What's new

# Study finds 4C increase will put 1/3rd of all Antarctic shelves at risk of collapse

#### Grumblenuts

##### Gold Member
Here's a chart for him to scribble on:

As the blue dots indicate, the slope is expected to increase thereby possibly hitting 3 degrees in only 30 years instead of the 42 years indicated by the dashed line.

Last edited:

#### ding

##### Confront reality
What caused the warming you claim has taken place since the last ice age. I hope we all know the actual answer. It starts with a capitol M.
It certainly wasn't an increase in atmospheric CO2 that's for certain. CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.

Why did the previous interglacial cycle temperature peak at ~2C above our present temperature? Why did the sea level of the previous interglacial cycle peak 26 ft higher than our present sea level?

Because whatever it was that controlled that is the answer to the question you are asking.

#### Sunsettommy

##### Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Prove to us it is a lie Tommy.

I have many times, you always ignore it, meanwhile you can't even begin to add these numbers, it is obviously bullshit:

" If the current trajectory continues, levels of CO2 could hit 500 ppm within 30 years."

Daily CO2

Apr. 18, 2021 418.11 ppm Apr. 18, 2020 416.76 ppm1 Year Change 1.35 ppm (0.32%)

=====

I used the 1.5 ppm average for the next 30 years, the total number is 45

418.11 + 45 = 463.11

He says 500......

Meanwhile your perfessor completely ignored the Positive Feedback part......, why does the article completely ignore that part of the AGW conjecture?

Why do YOU continue to ignore the failure of the Positive Feedback to show up as predicted 20 years ago?

#### Sunsettommy

##### Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Here's a chart for him to scribble on:

As the blue dots indicate, the slope is expected to increase thereby possibly hitting 3 degrees in only 30 years instead of the 42 years indicated by the dashed line.

You didn't notice this is an ANAMALY chart, not actual temperature, and they chose a deceptive baseline of 1850-1900, it is now 121 years later.

Very dishonest!

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
Your complaint that one of the linked experiments (the ones you suggested weren't physically possible and didn't exist) used a very high CO2 concentration indicates that you are unfamiliar with actual experiments. Your repeated attempts to steer the conversation to dead ends tells me you have little to nothing to say about the actual topic: the increased risk of collapse in the Antarctic ice sheets. It is my understanding that discussions of radiative physics are all to be sequestered to the single thread on the topic at the top of the page.

And I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering and over 35 years working as a systems engineer. Back i my college days I had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer. I understand and have used both the Stefan-Boltzman equation and the concept of emissivity. If you think that either refutes the greenhouse effect or AGW, you'll have to explain it to me because I and 99+% of the world's scientists say it does not.

I'll give you a hint: the Earth's atmosphere is not a black body.

So ... none of the papers you listed have anything to do with my question ... your understanding is wrong, the thread pinned to the top of this forum is for discussions denying the Greenhouse effect even exists, as the plain English title states ...

SB pertains the the Earth's surface, not her atmosphere ... and since we're discussing emissivity, we are working with the graybody form of the equation ... the Earth behaves very very close to our idealized greybody radiator ... these are foolish mistakes you've made, especially for an "ocean engineer", no surprise you appear unaware that temperature is proportional to the fourth root of input power ... small increases in power (1.8 W/m^2) makes for tiny increases in temperature (2ºC over 100 years per IPCC report) ...

Let's review:
Crick - "Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?" -- post #89
RD - "The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown" -- post #91
Crick - [Slug of papers which appear have nothing to do with emissivity] -- post #109

You don't understand the question I'm asking ... God knows why you think pure CO2 is the perfect example of an N2/O2 mixture ...

OP

#### Crick

##### Gold Member
Your complaint that one of the linked experiments (the ones you suggested weren't physically possible and didn't exist) used a very high CO2 concentration indicates that you are unfamiliar with actual experiments. Your repeated attempts to steer the conversation to dead ends tells me you have little to nothing to say about the actual topic: the increased risk of collapse in the Antarctic ice sheets. It is my understanding that discussions of radiative physics are all to be sequestered to the single thread on the topic at the top of the page.

And I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering and over 35 years working as a systems engineer. Back i my college days I had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer. I understand and have used both the Stefan-Boltzman equation and the concept of emissivity. If you think that either refutes the greenhouse effect or AGW, you'll have to explain it to me because I and 99+% of the world's scientists say it does not.

I'll give you a hint: the Earth's atmosphere is not a black body.

So ... none of the papers you listed have anything to do with my question ... your understanding is wrong, the thread pinned to the top of this forum is for discussions denying the Greenhouse effect even exists, as the plain English title states ...

SB pertains the the Earth's surface, not her atmosphere ... and since we're discussing emissivity, we are working with the graybody form of the equation ... the Earth behaves very very close to our idealized greybody radiator ... these are foolish mistakes you've made, especially for an "ocean engineer", no surprise you appear unaware that temperature is proportional to the fourth root of input power ... small increases in power (1.8 W/m^2) makes for tiny increases in temperature (2ºC over 100 years per IPCC report) ...

Let's review:
Crick - "Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?" -- post #89
RD - "The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown" -- post #91
Crick - [Slug of papers which appear have nothing to do with emissivity] -- post #109

You don't understand the question I'm asking ... God knows why you think pure CO2 is the perfect example of an N2/O2 mixture ...

As you know perfectly well, nothing I put up there would qualify as a "paper". They were all experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect after you first claimed doing so appeared to be impossible and then claimed you could find none on Google. I searched for "scholarly, experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect"

I suspect that not one of the world's degreed, publishing climate scientists agree with your author's misinterpretation of basic thermo. That doesn't seem to bother you. Why? Does it not seem a little strange to you that it should be impossible to heat something beyond a given point by increasing it's energy content? Does that correspond to ANYTHING you've ever seen or heard of in your life? What is temperature but a measure of energy content? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the amount of thermal energy it contains. That, in and of itself, is synonymous with an increase in its temperature. The most charitable interpretation I can make of you pushing such blather is that you just want so badly for it to be true that you're unwilling to actually look at with what you're agreeing. Look at poster Westwall who is trying to claim that Greenland and Antarctica can't be losing mass because snow still falls there. There are a lot of people on your side of this argument who seem really, really, shabby about their critical thinking.

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
As you know perfectly well, nothing I put up there would qualify as a "paper". They were all experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect after you first claimed doing so appeared to be impossible and then claimed you could find none on Google. I searched for "scholarly, experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect"

I suspect that not one of the world's degreed, publishing climate scientists agree with your author's misinterpretation of basic thermo. That doesn't seem to bother you. Why? Does it not seem a little strange to you that it should be impossible to heat something beyond a given point by increasing it's energy content? Does that correspond to ANYTHING you've ever seen or heard of in your life? What is temperature but a measure of energy content? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the amount of thermal energy it contains. That, in and of itself, is synonymous with an increase in its temperature. The most charitable interpretation I can make of you pushing such blather is that you just want so badly for it to be true that you're unwilling to actually look at with what you're agreeing. Look at poster Westwall who is trying to claim that Greenland and Antarctica can't be losing mass because snow still falls there. There are a lot of people on your side of this argument who seem really, really, shabby about their critical thinking.

Now you're being stupid ... I asked about relationships ... as in mathematical formula, and the rigid mathematical proof that should come with that formula ... if you're familiar with SB, then you should know that emissivity is the measure of the greenhouse effect ...

Yes ... it is impossible to heat liquid water beyond 100ºC at 1013 mb ... no matter how much energy we add to the system ... did you take any science classes in high school? ... it's also impossible to heat ice above 0ºC at 1013 mb ... those aren't random factoids, both are critical to understanding the thermodynamics of the climate climate ... what we in the know like to call thermohydrogoddamics ...

Do you really think it's the CO2 that contains this extra energy? ... that's not what we mean when we say "air temperature" ... how can you make such a foolish mistake and still claim to be an engineer? ... higher photon density doesn't contribute to our average kinetic energy in our air parcel, and this only contributes to temperature the brief time it resides in the CO2 molecule ... and it seems the "opinion pieces" you listed above only show the difference in specific heat between air and CO2 ... for the same amount of energy, CO2 will have a much higher temperature ... duh ...

Ask ding and S'Tommy how quick I am to criticize them when they're wrong ... even though they're "on my side", whatever that means ... not once have I seen you criticize one of your fellow Alarmists (though admittedly I really don't care enough about to spend time looking) ... if SSDD ever comes back around, I'll be quick to tear him yet another asshole ... just drooling here over the prospect ...

I've never denied global warming, we have empirical data ... I've never denied man-kind's contribution to this effect, The Sahal provides clear and convincing evidence man-kind has changed climate through deforestation ... what I'm denying is that any of this provides net harm, the benefits of warmer surface temperatures greatly out weigh what little harm this will cause ... starting with the addition rainfall more widely distributed ... which leads to more robust plant growth including almost all human foods ... less fossil fuels being burned for home heating in winter ... women-folk wearing less clothing ... the list goes on ...

By your behaviors, you agree with me ... burning as much coal as you can to vomit forth your hypocrisy ... or worse, regurgitating someone else's spew you seem to like consuming, burning yet more coal ... Oregon has outlawed coal-fired electricity, shut down every single one of our coal-fired power plants ... by end-of-decade, the wholesale purchase of coal-fired electricity will be prohibited for all utilities operating within the State ... [sticks tongue out] ... what have you done to prevent the tragedy you say you believe in? ... or maybe that belief doesn't run very deep with you ...

Replies
532
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
72
Replies
151
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
103
Replies
609
Views
4K
Replies
126
Views
707