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future."

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...ident-all-wet-on-sea-level.aspx#ixzz0pt2f9Dn6
 
Last edited:
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
LMAO..............indeed...............and one nice big volcano eruption PWNS anything man has done in the last 125 years!!!!!!!!!!!

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
Hey, aren't you the same extremely ignorant nutjob who just posted this link over on the 'Ocean Acidification' thread and got shot down and made to look like an moronic fool? Why yes it is you, s'kook. Welcome to the tread, retard. You have truly earned that title by failing to even read the link you posted which actually says just the opposite of what you so idiotically claimed. Actually you probably deserve the title of 'super-retard' for being that unbelievably stupid.

From your link, super-retardo:

"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year."

"Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. [Land] volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year. In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions."





Ummmmmmmmmmm.......................Duuh!!!!!"
I'll bet that you'll always having to say that.
 
Last edited:

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,715
Reaction score
9,730
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
LMAO..............indeed...............and one nice big volcano eruption PWNS anything man has done in the last 125 years!!!!!!!!!!!

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
Hey, aren't you the same extremely ignorant nutjob who just posted this link over on the 'Ocean Acidification' thread and got shot down and made to look like an moronic fool? Why yes it is you, s'kook. Welcome to the tread, retard. You have truly earned that title by failing to even read the link you posted which actually says just the opposite of what you so idiotically claimed. Actually you probably deserve the title of 'super-retard' for being that unbelievably stupid.

From your link, super-retardo:

"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year."

"Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. [Land] volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year. In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions."





Ummmmmmmmmmm.......................Duuh!!!!!"
I'll bet that you'll always having to say that.
Your figures are NOT for erupting Volcanos now are they?
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Yes, RGS, that is exactly what they are for. You see, our normal subduction zone volcanos do not put that much CO2 into the atmosphere. Now if we had some Trapp Volcanism going on, it would be a differant matter.

The figures put up are for all the CO2 from volcanoes like the Hawaian type, and the volcanos like St. Helens. That is an average figure as the number of volcanos erupting each year varies. But it is for all the volcanoes that are emittiong CO2 during that year.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,668
Reaction score
26,811
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."
Did you read from the beginning of the article?

"There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading."

So, good old NASA is back to, "Who are you going to believe, NASA or your lying eyes?"
 
Last edited:
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Yes, Frank, and you eyes have confirmed for you that the moon is hollow:lol::cuckoo:
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,668
Reaction score
26,811
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Yes, Frank, and you eyes have confirmed for you that the moon is hollow:lol::cuckoo:
As I've said numerous times in the past: there is far more real scientific evidence that the Moon may be hollow than there is for the proposition that mankind is warming the planet.
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
LMAO..............indeed...............and one nice big volcano eruption PWNS anything man has done in the last 125 years!!!!!!!!!!!

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
Hey, aren't you the same extremely ignorant nutjob who just posted this link over on the 'Ocean Acidification' thread and got shot down and made to look like an moronic fool? Why yes it is you, s'kook. Welcome to the tread, retard. You have truly earned that title by failing to even read the link you posted which actually says just the opposite of what you so idiotically claimed. Actually you probably deserve the title of 'super-retard' for being that unbelievably stupid.

From your link, super-retardo:

"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year."

"Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. [Land] volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year. In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions."





Ummmmmmmmmmm.......................Duuh!!!!!"
I'll bet that you'll always having to say that.
Your figures are NOT for erupting Volcanos now are they?
LOLOLOLOL....way to hold on to your title, super-retardo. You must actually be stupid enough to imagine that volcanoes that are not erupting are still somehow emitting massive amounts of CO2. Un-fucking-believable. So go ahead, say "duuh!!!!!" again and slap your forehead (that's assuming that you do have a forehead and your eyebrows don't simply meet your hairline, as seems probable).
 
Last edited:

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
The warmers are right about human activity causing more co2 output then strato-volanco and also right about hot-spot being able to produce a lot more co2.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

The USGS is a pretty big source. Also volcano's put into the atmosphere far more gases that cause cooling like 1991, 1812, ect.
 
Last edited:

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,856
Reaction score
19,671
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The warmers are right about human activity causing more co2 output then strato-volanco and also right about hot-spot being able to produce a lot more co2.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

The USGS is a pretty big source. Also volcano's put into the atmosphere far more gases that cause cooling like 1991, 1812, ect.


It's probably the particulate material that causes the observed cooling.
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
Now provide some real evidence man caused any of it.
Oh look, a new denier cultist pops up pushing the same old, long debunked denier cult myths and lies.

Scientists have been providing that evidence for decades and the evidence is so overwhelming that it has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most government and industry leaders. See "The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change".

The 'evidence' isn't the problem with you, RetiredDingbat. Your problem is that you are apparently too stupid and ideologically brainwashed to recognize or comprehend the 'evidence'.




SO far we are told CO2 caused it. yet scientific fact is that historically rising CO2 FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around.
Another fine denier cult myth based on spinning one fact and ignoring many other facts. Here's a nice debunking of that particular lie and I can find a dozen more from different sources if you'd like.

Denier myth - "CO2 increase follows temperature increase"

In the geological record that is true, and well understood.

The change in CO2 was not the trigger in those cases. Rather, some other known event triggered the initial increase, such as large-scale volcanism or increased sun activity. When those other causes declined, the oceans cooled a little and reabsorbed some CO2, leading to further cooling, etc.

But those triggers alone do not explain the eventual temperature rise that occurred. The initial rise caused an increase in CO2 (for well understood reasons, such as CO2 release from soils and seas) which then magnified it. This feedback resulted in the eventual rise being far more than it would otherwise have been, and is one of the reasons what we are doing now is so scary. Worse, we are adding CO2 into this system which was not then available for release.

(You might wonder why this does not go on forever, leading to more and more GHGs and higher and higher temperatures. The feedback is not a simple straight-line relationship. Eventually, extra GHG has less effect. At the same time, the hotter Earth radiates more heat into space, leading to a new equilibrium.)

However, the fact that the initial trigger was a temperature change on those occasions does not explain the extent of the lag.

The recorded temperatures and CO2 are both at the Antarctic. While the CO2 can be expected to represent the global state, the temperatures may be more local. Andrey Ganopolski and D.M. Roche show that temperature changes tend to be greatest in the Antarctic first, whereas CO2 levels are driven more by temperatures elsewhere. Hence the data show temperature changes preceding CO2 changes.

© Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle

(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.)




Further the CO2 has continued to rise since 1998 and there has been NO increase in temperature for the Earth.
You sure do believe in a lot of bullshit, sarge. I suppose that that is almost the definition of a denier cultist.

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

NASA
01.21.10

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880.


“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said Gavin Schmidt, another GISS climatologist. “In contrast, the difference between, say, the second and sixth warmest years is trivial since the known uncertainty -- or noise -- in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

Decoding the Temperature Record

Climate scientists agree that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap incoming heat near the surface of the Earth and are the key factors causing the rise in temperatures since 1880, but these gases are not the only factors that can impact global temperatures.

Three others key factors -- including changes in the sun’s irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperature in the tropics, and changes in aerosol levels -- can also cause slight increases or decreases in the planet's temperature. Overall, the evidence suggests that these effects are not enough to account for the global warming observed since 1880.

El Niño and La Niña are prime examples of how the oceans can affect global temperatures. They describe abnormally warm or cool sea surface temperatures in the South Pacific that are caused by changing ocean currents.

Global temperatures tend to decrease in the wake of La Niña, which occurs when upwelling cold water off the coast of Peru spreads westward in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. La Niña, which moderates the impact of greenhouse-gas driven warming, lingered during the early months of 2009 and gave way to the beginning of an El Niño phase in October that’s expected to continue in 2010.

An especially powerful El Niño cycle in 1998 is thought to have contributed to the unusually high temperatures that year, and Hansen’s group estimates that there’s a good chance 2010 will be the warmest year on record if the current El Niño persists. At most, scientists estimate that El Niño and La Niña can cause global temperatures to deviate by about 0.2°C (0.36°F).

Warmer surface temperatures also tend to occur during particularly active parts of the solar cycle, known as solar maximums, while slightly cooler temperatures occur during lulls in activity, called minimums.

A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.

“In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn’t stopped global warming from continuing,” said Hansen.

Small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols can also affect the climate. Volcanoes are powerful sources of sulfate aerosols that counteract global warming by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space. In the past, large eruptions at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines and El Chichón in Mexico have caused global dips in surface temperature of as much as 0.3°C (0.54°F). But volcanic eruptions in 2009 have not had a significant impact.

Meanwhile, other types of aerosols, often produced by burning fossil fuels, can change surface temperatures by either reflecting or absorbing incoming sunlight. Hansen’s group estimates that aerosols probably counteract about half of the warming produced by man-made greenhouse gases, but he cautions that better measurements of these elusive particles are needed.

Data Details

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies -- not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre, based in the United Kingdom, uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, where monitoring stations are sparse.

In contrast, the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas. If GISS didn't extrapolate in this manner, the software that performs the analysis would assume that areas without monitoring stations warm at the same rate as the global mean, an assumption that doesn't line up with changes that satellites have observed in Arctic sea ice, Schmidt explained. Although the two methods produce slightly different results in the annual rankings, the decade-long trends in the two records are essentially identical.

"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."


***
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,491
Reaction score
4,133
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Oh............I get it.............Im the asshole here!!!!


Stupid green morons are so OCD on this, they look at only what they want to..........so go ahead and reference volcanic activity and its relation to C02 contributions. Meatheads!!! Like the haze from massive eruptions have no influence on world temps thus no impact on climate change!!!


THATS the hoax of the global warming k00ks...........they choose to always reference the science that supports their hysterical claims, as if variables other than C02 are of no importance to the ebb and flow of nature.


I do get a kick out of coming in here and seeing them fall all over themselves posting up all these numbers and stats, all of which are nothing but theory on potential impact long term.


All these wanna-be scientists never heard...................


of this..................






:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:






Temps go up...............temps go down. Temps go up...........temps go down.





Its called "Nature" assholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:



Always have................always will!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top