Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Trakar]

(...)Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.

Beyond what sounds like your own strawman above, who here (or from within any legitimate scientific journal) has made any statement that even approximates what you have stated above?

Not that there aren't whack-a-doodles on all sides of just about any issue of significance (and most that aren't), but I haven't yet run across this particular species of Loon. If you can point out such instances, however, I will join you in rejecting and refuting their exaggerated idiocy.

 

[IanC]

(...)Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.

Beyond what sounds like your own strawman above, who here (or from within any legitimate scientific journal) has made any statement that even approximates what you have stated above?

Not that there aren't whack-a-doodles on all sides of just about any issue of significance (and most that aren't), but I haven't yet run across this particular species of Loon. If you can point out such instances, however, I will join you in rejecting and refuting their exaggerated idiocy.

Al Gore,s An Inconvenient Truth

edit- which wasnt scorned by the climate science community and in fact was allowed to gain so much fame that it produced both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize

 

[Trakar]

...Show me some hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate. Unequivocal is defined as - not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation...

Evidences that support and demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios are of anthropogenic origins:

"Greenhouse Gasses: Evidence for Atmospheric Changes and Anthropogenic Causes" - Greenhouse: planning for climate change - Google Books

"Oceanic uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 evidence" - http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/kcasciotti/2006/11/Quay1992_15383.pdf

"Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide" - Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

Evidences that support and demonstrate that Greenhouse gases are climate forcing factors:

The American Institute of Physics' hypertext explanation - "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" - The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

"The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index" - 2006TellB..58..614H Page 614

"Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

More available upon request.

 

[Trakar]

Is anyone still discussing the original thread topic or has the thread gone irretrievably into OT ditch?

 

[IanC]

ditch

 

[Trakar]

(...)Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.

Beyond what sounds like your own strawman above, who here (or from within any legitimate scientific journal) has made any statement that even approximates what you have stated above?

Not that there aren't whack-a-doodles on all sides of just about any issue of significance (and most that aren't), but I haven't yet run across this particular species of Loon. If you can point out such instances, however, I will join you in rejecting and refuting their exaggerated idiocy.

Al Gore,s An Inconvenient Truth

edit- which wasnt scorned by the climate science community and in fact was allowed to gain so much fame that it produced both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize

Gore is irrelevent, but the few minor corrections/qualifications that his presentation required to bring it fully into line with mainstream climate science understandings, were reviewed and publically commented upon:

"Another look at An Inconvenient Truth" - SpringerLink - GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1

"An Inconvenient Truth: the scientific argument" - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

"An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists" - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/an_inconvenient_truth_2007.pdf

 

[Trakar]

ditch

Ah! Thank-you, I'll remove it from my list.

 

[RollingThunder]

Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2

I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.

LOL...."Your near complete ignorance of the actual science"...talking to yourself again, eh wiredup&bentover.

CO2 molecules in our atmosphere absorb infrared radiation that is being emitted by the Earth after the Earth has been warmed by solar radiation. Some of that higher energy level in the CO2 molecule is transferred through conduction to adjacent molecules of atmospheric gases, warming the atmosphere, and most is re-radiated in all directions with approximately half going down and half going up towards space, being absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some portion of the energy reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Nobody is saying that the CO2 molecule "traps" energy inside itself permanently. The IR drives it to a higher energy state but it immediately loses that energy through re-radiation and conduction. The overall effect though is indeed to "retain or trap energy" inside Earth's atmosphere, warming the air, the ground and the oceans. This is exactly what has been observed by scientists as CO2 levels have gone up by 40% as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and deforestation practices.

All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.

You doofus. Are you referrring to the Atacama Desert? In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information that would prevent a rational person from arguing in the first place. Clearly, you are completely unaware of the Humbolt current that runs just off shore of the land. The presence of this current prevents clouds from making landfall and thus creates the desert in the first place. The Humbolt current is as obvious a barrier to the normal coastal humidity as the miles of land one might encounter between most coastal areas and inland deserts. Observe

Aso, I clearly stated that one should pick a coastal area and a desert area in the same lattitude and roughly the same ALTITUDE. I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet. Had you a hint of geography, you would have known that the land assends almost immediately into high mountains. Mountain areas almost universally have less humidity than lowlands.

Geez guy, learn something and you won't be subject to nearly so much public humiliation.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are always good for a laugh! And you're so fearless about that old public humiliation thingie.....even though you subject yourself to so much of it....LOL...

"In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information..."
"I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet."

The highest mountain peak in South America is Aconcagua in Argentina at 22,841 ft.
List of mountains
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atacama Desert of Chile actually has an average elevation of about 13,000 feet.
New World Encyclopedia

Actually, wired&bent, you were a lot closer to being accurate about something with this error than you usually are with your totally mistaken and very half-assed, nonsensical claims. Too bad you're so clueless and retarded.

At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.

So tell me what you believe the maximum atmospheric pressure to have been during this time of a "considerably" denser atmosphere?

And the Permian extinction happened during a time of catastrophic volcanic activity. I suppose if you get volcanoes the likes of which we have never seen to go unabated for a few thousand years, and were somehow able to bring most of the continents into a single land mass agin along with the accompanying sluggish ocean currents, and the low atmospheric oxygen content of the time, you might get the same sort of extinction as during the permian, but then again, man wouldn't be responsible.

"Catastrophic volcanic activity" was only the trigger. Those eruptions released vast quantities of CO2 which warmed the Earth and caused the methane clathrates on the ocean floor to destabilize which caused an even greater warming. It was the higher temperatures and the ocean acidification that produced the Permian mass extinction and mankind is producing those factors now without the aid of "volcanoes" or "sluggish ocean currents".

However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.

There is no rapid change in weather patterns. Neither the weather nor the climate is in any way exceptional nor unprecedented when viewed in the context of the climate for the relatively recent past.

So, you're in denial....we knew that....it is humorously demented but quite expected of a clueless denier cult fanatic like you. Your delusional claims are belied by the testimony of the world's climate scientists who have stated unequivocally that the rising temperatures are outside the bounds of natural variability and that the climate patterns are changing in response to that global warming. They have a great deal of evidence to back them up and all you've got are denier cult myths and half-witted misinformation and lies.

Abrupt climate shifts since 1976

Wringing your hands hysterically is not going to alter the observable facts and bring about your imagined catastrophe.

Hysterically denying the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world's climate scientists and general science community is not going to alter the observable facts regarding rising temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc., or prevent the very real and fast developing climate change catastrophe from kicking your dumb ass to the curb.

You should be more concerned about the present cooling trend and the effects that will bring on. A warmer climate would be welcome everywhere while an extended cooling trend is something to be genuinely concerned about. Cold kills far more than warm.

LOLOLOL....soooo delusional...

If there was a "cooling trend" perhaps someone would be concerned about it but since that is just one of your demented delusions, no problem. Since 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for the last 150 years and the last decade was the warmest decade on record, as was each preceding decade in turn going back to the 1970's, just where do you imagine you see a "cooling trend"? LOLOLOL....you are truly retarded, wired&bent and very funny in your dementia.

 

[RollingThunder]

Is anyone still discussing the original thread topic or has the thread gone irretrievably into OT ditch?

Trying to keep the denier cultists on topic is like trying to herd cats. Every time one of their sacred myths gets debunked, they have to change the subject.

Nevertheless, some of us still do occasionally get a chance to post something on topic.

For example.

Arctic ice volume: Definitely not good news
May 11th, 2011
(excerpts)

This graph shows Arctic sea ice volume (not area, not extent) by month, over the course of the satellite record, with the vertical axis units being km3.

The month with the lowest volume, September, has declined from roughly 18,000 km3 to around 4,000 km3. I’ll leave it up to you, dear readers, to conjure up your own way to visualize the volume or weight of that missing 14,000 km3 of ice. (Remember that 1 km3 of ice weighs 1 billion metric tons.) Presumably there are two main factors at work here: Increasing warming due to our continued, non-stop efforts to aerosolize every last gram of carbon we can rip or pump out of the ground, plus Arctic amplification, a.k.a. albedo flip, in which open sea water absorbs much more heat from the sun than would snow and ice.


***

 

[Trakar]

The month with the lowest volume, September, has declined from roughly 18,000 km3 to around 4,000 km3. I’ll leave it up to you, dear readers, to conjure up your own way to visualize the volume or weight of that missing 14,000 km3 of ice. (Remember that 1 km3 of ice weighs 1 billion metric tons.) Presumably there are two main factors at work here: Increasing warming due to our continued, non-stop efforts to aerosolize every last gram of carbon we can rip or pump out of the ground, plus Arctic amplification, a.k.a. albedo flip, in which open sea water absorbs much more heat from the sun than would snow and ice.[/B][/I]


***

While the de-icing of the Arctic sea will continue to exasperate the warming of the arctic region, with an eye more toward global conditions, I actually am more concerned about the loss of land-ice in the form of thawing permafrosts in Canada, Alaska and SIberia.

 

[wirebender]

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

Again, you are claiming free energy. An amount of energy greater than that provided by the sun. You are claiming that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat. Perpetual motion.

If what you claim were actually possible, don't you think it could be demonstrated in a lab? Don't you think that someone might have developed a means of multiplying energy if such a thing were possible?

 

[wirebender]

Evidences that support and demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios are of anthropogenic origins:

"Greenhouse Gasses: Evidence for Atmospheric Changes and Anthropogenic Causes" - Greenhouse: planning for climate change - Google Books

"Oceanic uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 evidence" - http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/kcasciotti/2006/11/Quay1992_15383.pdf

"Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide" - Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

Evidences that support and demonstrate that Greenhouse gases are climate forcing factors:

The American Institute of Physics' hypertext explanation - "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" - The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

"The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index" - 2006TellB..58..614H Page 614

"Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

More available upon request.

First, all your "evidences" are not evidences at all. At their foundation, they are built on nothing more than an assumption that the "greenhouse effect" is scientific fact. It is not. The greenhouse effect is a poorly stated hypothesis with no basis in scientific fact of any sort. There is no credible experimental evidence that proves the greenhouse effect and certainly none that proves that CO2 has any capacity to absorb and retain heat.

Just for giggles, I read your "evidences". Feel free to point to page and paragraph of any section that you believe constitutes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate and then point to the observed, repeatable scientific basis upon which the claim is made. Simply making claims based on assumptions does not constitute science and it certainly does not represent any sort of unequivocal proof.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

Again, you are claiming free energy. An amount of energy greater than that provided by the sun. You are claiming that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat. Perpetual motion.

No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English. The source of the energy is the sun, not the Earth, moron. It is the sun's energy that the Earth is radiating and that the atmosphere is holding in like a blanket. No "free energy", no "perpetual motion", no "passively warmed object warming its source of heat" - that's all just your very own non-comprehension of the science and free-range insanity.

 

[wirebender]

CO2 molecules in our atmosphere absorb infrared radiation that is being emitted by the Earth after the Earth has been warmed by solar radiation. Some of that higher energy level in the CO2 molecule is transferred through conduction to adjacent molecules of atmospheric gases, warming the atmosphere, and most is re-radiated in all directions with approximately half going down and half going up towards space, being absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some portion of the energy reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Nobody is saying that the CO2 molecule "traps" energy inside itself permanently. The IR drives it to a higher energy state but it immediately loses that energy through re-radiation and conduction. The overall effect though is indeed to "retain or trap energy" inside Earth's atmosphere, warming the air, the ground and the oceans. This is exactly what has been observed by scientists as CO2 levels have gone up by 40% as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and deforestation practices.

Again the claim of free energy. The atmosphere somehow multiplying the energy recieved from the sun. I am sure that you will never understand this basic fact, but the earth and oceans warm the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not warm the earth and oceans.

"Catastrophic volcanic activity" was only the trigger. Those eruptions released vast quantities of CO2 which warmed the Earth and caused the methane clathrates on the ocean floor to destabilize which caused an even greater warming. It was the higher temperatures and the ocean acidification that produced the Permian mass extinction and mankind is producing those factors now without the aid of "volcanoes" or "sluggish ocean currents".

CO2 can not warm the earth. You failed before you even got started. Feel free to show some experimental evidence that proves that CO2 can warm the earth.

Hysterically denying the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world's climate scientists and general science community is not going to alter the observable facts regarding rising temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc., or prevent the very real and fast developing climate change catastrophe from kicking your dumb ass to the curb.

The bulk of your "raising" temperatures are the result of data manipulaion on the part of corrupt climate scientists. Any remaining warming is the result of a natural process that began some 14,000 years ago and is in no way outside the bounds of natural variability. Hell, it isn't even close to the bounds.

 

[wirebender]

No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English. The source of the energy is the sun, not the Earth, moron. It is the sun's energy that the Earth is radiating and that the atmosphere is holding in like a blanket. No "free energy", no "perpetual motion", no "passively warmed object warming its source of heat" - that's all just your very own non-comprehension of the science and free-range insanity.

Sorry guy, but the claim is that the downward emitted radiation is adding additional energy to the system. Here are a couple of warmist versions of the earth's energy budget:

Note the 323 at the far right of the illustration labled as backradiation. That graphic is clearly indicating that radiation is being emitted back to the earth and is being absorbed by the earth and this energy that is supposedly being absorbed is in turn, increasing the amount of energy the earth is radiating. There is X amount of energy absorbed from the sun and the graph is indicating X+ energy that is being reabsorbed via back radiation is then being emitted by the earth. That + is the free energy that you claim does not exist and that no one is claiming exists. The graphic clearly illustrates that more energy is being radiated from the earth than it is getting from the sun.

Again, the graphic clearly shows the earth radiating X + the amount of energy being absorbed via back radiation. A net energy increase with no input of work. More energy being radiated from the earth than it absorbs from the sun.

 

[RollingThunder]

No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English. The source of the energy is the sun, not the Earth, moron. It is the sun's energy that the Earth is radiating and that the atmosphere is holding in like a blanket. No "free energy", no "perpetual motion", no "passively warmed object warming its source of heat" - that's all just your very own non-comprehension of the science and free-range insanity.

Sorry guy, but the claim is that the downward emitted radiation is adding additional energy to the system.

No wiredbent, you're just expressing your own ignorance and non-comprehension of the facts again. No one is claiming that "the downward emitted radiation is adding additional energy to the system". All of the energy in the 'system' comes from the sun which heats the Earth which then radiates towards outer space some of that energy as long wave radiation which is then repeatedly absorbed by the greenhouse gases and re-radiated in all directions as it works its way up through the levels of atmosphere until some of the energy escapes into space and out of the 'system'. Still just the same energy that originally came from the sun, no "additional energy added".

Earth's Radiation Budget Facts
NASA

 

[Trakar]

Earth's Radiation Budget Facts
NASA

Though graphic visualizations can help those interested in understanding processes, what is occurring, whe dealing with those who are looking for any means possible to distort and confuse the information, it is probably better to stick to words and numbers that are more precisely defined and less prone to imaginative re-interpretation, and the above reference is a good one!

Here are a few more:

This one from 1968 is pretty cool, because while it also discusses considerations of a potentially cooling climate change, it lays out the growing concerns about humanity's CO2 emissions and the warming impact this will have on the planet's climate if actions aren't taken switch to other sources of energy. The numbers are a bit less refined than more current ones but it demonstrates the evolution of understanding and considerations over the last 50 years:

"A global climatic model based on the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system" - http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay/Courses/ATOC530/Sellers.JAM.1969.pdf

This is a nice little PowerPoint from one of Dr. Ellen Martin's Paleoceanography/Paleoclimatology classes at the University of Florida - "Earth's Energy Budget" -http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/eemartin/GLY6075F10/lectures/2_energy_budget.ppt

I'm sure I've got a few more knocking around my home database, remind me this next weekend when I get back to the house and I'll post a few more.

 

[Chris]

 

[wirebender]

No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English.

From your own link:

"The longwave energy emitted from the surface of the Earth and absorbed by the atmosphere results in an increase in the ambient temperature (i.e., the greenhouse effect). This absorbed energy is then emitted both to space and back towards the Earth's surface."

That energy emitted back towards the earth's surface is then claimed to be absorbed thus increasing the amount of energy absorbed by the surface which then increases the amount of energy emitted by the surface thus causing warming. If the energy emitted towards the surface is absorbed, then the amount of energy absorbed by the surface is the amount of energy absorbed from the sun plus the amount of energy absorbed via backradiation and the total energy emitted by the surface realizes an increase over what it absorbs by the sun.

You can't get around the fact that you are claiming that a passively warmed object can further warm its heat source. Free energy. Sorry you don't understand your own scripture, but that is the claim.

 

[konradv]

No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English.

From your own link:

"The longwave energy emitted from the surface of the Earth and absorbed by the atmosphere results in an increase in the ambient temperature (i.e., the greenhouse effect). This absorbed energy is then emitted both to space and back towards the Earth's surface."

That energy emitted back towards the earth's surface is then claimed to be absorbed thus increasing the amount of energy absorbed by the surface which then increases the amount of energy emitted by the surface thus causing warming. If the energy emitted towards the surface is absorbed, then the amount of energy absorbed by the surface is the amount of energy absorbed from the sun plus the amount of energy absorbed via backradiation and the total energy emitted by the surface realizes an increase over what it absorbs by the sun.

You can't get around the fact that you are claiming that a passively warmed object can further warm its heat source. Free energy. Sorry you don't understand your own scripture, but that is the claim.

That's not it at all. If you want a simple explanation, it's like putting a lid on a pot to trap heat. Nothing is further warmed, as you claim. Rather, already added heat has its escape slowed. If you then continue to heat the pot, things WILL get warmer.