# Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows



## ScienceRocks (Nov 24, 2016)

*Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows


> The seasonal cycle of sea ice extent in Antarctica has been fairly stable over the length of the satellite record.  There is a slow growth of sea ice from a minimum of ~3x106 km2 in February to a maximum of ~19 x106km2 in September in February before a relatively rapid fall in the Antarctic spring.
> 
> But this year something different is going on.
> 
> Below is Tamino's image for the Southern Hemisphere, the red line is 2016 up to 16 November 2016.








The annotated seasonal extent of sea ice in the Southern hemisphere. From Tamino's post Sea Ice, North and South.


> From January up to September the sea ice extent follows all previous data.
> 
> But what happened in September?
> 
> ...



Well, there goes Antarctica argument the loserterians had.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...


Wow!  I can see why you are so worried.  It has totally departed from the trend such that up is now down.  Egads!


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 24, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...



Satellite record is only 35 years old. Maybe less. Not enough time to figure out "normal deviations".  We might actually LEARN something here if Matthew would stop shitting his pants.

The Earth is a huge thermodynamic system. Those "stadium waves" that Curry postulated take a long time to propagate..  COULD be the reaction to a major El Nino.. OR it could be increased vulcanism under the shoreline.

OR it could be cloud cover or any number of OTHER things. OTHER than a 0.5degC rise in atmos temperature.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

My goodness, why don't you show us what year that is? Come on, Ding, this is getting ridiculous, all these posts and never a link to show us where your so called information comes from.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 24, 2016)

For Nov. 23rd JAXA has posted SIE around Antarctica to be  12,896,355 km2.

Down 101,947 km2.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, why don't you show us what year that is? Come on, Ding, this is getting ridiculous, all these posts and never a link to show us where your so called information comes from.


No what is ridiculous is you jack-a-napes shitting your pants over minor deviations which will always prove to be nothing because there is no problem.  CO2 does not drive climate change.  If it did we would have seen much quicker responses when climates really were changing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say it enough times and it might come true. And all the physicists in the world will stand amazed. Publish why this is so and win a Nobel.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............



Where do you see a std deviation marker in those graphs? The point is that any statistical distribution built on 35 years of data for some parameter like that -- the "std deviation" has not yet BEEN established. At least not one that is meaningful to a climate discussion. 

Do YOU know why the SIE is less this spring down there?


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Say it enough times and it might come true. And all the physicists in the world will stand amazed. Publish why this is so and win a Nobel.


If that were true then there should have been an immediate decrease of 7C in temperature when CO2 dropped from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm.  There wasn't.  It took 12 million years for that to occur.  12 million years.


----------



## westwall (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Say it enough times and it might come true. And all the physicists in the world will stand amazed. Publish why this is so and win a Nobel.






Say it once and you've uttered a factual statement.  Unlike your hysterical claims.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............


And it is no different that the point in time I pointed out which time has shown to be a false indicator.  So stop shitting you pants because of the latest false indicator.  You can always shit your pants when and if a true indicator emerges.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 24, 2016)

For Nov. 24rd JAXA has posted SIE around Antarctica to be 12,736,966 km2.

Down 159,389 km2.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Nov. 24rd JAXA has posted SIE around Antarctica to be 12,736,966 km2.
> 
> Down 159,389 km2.


Dear Lord, it is even worse than I thought.... quick, run for the hills!


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
> ...



You skipped a point where you demonstrated that human CO2 emissions have had nothing to do with the observed warming and that the negative ice mass balance has nothing to do with the rapidly increasing temperature of the poles.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


What warming you imbecile?  Are you talking about the warming trend that has existed for the last 22,000 years?


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

"Imbecile"?  More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?

This warming.

















































The warming associated with the Younger Dryas ended 12,000 years ago.  The Earth has been cooling since then and only began warming in response to elevated CO2 from human combustion of fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Imbecile"?  More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
> 
> This warming.  Holy shit!



You are shitting your pants over this?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Imbecile"?  More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
> 
> This warming.
> 
> ...


If it was true that CO2 drives climate then there would have been an immediate drop of 7C when the atmospheric CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm.  Instead it took 12 million years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
> ...


OK, I get what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. We have a change from +2 standard deviations to -3 standard deviations in the ice melt in the Antarctic. And I don't know what it means, nor even what the primary cause. Therefore, it can be ignored. Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving and look the other way. 

Wonderful engineering point of view. LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



When the "std deviation" is 1% or LESS of the mean value -- exactly how PANICKED should you get Mr Rocks? 
Especially when you're making a CLIMATE argument based on only 30 years of good observation.. 

And where did you get the std deviations you're quoting anyways?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > "Imbecile"?  More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
> ...


Disregarded as not credible for a lack of a link to a source. Damn, you claim to be an engineer? You may be. One of the type I have cursed for 50 years. You see, I have had a 50+ year career as a millwright, yes, 73 and still working, and one of the primary jobs I, and other people in the trade have, is fixing the fuckups the engineers do. Things like putting high maintenance items in inaccessible areas inside the machinery. Failing to provide access for lubrication. 

Oh yeah, and a bit of education. The highest class I have taken is Eng. Geo. 470/570. No degree yet, but all the lower division classes finished with the exception of Vector Calculus. And some upper division classes done. 

So please, post a graph, post where it came from. No credibility granted unless I can see the article it came from.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...






Click for high-resolution image. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center






Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*But you knew that already, Mr. Flacaltenn.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > "Imbecile"?  More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
> ...


Of course the present warming is almost not measureable in the Greenland Ice cores. It has not compacted to ice yet. And much of it has melted. But we know exactly the extent of the present warming as it is measured.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



What I KNOW is the Antarctic SIE has a much narrower statistical bound. But that doesn't prevent outliers. And what YOU already knew, was that the previous year or two, the "WEATHER" done there promoted ABOVE average sea ice. 

No place on EARTH is expected to be at "at average" for any day or year. In fact, the place I live is hardly EVER within 10 degrees of avg on a day, or 4 degrees of avg in a year. 

Better explanation is the slow dissipation of heat towards the poles from the recent El Nino. If you look at how the MASSIVE North/South  currents travel right into and out of Antarctic you'd see the potential for delayed reaction to ocean events near the Equator. ,


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2016)

What were y'all saying LAST YEAR when the Antarctic sea ice was near RECORD levels???


----------



## Votto (Nov 25, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...



When the ice melts does that mean kids like you will stop nagging us 24/7?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


That was Crick's graphic, you moron.  That is too funny.  You are attacking Crick's argument.  Obviously you must agree with me, lol.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

No, I was attacking no one's graph, but I don't care who posts the graph, source and link, please.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Actually it's the other way around.  You haven't demonstrated that they do.  You postulated that they are the cause that means you have to PROVE your hypothesis.  That's how real science works.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> No, I was attacking no one's graph, but I don't care who posts the graph, source and link, please.


lol, Crick posted the graph, moron. I re-posted it and you obviously thought it proved my point so you challenged the source.  I agree with you.  It does prove my point.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.


Clearly the reason you climate change religious fanatics don't use the reply button is because you are embarrassed with how the thread is playing out.  Use the reply button.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.


What was proven by John Tyndall of England in 1859?  That global warming religious fanatics would shit their pants over nothing?  yes, I agree with him.

That's what happens when you fools don't use the reply button.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.






No, it hasn't.  Tyndall merely showed that CO2 is a GHG.  There has never been a empirical test that demonstrates the AGW theory.  Not one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.



Let's get this straight. I have no problem whatsoever with Tyndall's contribution to the GH theory. But Tyndall KNEW BETTER than to postulate the accelerations and positive feedbacks that make up the core of this rabid version CATASTROPHIC GW that has been advanced. In fact, he knew enough to say that adding MORE of a tiny fractional atmos component like CO2 does not produce the SAME effect as the previous equal addition. In other words -- there were BOUNDS on the warming power of GH gases. 

He also didn't have the Cajones to start conversations about the ocean's boiling and Florida going underwater. Or that 1 or 2 degrees is the largest extinction force ever to hit the planet.. 

Makes no sense to me that YOU think -- it's significant that GH gases work the way Tyndall predicted. Because that's NOT the general points of contention of GW skeptics..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
> ...


I see. Then you disagree with Arrhenius? And your creds are equal to his? LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
> ...


And how is the thread playing out, Onenote? 

The Antarctic sea Ice is still melting at a rate unseen since we put up satellites.






Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag







Global sea ice has reached a record low – should we be worried?

We have not seen anything like this previously. Not in 1998, or at any time since the satellite record which started in 1979.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Relax.  It isn't the end of the world.  You didn't see the irony of you calling me onenote?

"After a reaching its maximum extent unusually early and then following a period of relatively unchanging overall extent, Antarctic sea ice extent started to decline in earnest. Daily sea ice extent levels have been at second lowest in the satellite record since October 20 and below the two standard deviation range. Only the 1986 austral spring extent is lower. Ice extent is particularly low on both sides of the Antarctic Peninsula. The rapid early reduction in sea ice cover in this region may create favorable conditions for the break up of the eastern Peninsula ice shelves at the end of austral summer. Similar sea ice trends and weather conditions were present during the spring seasons preceding past ice shelf retreats (e.g., 2001 to 2002). Extensive open water, created by the downsloping fosters warmer air and surface melting, and allows longer-period ocean waves to reach the ice front of the ice shelves. Other areas of reduced sea ice cover are the Southern Ocean north of Dronning Maud Land, and the area west of the Ross Sea and north of Wilkes Land."


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> [
> No what is ridiculous is you jack-a-napes shitting your pants over minor deviations which will always prove to be nothing because there is no problem.  CO2 does not drive climate change.  If it did we would have seen much quicker responses when climates really were changing.



Gee who to believe? Climate scientists or somebody on a message board with no background in the science. It's a hard one....


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

I guess we will find out by September this year just how minor the deviations that we are seeing in temperature and ice are.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


That's not what he said.  He was very clear in what he said.  This is the problem that people have with you climate nazis.  You are fanatics who will stoop to dishonesty just to defend your religion.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> That's not what he said.  He was very clear in what he said.  This is the problem that people have with you climate nazis.  You are fanatics who will stoop to dishonesty just to defend your religion.



NASA is full of nazis? Go figure... Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I guess we will find out by September this year just how minor the deviations that we are seeing in temperature and ice are.


You are really a moron.  You will have a lot longer than that to observe it.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what he said.  He was very clear in what he said.  This is the problem that people have with you climate nazis.  You are fanatics who will stoop to dishonesty just to defend your religion.
> ...


I don't see anyone from NASA here discussing this.  I see global warming religious fanatics who remind me of nazis discussing it.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> I don't see anyone from NASA here discussing this.  I see global warming religious fanatics who remind me of nazis discussing it.



They're just saying what NASA is saying.

That aside, just looked at your profile page. You're a petroleum engineer. No conflict of interest with regard to your POV there! Jaysus.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?



I said 'climate' science. And no, a petroleum engineer is not a climate scientist..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And I see a fucking idiot that know even less than I do, and is trying to bull his way through with graphs that he cannot even understand. 

Go sell your politics somewhere else. Not buying here. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So why should we believe an anonymous poster that states otherwise?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> They're just saying what NASA is saying.
> 
> That aside, just looked at your profile page. You're a petroleum engineer. No conflict of interest with regard to your POV there! Jaysus.....


No.  They are not saying what NASA is saying.  That's right, I have no conflict.  I can retire tomorrow.  First of all, carbon is not going away.  Secondly, these religious fanatics have latched onto the IPCC accelerated forecast as gospel.  While I believe that the base case is more likely.  Thirdly, the data shows that CO2 does not drive climate change, it reinforces climate change.  And lastly, no one is going to listen to them because of their rhetoric and tactics.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Well... we are going to find out.  As this ain't going to change anytime soon.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?
> ...


The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation. 







We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world. 







Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record. 








The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2016)

'I brought the graph': Brian Cox refutes claims of climage change denier on Q&A – video


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?
> ...


The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling. 











Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 600 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.






Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 5 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.






The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

Petroleum Engineer? LOL Should have known. LOL  Well, my major is Geology. And I started reading journals in the discipline when I was in my 20's. My first contact with global warming was in my first geology class in the mid-60's. A post grad student gave a presentation concerning global warming. It was not until the late 80's that I began to think about it a lot, as I saw the recession of glaciers in the North Cascades in the 80's and 90's. And started reading what was then tentative explanations for what we were seeing. After the opening of the Northwest Passage opened in 2007, there was no doubt that we were seeing what the scientists had predicted. Much sooner than they predicted. 

Now, if you wish to sooth your conscience by lying to yourself about what the product you help produce does to the environment, go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to agree.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

Jesus fucking Christ!!!!!  The Cenozoic is not a worry for me. The temperatures that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be seeing is what is worrying me. And the present increase in the last three years are definitely indicating that the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere is going to go well beyond 2 degrees, even if we add not one ppm more.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.
> 
> We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.
> 
> ...



Nobody is denying the Earth goes through phases. And yes it is going through that now. What you deniers are saying is that humans are not contributing to it accelerating. Of course we are. How can we not. You know what a GH gas is right? I lived in NZ for the first 40 years of my life. It has not gone unnoticed that since the decrease in HFCs and the like, the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic AND parts of NZ during summer is now decreasing every year.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?
> ...


There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe I have no background in science?  What is your background in science?
> ...


Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Jesus fucking Christ!!!!!  The Cenozoic is not a worry for me. The temperatures that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be seeing is what is worrying me. And the present increase in the last three years are definitely indicating that the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere is going to go well beyond 2 degrees, even if we add not one ppm more.


The rapid drawdown of CO2 from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm should have resulted in a 7C decrease in temperature.  That decrease was not realized until 12 million years later proving that CO2 does not drive climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


1.43 degrees from what we have already put in. Yet we were almost there this year, in spite of the thermal inertia of the oceans. I think your chart has serious errors.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.
> ...


See post #60.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


That same thing would apply in both directions which is how we know that CO2 does not drive climate change. 

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


CO2 does not drive climate change.  CO2 reinforces climate change.  I would much prefer to remain in an interglacial climate than a glacial climate.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Yeah?  So?  We have written records from whaling ships that show them travelling at least 300 miles closer to the South pole in the 1880's then they can get to today.  You hysteria doesn't impress me.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...







Climate scientists who haven't had a single prediction come true in over thirty years.  Yeppers, leave it to a moron like you to choose them.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Probably because you are too dumb to understand the math.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anyone from NASA here discussing this.  I see global warming religious fanatics who remind me of nazis discussing it.
> ...






And the climatologists don't have a conflict of interest?  Really?  Lets see, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding the worlds energy distribution systems and gee, I wonder how much of that they'll get????


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







That would only be possible with your fellow morons dude.  What you don't know would fill volumes.  What you do know will fill a thimble.  The fact still remains that no empirical lab experiment has EVER been run that shows a 200 ppm increase in CO2 will have a measurable effect on global temp.  Not one.  Antarctic sea ice is low this year.  However the previous two years it was at levels (to use your term) unseen since we began the satellite era.  So, two years higher to one year lower.

You were bleating?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

JAXA has posted 12,616,192 km2 for SIE around Antarctica for Nov. 25th...

Down 120,774 km2 from the 24th...


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> And the climatologists don't have a conflict of interest?  Really?  Lets see, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding the worlds energy distribution systems and gee, I wonder how much of that they'll get????



If you think scientists think like that, you know nothing of scientists. Only neocon money grabbers "it's all about me,em, me" think like that. I know quite a few scientists. I've told them people think like that, and they laugh. You haven't a clue.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And the climatologists don't have a conflict of interest?  Really?  Lets see, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding the worlds energy distribution systems and gee, I wonder how much of that they'll get????
> ...









I AM a scientist and the climatologists pushing this crap are lazy, vain, venal pricks who DO think that way.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> [
> I AM a scientist and the climatologists pushing this crap are lazy, vain, venal pricks who DO think that way.



Simply put I don't believe the last part. I know two scientists who work in the climate field. Two very hard working individuals. Anybody who puts a type of person into a stereotype loses all credibility.
As for being a scientist. What type? And who for?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

Ok serious question.  Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research.  Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> Ok serious question.  Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research.  Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?



The only research the loserterians want is profit based. Anything else doesn't need to be done within their little minds...

A new dark age would occur if they got their way.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...








I'm a retired geologist.  Owned my own environmental cleanup company for decades but got my start in the field with Dames and Moore.  Before they would hire me they wanted me to work for a petroleum company to see how it shouldn't be done so my first real job after my PhD was with BP.  Two years of sheer hell.  Gosh I was glad to leave them.  They were everything that was bad about the corporate world.

Climatologists are like any other group.  There are good and bad.  Unfortunately the bad rose to the top of the food chain and have done nothing but give all of the rest of the science community a bad rep.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Mr. Westwall claims to be a Phd Geologist. I have met many Phd Geologists, none that make the claims that he does. Nor any that show the inability to read scientific papers, as he has demonstrated on this board many times.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

> “It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia. This is unprecedented for November,” said research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers university.
> 
> Temperatures have been only a few degrees above freezing when -25C should be expected, according to Francis. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary,” she said.



'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> Ok serious question.  Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research.  Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?






Take a look at the ones pushing the AGW fraud, for fraud it is.  They ALL are making millions for pushing it.  The politicians want it because it gives them power.  Thus you have a nexus of poor scientists, funded by power hungry politicians.  Just like there is a military/industrial complex, there is likewise a political/climatology complex.


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...


That article is horse shit...

Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall claims to be a Phd Geologist. I have met many Phd Geologists, none that make the claims that he does. Nor any that show the inability to read scientific papers, as he has demonstrated on this board many times.









That's hilarious.  It is you who have been shown to be the idiot incapable of reading, much less understanding a scientific paper.  You have also lied about your age, which I busted, and you supposedly work for a steel company as a floor cleaner (though you claim to be a sort of machinist), what's funny is the only steel company in your are is EVRAZ, a notoriously fucked up company that has a long history of polluting their areas.  And you are "proud" to work for them.

What does that say about you silly boy....


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > Ok serious question.  Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research.  Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
> ...



That doesn't answer my question.  A scientist can't make money funding their own research.  What can they hope for to make money back?  A Nobel Prize?  What's the odds of doing that?  So how else do the scientist fund their research without government help?  So how can these scientist be taken seriously by the deniers if all the deniers dismiss research that is obtained from government funded research?  Sounds like this is some kind of...circle jerk thing where scientist can't win in the eyes of deniers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Mr. Westwall claims that all the scientists in the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America are dishonest frauds. Kind of like the people that always are claiming that they can show how Einstein was wrong. And, if you dispute them, you are a dirty commie. LOL

Since he first started on this board, he has predicted every year that we are going to see a cooling period very soon. Soon just keeps getting further away.


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall claims that all the scientists in the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America are dishonest frauds. Kind of like the people that always are claiming that they can show how Einstein was wrong. And, if you dispute them, you are a dirty commie. LOL
> 
> Since he first started on this board, he has predicted every year that we are going to see a cooling period very soon. Soon just keeps getting further away.


Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

Actually, wouldn't there be a cooling trend eventually as you move towards the equator once the Arctic shelves melt and then cool the waters of the jet stream?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall claims that all the scientists in the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America are dishonest frauds. Kind of like the people that always are claiming that they can show how Einstein was wrong. And, if you dispute them, you are a dirty commie. LOL
> 
> Since he first started on this board, he has predicted every year that we are going to see a cooling period very soon. Soon just keeps getting further away.







No, I don't.  I merely claim that the LEADERSHIP of those groups are corrupt.  Huge difference.  But you knew that and chose to lie anyway.  It's what you do.....


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...








Ask Mann how he managed to amass a 30 million dollar plus nest egg as a professor sometime.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

 Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

 Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

 Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

*The position statement of the American Geophysical Union*


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




You just said as a professor.  That's not necessarily a researcher.  How about providing a little more info?  My cousin is a stem cell researcher and travels the country setting up stem cell studies... and he said he can't even afford to buy insurance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/positions/pos10_climate.pdf

Position Statement.   

 Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

 Purpose.   

 This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

*Geological Society of America statement on global warming*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Why? I assume that maybe he is a pretty smart fellow.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...









Yes, he is real good at fraud.  How's his lawsuit against Dr. Ball going lately?  Hmm?  I hear he finally took down his claim to be a Nobel recipient.  That true?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

> The normal yearly average in Svalbard, an island group midway between the North Pole and continental Norway, is minus 6.7 C (20 F) and the warmest year until now was 2006, when the average temperature in Svalbard was minus 1.8 C (29 F), Isaksen said.
> 
> "Svalbard is a very good spot to show what's happening in the Arctic at the moment," he said, noting that *each of the past 73 months has been warmer than average.*



Svalbard sees 'shocking' temperatures near freezing point


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

*CLIMATE CHANGE = Spring - Summer - Fall - Winter.

CLIMATE CHANGE = liberal name change game for GLOBAL WARMING.*


----------



## Yarddog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...




Al Gore couldn't wait 12 million years, used the short form graph


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

*European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”*
Published on October 11, 2016

Written by mesastuces.net



European weather forecasters believe that the inhabitants of the old world should start now making provisions for sweaters and winter coats. The German meteorologist Dominik Jung said the 2016-2017 season promises to be “unusually cold.”


European forecasters warn winter 2016 – 2017 will be “coldest in 100 years”


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

So, if both these organizations have a corrupt leadership, then how about the Royal Society? Or the many other scientific organizations, like the American Meteorlogical Society, that state the same? All of these people are dishonest frauds, and you are the only honest scientist? LOL


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> *European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”*
> Published on October 11, 2016
> 
> Written by mesastuces.net
> ...



Like I just asked... if the ice caps melt and lower the water temperatures in the jet stream, won't that make the winters worse in areas like the United States and Europe?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> *European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”*
> Published on October 11, 2016
> 
> Written by mesastuces.net
> ...


And? 2016 is going to go down as the warmest year on record. And the temperatures at the poles are pretty much off the charts for much of this year. The sea ice at both poles is reflecting that heat. So, there may be some cold areas, also? So what?


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > *European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”*
> ...


Why would the ice caps be melting if it's getting colder?


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > *European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”*
> ...


Got a link to some more of those fake temp charts?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > *European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”*
> ...









What is driving this current cold is Siberia.  There is a theory called the Siberian Snow Theory that postulates when the snow cover over Siberia reaches a certain amount that will drive cold air masses into the lower latitudes which then cascades on down the road.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...



No, the caps are getting hotter and melting, thus making the water colder, effecting the temperatures of the jet stream and making the winters in areas affected by the jet stream colder.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...







Weeeeellllll, just because.....


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


No.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Actually, considering the cold spot in the Atlantic off of Greenland, this is a pretty safe prediction. Also;


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...







How does hotter water create colder water?     There's this thing called "physics" which kinda controls those things....


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal.  I'm asking if that is true or not.


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Sunspots and climate


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


*Yes.*

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ARTICLE

*Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation*

Stefan Rahmstorf,
Jason E. Box,
Georg Feulner,
Michael E. Mann,
Alexander Robinson,
Scott Rutherford
& Erik J. Schaffernicht

*Abstract*

Abstract• 
Change history• 
References• 
Author information• 
Supplementary information
Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (_p_ > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Climate change - Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Sunspots and climate


We are currently in a quiescent period for the sunspots. And have had three record hot years in a row. So much for that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal.  I'm asking if that is true or not.


"The Day after Tomorrow" was Hollywood. However, there is some truth that the slowing of the Atlantic Overturning Circulation will bring colder temperatures to the East Coast of the US and to Europe. Consider that Scotland is at the same lattitude as Hudson's Bay.


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunspots and climate
> ...


Link?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Climate change. Drought that has killed in the last few years, 100 million trees in California, and 300 million trees in Texas.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...








Activity cycles 21, 22 and 23 seen in sunspot number index, TSI, 10.7cm radio flux, and flare index. The vertical scales for each quantity have been adjusted to permit overplotting on the same vertical axis as TSI. Temporal variations of all quantities are tightly locked in phase, but the degree of correlation in amplitudes is variable to some degree.

Solar cycle - Wikipedia


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And just how did you divine that conclusion?

Trees die, fire, old age, no rain... whatever, and drought isn't global warming.


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Nothing current about that, and wiki... really?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...



Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

 J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary.

 The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

*The whole article at that link. Drought increases the chance of fire, and the drought was predicted as a result of the warming. And when this article was published in 1981, Dr. Hansen was labeled an alarmist. The Northwest Passage first opened up in 2007, the predicted time was in the latter part of this century. And last summer, a luxury liner went through the passage.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

007 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Well now, you can get the same graph on other sites, NASA, NOAA, as seperate graphs. But maybe you are just too damned lazy to do that for yourself?


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You won't convince me no matter how much contrived leftist ramblings and faked data you dig up that man has caused global warming, or even that global warming is real, sorry. 

The earth has it's own cycles.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

In other words, you are going to remain a fucked up ignoramous no matter what. LOL You guys are a hoot. You ask for evidence, then when given it, you reject it without doing any research at all because it conflicts with your preferred political gurus. Well, obese junkies on the AM radio are piss poor scientists.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Since Arrhenius was NOT a climate scientist with any clue about GLOBAL climate or how it worked, my specialties and credentials might be.
Did Arrhenius have access to the proxy records? To Ice cores? To the global redistribution of heating or the feedbacks involved in GW theory?

This thread is really VERY simple. It's a very short term (less than a year observation of a process that has a mean value determined AT THE MINIMUM of a 30 year average. And you could tell a number of stories based on that NON climate observation. * For instance,  if you simply showed the past 2 or 3 years of data (instead of less than ONE year) -- EVERYTHING then folds back into the central distribution.* You should know that.   If you don't realize that -- you shouldn't be quoting ancient scientists. Because they were more objective than the "made for the public propaganda" like this piece..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...


How many times must I tell you that the sensor aboard the satellite, which makes this calculation, is failing?   They know about the sensor failure.. Yet fools keep crying wolf before they can get it fixed..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we will find out by September this year just how minor the deviations that we are seeing in temperature and ice are.
> ...



In that last graph, the 1st Industrial age doubling from 280ppm does not occur until 2080 or so. 2070 at the soonest. And the free market and innovation will stem that rate way before that. So by Arrhenius rules and basic physics, the NEXT doubling where CO2 consistently is above 1120ppm (560 x 2) wont' likely OCCUR in the 22nd century.. Makes it hard for the BASIC warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF to make 2degC until then.. Without periodic help from natural variations. 

The GW doom and gloom is based on CONTESTED and very unsettled science regarding those feedbacks and accelerations. And that's where -- I and other skeptics are not gonna go..  It's NOT based at all on those 18th/19th century scientists.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunspots and climate
> ...


And Old Crock shows how he has no clue about how or why our buffered earth systems work..


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal.  I'm asking if that is true or not.








There was ZERO reality in that movie.  That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW.  They get their science from movies.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal.  I'm asking if that is true or not.
> ...



Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Wow... CO2 fell from 3500 to 600 ppm and it took 12 million years for the temperature to fall 7C to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2016)

Whose history?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...








Because they have a vested interest in keeping people alarmed.  Here's the deal, EVERYTHING that they are warning us about has already happened.  MANY times over.  And not once has any bad thing that they claim will happen....happened.  It's that simple.  You actually seem like you wish to learn so here is a little bit of homework for you.  Go back and take a look at all of their wild claims of impending disaster.  Go ALL the way back to the 1970's.  Then actually take a look at what happened.  

They love to terrify people with their claims of massive storms are going to kill us all!  Look up the Great Drowning of Men.  Look up the Great Flood of 1862.  HUGE storms that killed tens of thousands of people.  They all happened before CO2 levels got to "dangerous" levels.  Drought your ticket?  Look up California mega droughts.  And you will find a story where scientists have been able to map out multiple droughts in California over the last 1200 years where the droughts lasted for over 200 years!  

In other words, all of the hysteria that they are propagandizing you with is just that.  Propaganda not founded in reality.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn.  Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous.  If you want to believe it, go right ahead.  Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food.  Just eat it raw.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Now you're just overreacting.  Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...








How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable?  Below are two stories.  One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist.  How does that make any sense at all.  And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels.  How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


*A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist*

*Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel*




*Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business*


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...








Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is.  To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel.  Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY.  Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA.  The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business.  Thus they pay the fine.  However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...






Actually none.  There is regular fuel used in its creation, in addition to the extra refining costs and pollution from that process.  Below are just a very few of the reports and studies that show biofuels are MORE polluting than any fossil fuel.  The reality is you have been sold a bill of goods by people who simply want your money.  They don't give a crap about the environment.  


*Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study*

*Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline - study | Climate Home - climate change news*

*Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study


That is, we need to consider the damage caused by producing them in addition to using them. For gasoline, the life cycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, and distributing and combusting the gasoline itself. The life cycle of corn ethanol includes growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting the ethanol itself.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...-and-alternative-transport-PNAS-July-2015.pdf
*


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right?  Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's.  CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says.  CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


I have never understood the rationale of growing food for fuel while we have so many starving people in the world.  This just seems like a predictable surprise waiting to happen.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Define pollution?  Is CO2 pollution?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Then I agree that is a dumb rule.  But...before you go saying Obama did it in order to make a friend happy because they are probably the one who makes it, you should show proof of that.  Also, who says Obama is the one that is relying on making these decisions?  And not just listening to the experts?  Last time I checked, Obama was a politician and not a scientist?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




and why has OUR air quality improved?  It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.  

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made.  Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well I never understood the idea of the government paying farmers to NOT grow certain crops.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...







The "experts" are those that obama placed in their positions.  In every case that has been published, Solyndra being the most egregious example, of green companies getting big government handouts they have ALL been friends of obama.  EVERY single time.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...







Partially you are correct.  The EPA when it was first formed, by Nixon of all people, was interested in the environment and how to improve it.  The obama admin changed all of that and he turned the EPA into an arm of his political goals.  Science got tossed right out the window and everything the EPA has done has been agenda driven.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but you have to PROVE that statement.  You can't just say it.  Hell I'm showing proof that Russia worked hard to influence the Presidential Election to get Trump elected, and people still don't believe it.  So I'm sorry, but I can't just take your word for it.

Also, what is the length of time someone stays the head of the EPA?  Take for example, Comey's position, his job has a 6 year term limit which is longer than the term limit of the President.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's.  They have zero business regulating CO2.  So, I'll draw the line there.  

Why should the US build more refineries?  First of all the US doesn't build refineries.  Free enterprise does.  Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many.  Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Did you not just read what I said?  The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world.  Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Same thing.  They could have paid them to grow it and given it to Africa.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...








Look up the obama EPA appointments.  It really is that easy.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries?  Let's assume you don't, ok?  Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason?  Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



There is NO need to build them.  There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now.  First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?"  You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Should the refiners consult you before every investment decision they make or just on refineries?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Hey dipshit...do you not understand?  WE ARE THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF REFINED OIL IN THE WORLD.  We have an abundant reserve of refined oil.  Why do we need to build more fineries and add pollution to the environment when we are already outproducing our use and sales of it?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


I get that.  I really do.  I am just wondering why you think your beliefs matters in what other people decide to do with their own money.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Here's a good example, I'm going to buy a new car.  I decide I will buy a Suburban that gets 14 mpg.  Do you have a say in that too?





Lewdog


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I'm asking you a fucking question and you keep answering me back with insults and not answers.  
*
WHY DO WE NEED TO BUILD MORE REFINERIES AND CREATE MORE POLLUTION WHEN THE U.S IS THE LARGEST REFINED OIL PRODUCING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND WE HAVE ABUNDANCE OF OIL RESERVES?*


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


*I DON'T KNOW WHICH REFINERIES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT I SUSPECT IT IS BECAUSE THE COMPANY BUILDING IT THINKS THEY WILL MAKE MONEY*


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Holy shit it only took you 3 tries to answer a question?  You are a fucking genius!  

Now why is it ok to pollute the environment to make money... but researchers can't make money off their research or they are obviously corrupt and not giving fair data?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Salt is absolutely vital to your life. So, that being said, just go ahead and down a quart of it all at once. Surely cannot hurt you as it is vital to your life.

Engineering logic at it's best. LOL  And it is the rate of climate change that is the problem. A rate of change that not only may stress the ecology that we depend on, but will do the same for our civilization and it's infrastructure.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Really?  How much CO2 does it take to be toxic?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


I answered it the first time, you big dope.  You just couldn't figure it out.  

How are they polluting the environment, Einstein?  Do you drive a car?  Are you polluting?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

How much sea level rise does it take to cripple sea ports around the world? How far can we go in massive bleaching of corals before we create a situation where the people that depend on the sea for food are going hungry? How much acidification before the base of the food chain is crippled? How many much of the ecology can we destroy from the droughts and precipitation events that the warming makes more likely before our food production is affected?

Ding, you are playing shit games. You know damned well that the toxic effects of CO2 are not going to be reached, and you know damned well that the amount that will create major changes in the climate has already been reached. But you and Westwall are playing games to keep the rich corporations richer at the expense of the rest of mankind.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Oh yeah, that's a good equivalent.  Driving a car or an oil refinery!  Brilliant!  You are a the next fucking Einstein!  Did you notice this conversation was fairly pleasant until you started acting like an idiot?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> How much sea level rise does it take to cripple sea ports around the world? How far can we go in massive bleaching of corals before we create a situation where the people that depend on the sea for food are going hungry? How much acidification before the base of the food chain is crippled? How many much of the ecology can we destroy from the droughts and precipitation events that the warming makes more likely before our food production is affected?
> 
> Ding, you are playing shit games. You know damned well that the toxic effects of CO2 are not going to be reached, and you know damned well that the amount that will create major changes in the climate has already been reached. But you and Westwall are playing games to keep the rich corporations richer at the expense of the rest of mankind.


You were the one who brought up the too much salt thingee.  I'm just curious if you know what the toxicity threshold of CO2 is.  Well... do you?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Are you a hypocrite?  Please go and buy an electric car right away.  Oh wait... those use electricity which requires powerplants.  Go buy a bike right away.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You have a difficult time understanding concepts don't you?  I'm going to tell you something that a professor once told me in a Nutrition class and see if you can understand it:

"It's ok to eat potato chips every once in a while, as long as you don't eat the whole bag.  It's all about doing things in moderation."


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> How much sea level rise does it take to cripple sea ports around the world? How far can we go in massive bleaching of corals before we create a situation where the people that depend on the sea for food are going hungry? How much acidification before the base of the food chain is crippled? How many much of the ecology can we destroy from the droughts and precipitation events that the warming makes more likely before our food production is affected?
> 
> Ding, you are playing shit games. You know damned well that the toxic effects of CO2 are not going to be reached, and you know damned well that the amount that will create major changes in the climate has already been reached. But you and Westwall are playing games to keep the rich corporations richer at the expense of the rest of mankind.


What is your carbon footprint?  And no, I don't believe that major climate changes are occurring.  You do.  What is your excuse for your carbon footprint, hypocrite?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Well... in this case a whole lot of people driving cars equals a whole lot of pollution, right?  And yet here you are complaining about it while being oblivious of your own complicity.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




So your answer is..."Oh people are already polluting so let's pollute with reckless abandon... because money!"


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


No.  I don't believe they are polluting.  That is you.  What is your carbon footprint?  How much pollution does your car emit?  Stop blaming others to assuage your own guilt.  Refineries exist so YOU can drive YOUR car.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So, as I thought, you didn't understand the concept I gave you.  Argument over.  You are one of those full or empty people that can't understand concepts.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


lol, you are a fruitcake.  Go live your life oblivious to your hypocrisy.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Do you really think the only emissions given off by oil refineries is CO2?

Do you really not understand the concept of moderation and living within your limits?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Do you really believe burning gasoline in your car only gives off CO2?  

Do you really not understand the concept of hypocrisy?


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Why did you have to ruin a good conversation?  

You are the person stuck on talking about CO2... in every factor.  

Hypocrisy?  You ruined the discussion.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Probably because emotional people who have abandoned all reason and logic are ruining this country.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



And you think you have better reasoning abilities than everyone else?  You've proven that false today.  Any way, I'm putting you on ignore so I can go back to having useful conversations on this subject.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Better than you that's for sure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Yes, the subject is the Antarctic Sea Ice. And what is it that is melting it so fast. Cannot be atmospheric temperature, still too cold to do that, has to be ocean temperature. So, what has changed? We need to know, and know if it is a permanent change, because if it can do that for the sea ice, it can do that for the ice shelves. If it does, then we are going to get sea level rise far faster than we were expecting.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Could you imagine the craziness that would go on if all the rich waterfront properties went underwater?  How all those rich people would suddenly change their stance on Global Warming?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


That is actually happening in Florida right now, in spite of Governor Scott.


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Hehe property values are going up in Kentucky as we speak.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.

Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.

And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.

For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.

Now, those warnings are no longer theoretical: The inundation of the coast has begun. The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.


Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/s...by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0

*What happens In the polar regions does not stay in the polar regions.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

For Nov. 26th JAXA has posted 12,460,979 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 155,213 km2 from the 25th.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

ding said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Than making use of that superior reasoning power, I'm sure you can explain why you believe the radiative forcing factor of CO2 in the atmosphere is unable to initiate warming while that of "the sun and the oceans" are.  Something better than "because they never have".


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Sure I can.  You know what is required of you for me to do so, right?


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

Apparently, infinite patience.

If you want to convince EVERYONE here that you haven't got shit, just continue to play these puerile games.  The general rule around here is that people making claims are required to provide supporting evidence. Your call.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Apparently, infinite patience.
> 
> If you want to convince EVERYONE here that you haven't got shit, just continue to play these puerile games.  The general rule around here is that people making claims are required to provide supporting evidence. Your call.


Sure.  I have made that call.  I couldn't care less what others think.  I find it amusing that when you were presented with proof of your laziness, incompetence and dishonesty that you clung stubbornly to your belief that you hadn't.  And yet, here you are accusing me of not providing supporting evidence.  I have already provided geologic evidence of past climate changes that where CO2 went up and down and showed that the temperature did not respond as the radiative forcing of CO2 projected.  On each occasion you had no valid answer that in of itself did not refute your current position.  In fact, the few times you did respond your answer was that there were other variables that influenced the temperature.  No shit.  That's the point I am making today.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...



No.. You have this bass ackwards as usual.  All those accelerations and feedbacks attributed to CO2 are NEVER applied when the forcing is primary solar variation.  Apparently, the Earth knows the difference and suffers MORE when the forcing is from man-made CO2.  That's why your IPCC conveniently ignores the magic multipliers and crap when dismissing solar forcing..


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



That would be the forcing from THIS:






Astounding how well that correlates with global temperature.  And what's the range of forcing up there?  >0.25W/m^2.  Man, that's a scorcher!


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2016)

And since 1998, we have been having record warm years. Yet both solar irradiance and sunspot numbers are down. Kind of blows your denier claims out of the water.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Not doing this again. Anything with sunspot numbers is ignored. And a 30 year record of the thing that DRIVES the Earth's climate is NO WHERE NEAR sufficient to understand climate effects. You're stuck PERMANENTLY on stupid by your lack of brain engagement and reliance on the UN for science....


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

So you think there's a buffer somewhere, that nobody knows about, with greater than 30 year's capacity in it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Nov. 26th JAXA has posted 12,460,979 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> Down by 155,213 km2 from the 25th.


 And Today they corrected it.. Sensors back on line






Back into the 2std range...


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you think there's a buffer somewhere, that nobody knows about, with greater than 30 year's capacity in it.


Who are you talking to now?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2016)

For Nov. 27th JAXA has posted 12,318,519 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 142,460 km2.

From NSIDC, the drop at Nov 26 was even bigger, -193K. The SIE isnow at 12,485 Mn km2 which is about a million km2 lower than 1986 at the moment.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Nov. 27th JAXA has posted 12,318,519 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> Down by 142,460 km2.
> 
> From NSIDC, the drop at Nov 26 was even bigger, -193K. The SIE isnow at 12,485 Mn km2 which is about a million km2 lower than 1986 at the moment.


lol

Still using failed data...NSIDC is not updated with corrected values yet.\

DMI has corrected the graphing:


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Too funny:

Crick misses the magnetic waves and changes in wave lengths which affect earths temp far more than TOTAL SOLAR OUTPUT..   But then straw men is all Crick and the IPCC have..


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
> Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
> 
> ...


I can read a graph....and it's obvious that it's not even close to historic lows.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2016)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows*
> ...


Notice how they already have December's readings on this graph, yet it's still only November.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Say it enough times and it might come true. And all the physicists in the world will stand amazed. Publish why this is so and win a Nobel.


Or receive numerous death-threats.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > For Nov. 27th JAXA has posted 12,318,519 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> ...


*LOL*





















Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Poor Silly Billy strikes out again.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2016)

Big drop today, -223K according to NSIDC. We are somewhat less than 1 Mn km2 lower than 1986 and another 400K lower than third lowest year for the date 11/27..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you think there's a buffer somewhere, that nobody knows about, with greater than 30 year's capacity in it.



No ME and the climate scientists KNOW there is a big buffer. YOU should also. Since you've posted this 90% of the GW goes into the oceans business. You just don't THINK. You don't engage your brain and ponder before your fingers start typing. And we've DONE THIS before too. Where Max Planck Inst, J Curry and several other top notch think tanks have laid out 100 years or more of LATENCY in achieving steady state warming in the climate. It's no secret Bullwinkle. It HOW IT WORKS.. 

And if you haven't noticed, there aren't many of those CO2 versus temperature graphs hitting USA today anymore because that Sesame Street version of climate science is just to silly to be pushing anymore. That's YOUR concept that all surface temp changes INSTANTANEOUSLY (in the climate sense of time).  That's never been true. And you should stop looking for YEARLY or MONTHLY or even DECADALLY correlated effects of variables on the GMAST.  Unless you're a cartoon character or something.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2016)

Beats the Bugs Bunny denialism you fellows push.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2016)

For Nov. 28th JAXA has posted 12,116,756 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by  201,763 km2.


----------



## ding (Nov 28, 2016)

Speaking of cartoon characters...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 29, 2016)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 29, 2016)

For Nov. 29th JAXA has posted 11,913,271 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 203,485 km2.


----------



## ding (Nov 30, 2016)

Matthew said:


>


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 30, 2016)

For Nov. 30th JAXA has posted 11,697,965 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 215,306 km2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 1, 2016)

For Dec. 1st JAXA has posted 11,508,508 km2 for the SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 189,457 km2.

Melt momentum.





This is going to get really ugly if that ice keeps shattering in the top and top-left side of this imagine.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Dec. 1st JAXA has posted 11,508,508 km2 for the SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> Down by 189,457 km2.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> >


375 top scientists warn against Trump's plan to pull out of climate pact

On Tuesday, 375 top scientists signed an open letter warning against the consequences of backing out of the historic Paris Climate Agreement, which Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has said he would do if elected. 

The letter marks an unusual foray into presidential politics for most of these scientists, many of whom specialize in climate change-related fields. World-renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking is among the signatories, as is former Obama energy secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu.




The Paris Agreement, which is expected to go into force this year or in 2017, commits all nations to undertake steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to global warming impacts for the first time. At least 20 countries are expected to announce their ratification of the agreement in an event at the United Nations on Wednesday.

SEE ALSO: In diplomatic milestone, the US and China formally join Paris Climate Agreement

*The list of scientists signing the letter includes 30 Nobel Laureates, and all signatories are members of the National Academy of Sciences* (NAS). 

*375 scientists, 30 Nobel Laureates versus on senile old bat. *


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Good for them.  So what?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


> Good for them.  So what?



What do you want to bet that all 375 of them have grown quite fat at the government money trough that Trump is threatening to shut down?


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Good for them.  So what?
> ...


I'm sure they drive nice cars, live in big houses and have large carbon footprints.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



This climate hoax has been great for them...before it started the best gig most of them could hope for was as a weatherman on some local TV show and 35K a year.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> No ME and the climate scientists KNOW there is a big buffer.



We're still waiting for you to describe that system function which can give the climate output based on solar input. A long time ago, you said you were working on it. Where is it? Come on, put it out there. Do some science, and make a testable prediction.

Oh, that's right, it's impossible to find such a function, being how the earth is responding in a way which is pretty much opposite to the way any system function could behave. Doesn't it suck when the data blows apart your religious beliefs?

It is an interesting theory, the way you think heat can hide in the oceans for 30 years, totally invisible to thermometers. There's a word for that, "magic". Your theory depends on invoking magic, which would be why it's not taken seriously by the scientific community.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick misses the magnetic waves



Yes!

The Magnetic Waves are back!

Nobody knows what they are, but Billy is sure they control earth's climate.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No ME and the climate scientists KNOW there is a big buffer.
> ...



Nice personal rant. Do you totally believe that "heat can't hide in the oceans"?? Because that would put you at odds with mainstream climate science and with me. And by "hiding" --- I mean not contributing the the GMAST. So if its' 400m or more down -- it's "hiding"..

You're such a waste of electrons. Truly you are..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2016)

For Dec. 2nd JAXA has posted 11,318,272 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 190,236 km2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2016)

For Dec. 3rd JAXA has posted 10,999,093 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

That makes for a large drop of  319,179 km2.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Nice personal rant. Do you totally believe that "heat can't hide in the oceans"??



Of course not, being that it contradicts the science.



> Because that would put you at odds with mainstream climate science and with me.



No, you just claim that so you don't have to justify the failure of your own theory.



> And by "hiding" --- I mean not contributing the the GMAST. So if its' 400m or more down -- it's "hiding"..



Since around 2009, ocean temperatures have been measured down to 2000m.

But then, that whole issue is kind of a red herring, being that the surface temps have been warming strongly and steadily. Heat isn't just sitting in the oceans. It's busting out at the surface.



> You're such a waste of electrons. Truly you are..



I know you don't like discussing your theory, and prefer to simply state it's obviously correct, and no one is allowed to criticize it. Myself, I'd like to explore your theories more.

How does the heat get into the deep oceans to hide without first showing up at the surface? Mainstream science points to the thermohaline circulation, and tracks the movement of the heat that way, so it doesn't have trouble explaining it. Your theory more or less assumes magic. Can you be a little more explicit than "... and then a miracle occurs."?

What predictions are you making for the near future, based on your "climate is just responding to a step increase in solar output after a 30-year delay" theory? After all, scientists are supposed to make predictions based on their theories, which is how those theories get tested.

Why doesn't real-world temperature resemble any sort of simple system response? That is, we expect a response to a step function to be a [1-exp(-kt)] type thing. Instead, it's been rather linear, with no signs of slowing down. What sort of system function could cause such a response?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 4, 2016)

For Dec. 4th JAXA has posted 10,787,419 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 211,674 km2.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Truly.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 5, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Dec. 3rd JAXA has posted 10,999,093 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> That makes for a large drop of  319,179 km2.



Do you understand what a MEAN is? If 2014 is the 1st highest. And 2010/2013 were also high records -- What should the MEAN become over that period?  EVEN over the shorter NON climate period of a decade?

Why are you crapping your pants over this daily? You think there is no natural variation to all of this? Hardly anything in nature is measured without rather large variations.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 5, 2016)

Lol,

It is way below the avg sea ice of the past two decades so something changed this year that goes against 2000-2014....Maybe the ocean temperatures beneath the ice finally warmed up enough to make it impossible to maintain the balance that allowed for sea ice growth(precipitation increasing because of warmer world going against the slow warming ocean).

I guess you're not a scientist as you don't really care to watch such processes and would probably rather do something more important like feed your cat. All you do is deny outright what is occurring before our very eyes.

Certainly you could argue that this year is a huge anomaly and outside of that means but a trend has to start somewhere.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 5, 2016)

For Dec. 5th JAXA has posted 10,615,432 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

This is a drop of 171,987 km2.

If you don't like me posting the daily number's, well, you can kiss my part native American ass.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Dec. 5th JAXA has posted 10,615,432 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> This is a drop of 171,987 km2.
> 
> If you don't like me posting the daily number's, well, you can kiss my part native American ass.




You never answered my question matthew....what is it like to live in a constant state of emotional agitation?...to be afraid of the future based on a thing that you believe to be true but isn't.?


----------



## Crick (Dec 6, 2016)

What does any of that have to do with the thread topic?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 6, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Lol,
> 
> It is way below the avg sea ice of the past two decades so something changed this year that goes against 2000-2014....Maybe the ocean temperatures beneath the ice finally warmed up enough to make it impossible to maintain the balance that allowed for sea ice growth(precipitation increasing because of warmer world going against the slow warming ocean).
> 
> ...



No Matthew. The way that we RELY on means to suggest what is NORMAL -- is that we allow variances from year to year so that they CANCEL OUT over reasonable periods of time. And what you're doing panicking over DAILY numbers means nothing in the context of a 10 or 30 year average. 

That's why if if 2014 was the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST observation in recent history, than no one should be panicking that this year is below average. Not anything to DO with "climate".  And I guarantee, the Earth doesn't "break" in just a year from CO2 forcing. 100% guaranteed...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 6, 2016)




----------



## Lewdog (Dec 6, 2016)

I just read an article that a piece of ice the size of the country of India is gone, and that the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic are at record lows for this time of year.

But then again those guy's who are reporting that will just be blown off as fake.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 6, 2016)

For Dec. 6th JAXA has posted 10,450,939 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 164,493 km2.


----------



## ding (Dec 7, 2016)

Matthew said:


>








Sea Ice Index

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

This year, Antarctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on August 31, much earlier than average, and has since been declining at a fairly rapid pace, tracking more than two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average. This led to a new record low for the month of November over the period of satellite observations (Figure 5a). Average extent in November was 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This was 1.0 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 15.54 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles) set in 1986 and 1.81 million square kilometers (699,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average.

For the month, Antarctic ice extent was 5.7 standard deviations below the long-term average. This departure from average was more than twice as large as the previous record departure from average, set in November 1986.

Ice extent is lower than average on both sides of the continent, particularly within the Indian Ocean and the western Ross Sea, but also to a lesser extent in the Weddell Sea and west of the Antarctic Peninsula in the eastern Bellingshausen Sea. Moreover, several very large polynyas (areas of open water within the pack) have opened in the eastern Weddell and along the Amundsen Sea and Ross Sea coast.

Air temperatures at the 925 mbar level were 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average near the sea ice edge during late October and early November, corresponding to the period of rapid sea ice decline (Figure 5b).

The entire austral autumn and winter (since March 2016) was characterized by generally strong west to east winds blowing around the continent. This was associated with a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, or SAM. This pattern tends to push the ice eastward, but the Coriolis force acting in the ice adds a component of northward drift. During austral spring (September, October and November), the SAM index switched from strongly positive (+4 in mid-September, a record) to negative (-2.8 in mid-November). When the westerly wind pattern broke down in November, winds in several areas of Antarctica started to blow from the north. Over a broad area near Wilkes Land, the ice edge was pushed toward the continent. Areas with southward winds were also located between Dronning Maud Land and Enderby Land, and near the Antarctic Peninsula. This created three regions where ice extent quickly became much less extensive than usual (Figure 5c), reflected in the rapid decline in extent for the Antarctic as a whole. Interspersed with the areas of compressed sea ice and winds from the north, areas of south winds produced large open water areas near the coast, creating the polynyas.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 7, 2016)

For Dec. 7th JAXA has posted 10,249,836 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 201,103 km2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2016)

For Dec. 9th JAXA has posted 9,720,337 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 255,905 km2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 11, 2016)

For Dec. 10th JAXA has posted 9,398,098 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 322,239 km2.   We started this month with 11,508,508 km2. More than 2 million km2 gone in 9 days.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 11, 2016)

For Dec. 11th JAXA  has posted 9,078,802 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 319,296 km2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2016)

More fake news


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> More fake news



So data is now fake news? You're not a serious person taking this position.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 12, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > More fake news
> ...


Obama ordered NASA and NOAA to make it "the hotterest year evah!!!"


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2016)

You have evidence of that or should we conclude that since you don't have a chance in the face of factual data, you've decided to just blow this conversation off and, thus, we can simply ignore you?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2016)

For Dec. 12th JAXA has posted 8,769,622 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 309,180 km2


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 13, 2016)

For Dec. 13th, JAXA has posted 8,519,734 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 249,888 km2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 14, 2016)

For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 241,022 km2.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> Down by 241,022 km2.


Matthew, that's what happens in an interglacial cycle, lol.  It's natural.  Relax.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> Down by 241,022 km2.








That's funny.  How come you weren't talking about the record high extents a couple of years ago?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 15, 2016)

You really wish for me to just stop and ignore? well, this is how science is done as observations(data) is important part of the process.

For Dec. 15th JAXA has posted 8,047,850 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 230,862 km2.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> You really wish for me to just stop and ignore? well, this is how science is done as observations(data) is important part of the process.
> 
> For Dec. 15th JAXA has posted 8,047,850 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> 
> Down by 230,862 km2.








Not at all.  What I expect is context.  Something you totally, and completely ignore.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 18, 2016)

For Dec. 17th JAXA has posted 7,685,353 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 362,497 km2 from that of the 15th.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > You really wish for me to just stop and ignore? well, this is how science is done as observations(data) is important part of the process.
> ...


There you go, you old fraud, context;






Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

And now they are finding that the East Shelf is also unstable. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.
> ...


But we were. And that is what makes this very rapid change both unexpected, and disturbing. The scientists, you know, the people you constantly denigrate, are trying right now to find out the why of the sudden change, and what it portends for the future.


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Their climate models have been proven wrong.  The amplifying feedbacks have been proven wrong.  Then it was severe weather events.  As soon as one is proven wrong you people latch onto something else.  You dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.  Now you have latched on to "very rapid change" as your new battle cry.  When that folly is shown to be false it will be something else.  You are the worst kind of stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2016)

Why yes, the models have been proven wrong. Far too conservative. The melting of the ice at both poles is proceeding far faster than the 'alarmists' predicted. 

Latched onto 'very rapid change'? That is the terms the scientists that are studying the climate are using. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.


----------



## ding (Dec 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Why yes, the models have been proven wrong. Far too conservative. The melting of the ice at both poles is proceeding far faster than the 'alarmists' predicted.
> 
> Latched onto 'very rapid change'? That is the terms the scientists that are studying the climate are using. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.


That is a hilarious.  I have not heard that one before.  Is that why Hansen has said we don't have to do anything right now?  Because the models have been too conservative?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2016)

For Dec. 18th JAXA has posted 7,529,128 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 156,225 km2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

ding said:


> Their climate models have been proven wrong.  The amplifying feedbacks have been proven wrong.  Then it was severe weather events.  As soon as one is proven wrong you people latch onto something else.  You dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.  Now you have latched on to "very rapid change" as your new battle cry.  When that folly is shown to be false it will be something else.  You are the worst kind of stupid.



It will soon be time for these people to pay the piper.....I am damned interested in seeing the very public debate between climate science and skeptics that is looming very large on the horizon...a debate in which answers to the hard questions that climate science and their useful idiots have been conveniently allowed to ignore for the past few decades.  Pretty soon, everyone but the terminally stupid are going to know that the emperor has, in fact, been wearing no clothes.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Why yes, the models have been proven wrong. Far too conservative. The melting of the ice at both poles is proceeding far faster than the 'alarmists' predicted.
> ...



It is like his head is not buried in the sand, but in concrete...concrete reinforced with rebar....

I wonder if the very public debate between climate pseudoscience and skeptics that will be coming very soon will be enough to drag him back to reality?


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2016)

Tell us SID, where do you see this debate taking place?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2016)

The global sea ice is now 5 standard deviations from the norm. That is one in a 2 1/2 million chance of being natural variance. In physics, 5 standard deviations is the golden standard for surety.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tell us SID, where do you see this debate taking place?



Why in the EPA...where climate science gets vetted...publicly in the coming administration.  Don't want to keep the AGW scam secret forever do we?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2016)

I do not see it being debated there at all. I simply see the scientists being fired, or told to shut up. Plain old Lysenkoism, is the best tradition of Trump's biggest supporter. The American voter was not Trump's biggest support, 2.7 million more of them voted for Clinton.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2016)

For Dec. 19th JAXA has posted 7,313,591 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 215,537 km2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I do not see it being debated there at all. I simply see the scientists being fired, or told to shut up.



That would be because you do not see science being vetted there....nor have you, for a very long time...when people don't do their jobs, they should be replaced with people who do....for a very long time, the EPA has been nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration's anti capitalism agenda.



Old Rocks said:


> Plain old Lysenkoism, is the best tradition of Trump's biggest supporter. The American voter was not Trump's biggest support, 2.7 million more of them voted for Clinton.



Which part of this map are you having problems understanding?  Other than Mass, NH, RI, and CT, which states did Hillary actually win?  We live in a representative republic rocks...have you lived these 40+ years not knowing that?


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2016)

A more accurate representation would show the entire country shades of purple with very little deviation in color.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2016)

For Dec. 20th JAXA has posted 7,149,895 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 163,696 km2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> A more accurate representation would show the entire country shades of purple with very little deviation in color.




It is a county by county counting crick...with the gerrymandering of districts that goes on every state, a county by county count is about as real a representation of how we vote as is possible...sour grapes over losing is the response of an undeveloped brain...it is the response of a child...


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2016)

We all know what it is.  It is a depiction of a winner-take-all system. It is NOT a representation of how the citizens of this nation voted.  How else do you explain Trump winning when he lost the popular vote by over 2,800,000 votes? Gerrymandering was responsible in large part.   So is the dominance of "state's rights" over the rights of the individual. Trump wasn't elected by the people, he was elected by a flawed system.

Now then





Year-to-year variability in East Antarctic sea ice seas | Open-i


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 25, 2016)

For Dec. 24th JAXA has posted 6,441,674 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 259,740 km2.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2016)

*5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?*Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.  Roy Spencer


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 25, 2016)

For Dec. 25th  JAXA has posted 6,285,842 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 155,832 km2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

ding said:


> *5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?*Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.  Roy Spencer


No, you stupid ass, 2012 was the worst decline in Arctic Sea Ice. And what is the driving force for the increase in heat? Can't be the sun, the TSI is declining. Since GHGs retain more heat that otherwise would be retained, and we have added more than 120 ppm of CO2, and more than 1000 ppb of CH4, stands to reason that is the present driving force behind the warming.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > *5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?*Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.  Roy Spencer
> ...


You do realize that ice will melt when temperatures are below freezing, right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2016)

Are you talking of sublimation? Or of pressure affecting the temperature of phase changes? A very general statement with almost no meaning in this context.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Are you talking of sublimation? Or of pressure affecting the temperature of phase changes? A very general statement with almost no meaning in this context.


 I thought you were some kind of expert on this.  You are not even close.


----------



## Crick (Dec 26, 2016)

He's a geologist and you're an ass.  Let's hear about ice melting at temperatures below its freezing point.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2016)

For Dec. 26th JAXA has posted 6,131,715 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by  154,127 km2.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> He's a geologist and you're an ass.  Let's hear about ice melting at temperatures below its freezing point.


lol, I'm an ass, just like you are an ass.  So what?  So you don't think that it's possible for ice to melt when temperatures are below freezing?  Seriously?  You really are ignorant about basic principles.


----------



## ding (Dec 26, 2016)




----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > He's a geologist and you're an ass.  Let's hear about ice melting at temperatures below its freezing point.
> ...



Which are...?  Your third grade explanation of albedo?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 28, 2016)

For Dec. 27th JAXA has posted  5,988,099 km for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 143,616 km2.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

I guess we're still waiting for an explanation of ice melting below its melting point that is not sublimation.


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> I guess we're still waiting for an explanation of ice melting below its melting point that is not sublimation.


lol, ice is pretty good at absorbing solar radiation, Einstein.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2016)

Which will melt when and only when that irradiation has raised its temperature above its melting point


----------



## ding (Dec 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Which will melt when and only when that irradiation has raised its temperature above its melting point


Yes, which happens even when the air temperature is below freezing.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2016)

So, you assumed that Old Rocks and I were unaware that we could go out in the winter woods and melt snow in a butane stove.  This is significant to this discussion how?


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, you assumed that Old Rocks and I were unaware that we could go out in the winter woods and melt snow in a butane stove.  This is significant to this discussion how?


No butane stove needed.  Solar radiation (i.e. sunshine).


----------



## polarbear (Dec 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, you assumed that Old Rocks and I were unaware that we could go out in the winter woods and melt snow in a butane stove.  This is significant to this discussion how?


What is significant here is that you don`t even know how to use one.You figure you can melt snow in a butane stove.?




Just how would you get the snow in there? Open it up with a can opener, put the snow in it and then light a match?


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2016)

How do you heat anything in such a stove?  Was this supposed to show you're some sort of campy/hikey/hunty he-man?  I'd have to say you failed.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 13, 2017)

2017, 01, 10,      4426000 sq km
2007, 01, 11,      4276000 sq km
2007, 01, 12,      4026000 sq km


----------

