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

[Crick]

No one blames it on human activity. They blame it on the Milankovich cycles

Given that this extreme melting in Antarctica also took place over 100,000 years ago it's hard to blame it on human activity but they do blame it on human-induced climate change:

"Human-caused climate change has triggered wind shifts in Antarctica, according to a new study, driving accelerated melting across the continent's west coast."

Wind shifts caused by human-induced global warming cause of West Antarctic's melting ice - UPI.com

Human-caused climate change has triggered wind shifts in Antarctica, according to a new study, driving accelerated melting across the continent's west coast.

www.upi.com

"The region’s future is, to some degree, in our hands. The study authors also looked at how Antarctica’s wind patterns would respond if humans are able to reduce the production of greenhouse gases—or if they do not do so. “If we carry on emitting greenhouse gases at an uncontrolled rate, then by 2100, we’ll have winds that reliably blow toward the east”—meaning the winds that bring in the layer of deep warm water, Holland explains."

The Reason Antarctica Is Melting: Shifting Winds, Driven by Global Warming

A new study helps solve the puzzle of why the continent’s western glaciers are melting so fast

www.scientificamerican.com

Global warming is melting Antarctic ice from below | John Abraham

John Abraham: Warming oceans melting Antarctic ice shelves could accelerate sea level rise

www.theguardian.com

A new way of measuring ice melt in Antarctica, Greenland sounds alarm about global sea level rise

Global sea levels have risen 0.55 inches since 2003 due to ice melt in Antarctica and Greenland driven by climate change according to new data measurements from several NASA satellites.

www.cnbc.com

Antarctica could melt 'irreversibly' due to climate change, study warns

The change will take thousands of years, but we only have a century to stop it.

www.livescience.com

I accept anthropogenic global warming as a valid description of the current behavior of Earth's climate. When I say "human activity" I am talking about human production of GHGs, deforestation and pollution.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wow ... simply an amazing string of horseshit yesterday afternoon ...

No one blames it on human activity. They blame it on the Milankovich cycles

No one thinks that who has actually looked up what Milankovich cycles are ... none of the periods match the glacial/interglacial cycle ... 0% correlation ...

... Is it possible that the Fukishima earthquake that shifted the North Pole a couple of degrees is responsible for the polar vortex that seems to be plaguing the U.S. this year ...

Is Polaris four Moon-diameters away from the North celestial pole now? ... did you personally lurch 140 miles in 10 minutes during the earthquake and how is it we're all still alive? ... note when a figure skater pulls her arms in during a spin, her angular velocity increases, but her axis of rotation remains the same; both are required by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum ...

Rossby Waves are caused by a reduction in the temperature difference between the poles and the equator.

Rossby waves (aka planetary waves) occur along the Polar Front ... where cold polar air meets warm temperate air and rises in the air column forming the other convergence zone along with the ICZ near the equator ... the causes for the waves is poorly understood ... sometimes the amplitude of these waves is near zero, and the Polar front forms an near perfect circle around the pole; other times the amplitude is high and troughs can reach as far away as the Gulf Coast ... it is a well documented fact that these Rossby waves form near perfect hexagons on Saturn ... one of the many many many things that baffle scientists ...

You're confusing your claim with the emerging theory that because the poles are warming faster than the equator, and average power in the atmosphere is decreasing ... these Rossby waves with be propagating more slowly and have higher amplitude ... "bad" weather will last a few hours longer and be a couple degrees cooler ... and "good" weather will also last a bit longer and be a couple degrees warmer ... and will "average out" over our climatic time intervals ...

=====

All three of the above errors are errors of the basic science ... the things taught to students their first two years of college ... and one of the main reasons that curricula in climatology is started in the third year of college ... Climatology 301 as it were ...

If your claim violates any of the Laws of Nature ... you're wrong ... you need to take the time and learn these laws or be more circumspect with your wild and crazy predictions ... your local community college should offer core physics and calculus, however universities that offer core meteorology are few and far between ... at least sign up for ground school, anything would help your cases ...

 

[ding]

Wow ... simply an amazing string of horseshit yesterday afternoon ...

No one blames it on human activity. They blame it on the Milankovich cycles

No one thinks that who has actually looked up what Milankovich cycles are ... none of the periods match the glacial/interglacial cycle ... 0% correlation ...

... Is it possible that the Fukishima earthquake that shifted the North Pole a couple of degrees is responsible for the polar vortex that seems to be plaguing the U.S. this year ...

Is Polaris four Moon-diameters away from the North celestial pole now? ... did you personally lurch 140 miles in 10 minutes during the earthquake and how is it we're all still alive? ... note when a figure skater pulls her arms in during a spin, her angular velocity increases, but her axis of rotation remains the same; both are required by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum ...

Rossby Waves are caused by a reduction in the temperature difference between the poles and the equator.

Rossby waves (aka planetary waves) occur along the Polar Front ... where cold polar air meets warm temperate air and rises in the air column forming the other convergence zone along with the ICZ near the equator ... the causes for the waves is poorly understood ... sometimes the amplitude of these waves is near zero, and the Polar front forms an near perfect circle around the pole; other times the amplitude is high and troughs can reach as far away as the Gulf Coast ... it is a well documented fact that these Rossby waves form near perfect hexagons on Saturn ... one of the many many many things that baffle scientists ...

You're confusing your claim with the emerging theory that because the poles are warming faster than the equator, and average power in the atmosphere is decreasing ... these Rossby waves with be propagating more slowly and have higher amplitude ... "bad" weather will last a few hours longer and be a couple degrees cooler ... and "good" weather will also last a bit longer and be a couple degrees warmer ... and will "average out" over our climatic time intervals ...

=====

All three of the above errors are errors of the basic science ... the things taught to students their first two years of college ... and one of the main reasons that curricula in climatology is started in the third year of college ... Climatology 301 as it were ...

If your claim violates any of the Laws of Nature ... you're wrong ... you need to take the time and learn these laws or be more circumspect with your wild and crazy predictions ... your local community college should offer core physics and calculus, however universities that offer core meteorology are few and far between ... at least sign up for ground school, anything would help your cases ...

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

 

[justinacolmena]

A 4C increase would be impressive. Too bad an 8C decrease is more likely.

Sounds like a diamond cártel.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk

One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.

www.sciencedaily.com

Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

 

[ReinyDays]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk

One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.

www.sciencedaily.com

Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk

One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.

www.sciencedaily.com

Snow is a thing of the past

Guam, visit before it tips over!

Ice Free Arctic, any day now!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk

One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.

www.sciencedaily.com

A 4C increase would be impressive. Too bad an 8C decrease is more likely.

Yeah we just might be headed for an ice age. Many experts claim the melting ice caps leads to an ice age. At any rate many experts ignore the impact of the sun. It’s where the action is and it’s not friendly. Should it act up big time, we might be sent back to the Stone Age.

The Warmers have Consensus that the big yellow thing in the sky has almost no effect on weather or climate on planet Earth

 

[harmonica]

I don't care --so what?

 

[ding]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

 

[jc456]

From your last link
“There’s no evidence that this kind of seismic activity ... has significant effects on the stability of polar ice caps,” Cordero told Reuters.

doesn't say it won't have an effect though, right? ever hear of the hole in a dyke?

 

[jc456]

In recent years, some have speculated that volcanic activity could be playing a role in the present-day loss of ice mass from Earth’s polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. But does the science support that idea?
In short, the answer is a definitive “no,” though recent studies have shed important new light on the matter. For example, a 2017 NASA-led study by geophysicists Erik Ivins and Helene Seroussi of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory added evidence to bolster a longstanding hypothesis that a heat source called a mantle plume lies deep below Antarctica's Marie Byrd Land, explaining some of the melting that creates lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. While the study may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change and why it’s so unstable today, the researchers emphasized that the heat source isn't a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, but rather has been going on over geologic timescales, and therefore represents a background contribution to the melting of the ice sheet.

You think this supports your claim? hahahahahahaha it says that activity contributes. you should look up the definition of contribute, it seems you don't understand it.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

View attachment 480536

View attachment 480540

Experts in meteorology, of course ... folks competent in the thermodynamic complexities of water's continuous changing-of-state in the atmosphere ... thermohydrogoddamics ...

But what causes these gradients? ... what force are you relying on to push the system away from equilibrium? ... keep in mind that the greater the magnitude of this gradient, the stronger the forces are working against it ... power develops the opposite direction of the gradient in your "icehouse conditions" ... bifribicating a gradient is paradoxical, gradients by definition are continuous ...

 

[ding]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

View attachment 480536

View attachment 480540

Experts in meteorology, of course ... folks competent in the thermodynamic complexities of water's continuous changing-of-state in the atmosphere ... thermohydrogoddamics ...

But what causes these gradients? ... what force are you relying on to push the system away from equilibrium? ... keep in mind that the greater the magnitude of this gradient, the stronger the forces are working against it ... power develops the opposite direction of the gradient in your "icehouse conditions" ... bifribicating a gradient is paradoxical, gradients by definition are continuous ...

Sure gradients are continuous but there will be different gradients for different climates / temperatures. There will naturally be a larger temperature difference between the poles and the equators when the planet is colder. Hence a "steeper" gradient and greater delta between the equator and the pole temperatures. So when warming occurs, it will naturally warm more first where it is cooler than where it is warmer. This seems pretty obvious to me. People can get so easily lost trying to figure out the how when the why is obvious.

 

[jc456]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

View attachment 480536

View attachment 480540

Experts in meteorology, of course ... folks competent in the thermodynamic complexities of water's continuous changing-of-state in the atmosphere ... thermohydrogoddamics ...

But what causes these gradients? ... what force are you relying on to push the system away from equilibrium? ... keep in mind that the greater the magnitude of this gradient, the stronger the forces are working against it ... power develops the opposite direction of the gradient in your "icehouse conditions" ... bifribicating a gradient is paradoxical, gradients by definition are continuous ...

Sure gradients are continuous but there will be different gradients for different climates / temperatures. There will naturally be a larger temperature difference between the poles and the equators when the planet is colder. Hence a "steeper" gradient and greater delta between the equator and the pole temperatures. So when warming occurs, it will naturally warm more first where it is cooler than where it is warmer. This seems pretty obvious to me. People can get so easily lost trying to figure out the how when the why is obvious.

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dude, exactly, idiots treat the climate as if it is the same in every region. it isn't and never has. There is as much cold in the two arctics today as any other period of time we've been here. Six inches of snow fell overnight in Denver. Just more of the idiocies of the climate nut jobs.

insult reaction to any opposition to their ludicrousy

 

[ding]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

View attachment 480536

View attachment 480540

Experts in meteorology, of course ... folks competent in the thermodynamic complexities of water's continuous changing-of-state in the atmosphere ... thermohydrogoddamics ...

But what causes these gradients? ... what force are you relying on to push the system away from equilibrium? ... keep in mind that the greater the magnitude of this gradient, the stronger the forces are working against it ... power develops the opposite direction of the gradient in your "icehouse conditions" ... bifribicating a gradient is paradoxical, gradients by definition are continuous ...

Wouldn't it make sense for the meteorology experts to look at past data to see what happened when the planet went from colder to warmer before they decide to model it? And wouldn't that data be the data that would be used to calibrate their models? When it comes to climate 50 years is not enough data to be statistically valid in my opinion.

 

[ding]

I guess the last thing I will say about this is that if one gets a different answer than what he expected then clearly there is something wrong with his model and it is a sign that there is something he doesn't understand about what he is modeling.

 

[jc456]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

View attachment 480536

View attachment 480540

Experts in meteorology, of course ... folks competent in the thermodynamic complexities of water's continuous changing-of-state in the atmosphere ... thermohydrogoddamics ...

But what causes these gradients? ... what force are you relying on to push the system away from equilibrium? ... keep in mind that the greater the magnitude of this gradient, the stronger the forces are working against it ... power develops the opposite direction of the gradient in your "icehouse conditions" ... bifribicating a gradient is paradoxical, gradients by definition are continuous ...

Wouldn't it make sense for the meteorology experts to look at past data to see what happened when the planet went from colder to warmer before they decide to model it? And wouldn't that data be the data that would be used to calibrate their models? When it comes to climate 50 years is not enough data to be statistically valid in my opinion.

yep, so why don't they?

 

[ding]

It's pretty much expected that the poles will warm faster than the equator during an interglacial cycle and will cool faster than the equator during a glacial cycle. That should not be a surprise to anyone. It really should be called polar warming instead of global warming. But then again they shouldn't be intellectually dishonest by not admitting that previous interglacial cycles were warmer than we are today. Total fuckery.

Perhaps a slight difference is expected ... but double is kinda out there ... I'm wondering why you think it's expected when this caught the experts by surprise ... there's a few speculations floating around as to the cause, but to date we really don't know why this is occurring ... or even if it's in fact a long term tread ... this is based on only 50 years of collected data ... it's expensive and very difficult to collect weather data in the polar regions ...

Alarmists prefer the "albedo hypothesis" as this allows them to claim a runaway greenhouse effect ... though this belief is based on a misunderstanding of what albedo is ... I agree this could have a small effect in the northern polar zone because of all the land surrounding the polar sea, but meaningless in the southern where it's all ocean ... and we see the same temperature effect in both polar regions ...

More serious researches are focusing on the large-scale circulation system since this effects both poles relatively equally ... one team I know of is looking into the possibility that higher global temperatures causes convection is be more efficient ... a higher percentage of energy is being transferred from the surface to outer space through convection, less energy by radiation through the atmosphere ... note that climate models ignore convection completely ... the math is too complicated to program into a computer, like an n-body gravity problem ...

I can forgive the dishonesty among the Alarmists ... they speak lies they tell themselves ... Lord above knows we all lie to ourselves all the time ...

The experts? Which experts? Climate modeling experts? Or experts who have looked at actual data from past climates?

It's expected because the ice houses climate is characterized by high latitudinal gradients whereas the greenhouse climate is characterized by low latitudinal gradients. So since we are still in an ice age it's the polar regions that will be warming because it's the polar regions that cooled.

View attachment 480536

View attachment 480540

Experts in meteorology, of course ... folks competent in the thermodynamic complexities of water's continuous changing-of-state in the atmosphere ... thermohydrogoddamics ...

But what causes these gradients? ... what force are you relying on to push the system away from equilibrium? ... keep in mind that the greater the magnitude of this gradient, the stronger the forces are working against it ... power develops the opposite direction of the gradient in your "icehouse conditions" ... bifribicating a gradient is paradoxical, gradients by definition are continuous ...

Wouldn't it make sense for the meteorology experts to look at past data to see what happened when the planet went from colder to warmer before they decide to model it? And wouldn't that data be the data that would be used to calibrate their models? When it comes to climate 50 years is not enough data to be statistically valid in my opinion.

yep, so why don't they?

Bias