Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[RollingThunder]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[RollingThunder]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Blunder,

If you wish for anyone to take you seriously ever again you need to lay off the infantile insults, post cogent arguments, apologise to gslack for your incredible cad like behavior, and then and only then will anyone listen to what you have to say. Right now you are regarded as a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum so we don't hear you....got it?

Good, now go away.

Walleyedretard

Fuck you, asswipe.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .

. . . .Conclusion:
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.
Cold Facts on Global Warming

And since it is highly unlikely that despite what humans do, CO2 levels will increase at their current rate for the next 245 years, draconian measures to curb humankind's freedoms, options, opportunities, and choices are simply unwarranted as the international pro-AGW community, including our own President, propose to do.

And even if the worst case scenario should play out, humankind will certainly have naturally devised ways to cope with it over the next 200+ years.

 

[RollingThunder]

. . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .

. . . .Conclusion:
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.
Cold Facts on Global Warming

And since it is highly unlikely that despite what humans do, CO2 levels will increase at their current rate for the next 245 years, draconian measures to curb humankind's freedoms, options, opportunities, and choices are simply unwarranted as the international pro-AGW community, including our own President, propose to do.

And even if the worst case scenario should play out, humankind will certainly have naturally devised ways to cope with it over the next 200+ years.

The crap you find on some nutjob's denier cult blog is not credible, but of course you're too ignorant and deluded to notice. T J Nelson is not a climate scientist and has no education or experience in that field. Here's what an actual climate scientist has to say about his pseudo-science. From here, 15th comment.

Nelson appears to base his entire argument on the 'fact' that CO2 contributes 4 to 8% of the total greenhouse effect (of 33 deg C), and therefore a doubling of CO2 can only increase the total greenhouse effect proportionatly. Apart from being wrong about the effect of CO2 (around 9 to 25% of the longwave absorbtion depending on how you calculate the overlaps (see our previous post), this is way too linear a calculation to be applicable. In particular, he assumes that water vapour amounts are independent of the temperature (they are not). There are a number of other obvious bloopers (ie. "In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase". No. Logarithmic means that the effects of doubling are constant). So in toto, it's not too impressive a thesis. See our posts on climate sensitivity (or here) for more considered information. - Dr. Gavin Schmidt

 

[Foxfyre]

. . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .

. . . .Conclusion:
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.
Cold Facts on Global Warming

And since it is highly unlikely that despite what humans do, CO2 levels will increase at their current rate for the next 245 years, draconian measures to curb humankind's freedoms, options, opportunities, and choices are simply unwarranted as the international pro-AGW community, including our own President, propose to do.

And even if the worst case scenario should play out, humankind will certainly have naturally devised ways to cope with it over the next 200+ years.

The crap you find on some nutjob's denier cult blog is not credible, but of course you're too ignorant and deluded to notice. T J Nelson is not a climate scientist and has no education or experience in that field. Here's what an actual climate scientist has to say about his pseudo-science. From here, 15th comment.

Nelson appears to base his entire argument on the 'fact' that CO2 contributes 4 to 8% of the total greenhouse effect (of 33 deg C), and therefore a doubling of CO2 can only increase the total greenhouse effect proportionatly. Apart from being wrong about the effect of CO2 (around 9 to 25% of the longwave absorbtion depending on how you calculate the overlaps (see our previous post), this is way too linear a calculation to be applicable. In particular, he assumes that water vapour amounts are independent of the temperature (they are not). There are a number of other obvious bloopers (ie. "In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase". No. Logarithmic means that the effects of doubling are constant). So in toto, it's not too impressive a thesis. See our posts on climate sensitivity (or here) for more considered information. - Dr. Gavin Schmidt

My guy has no dog in the fight whatsoever, invites anybody to correct his work and he does correct whatever errors are found, and he provides a very impressive bunch of footnotes of sources where he researches the information he uses. He also has a PhD in physics which puts him a whole lot closer to climate science than any education your guy can claim.

Your guy is a mathematician turned climate modeler who gets all his funding from the government and isn't about to put that at risk by challenging the pro-AGW crowd in any way.

From the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen last year:

. . . .the name of the game last week, as we see from a sample of quotations, was to win headlines by claiming that everything is far worse than previously supposed. Sea level rises by 2100 could be "much greater than the 59cm predicted by the last IPCC report". Global warming could kill off 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, "much more than previously predicted". The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are melting "much faster than predicted". The number of people dying from heat could be "twice as many as previously predicted".

None of the government-funded scientists making these claims were particularly distinguished, but they succeeded in their object, as the media cheerfully recycled all this wild scaremongering without bothering to check the scientific facts. . . .


. . . .Led off with stirring speeches from the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the acting head of the European Union, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the most distinguished climatologist in the world, the message of this gathering was that the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence.

Nothing has more acutely demonstrated this than the reliance of the IPCC on computer models to predict what is going to happen to global temperatures over the next 100 years. On these predictions, that temperatures are likely to rise by up to 5.3C, all their other predictions and recommendations depend, yet nearly 10 years into the 21st century it is already painfully clear that the computer forecasts are going hopelessly astray. Far from rising with CO2, as the models are programmed to predict they should, the satellite-measured temperature curve has flattened out and then dropped. If the present trend were to continue, the world in 2100 would not in fact be hotter but 1.1C cooler than the 1979-1998 average.

Yet it is on this fundamental inability of the computer models to predict what has already happened that all else hangs. For two days in New York we heard distinguished experts, such as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, authoritatively (and often wittily) tear apart one piece of the scare orthodoxy after another.

Sea levels are not shooting up but only continuing their modest 3mm a year rise over the past 200 years. The vast Antarctic ice-sheet is not melting, except in one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula. Tropical hurricane activity, far from increasing, is at its lowest level for 30 years. The best correlation for temperature fluctuations is not CO2 but the magnetic activity of the sun. (For an admirable summary of proceedings by the Australian paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter, Google "Heartland" and "Quadrant"). . . .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...istens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.htm

 

[Old Rocks]

. . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .

. . . .Conclusion:
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.
Cold Facts on Global Warming

And since it is highly unlikely that despite what humans do, CO2 levels will increase at their current rate for the next 245 years, draconian measures to curb humankind's freedoms, options, opportunities, and choices are simply unwarranted as the international pro-AGW community, including our own President, propose to do.

And even if the worst case scenario should play out, humankind will certainly have naturally devised ways to cope with it over the next 200+ years.

Yup, and BP stated they had means to handle a spill ten times as large as the one they are not able to handle at all, right now.

Yes, humanity will handle the climate change. Just as it did in the days before we were a technological species. A very significant portion of us will die.

 

[westwall]

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Blunder,

If you wish for anyone to take you seriously ever again you need to lay off the infantile insults, post cogent arguments, apologise to gslack for your incredible cad like behavior, and then and only then will anyone listen to what you have to say. Right now you are regarded as a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum so we don't hear you....got it?

Good, now go away.

Walleyedretard

Fuck you, asswipe.

OK little boy, we understand you're still having a temper tantrum.....go sit in the corner till you calm down.

 

[westwall]

. . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .

. . . .Conclusion:
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.
Cold Facts on Global Warming

And since it is highly unlikely that despite what humans do, CO2 levels will increase at their current rate for the next 245 years, draconian measures to curb humankind's freedoms, options, opportunities, and choices are simply unwarranted as the international pro-AGW community, including our own President, propose to do.

And even if the worst case scenario should play out, humankind will certainly have naturally devised ways to cope with it over the next 200+ years.

Yup, and BP stated they had means to handle a spill ten times as large as the one they are not able to handle at all, right now.

Yes, humanity will handle the climate change. Just as it did in the days before we were a technological species. A very significant portion of us will die.

Non sequiter arguments have no place here old fraud. And prior to our developing a technological society the worlds population was fairly constant. Yes there was a gradual increase but it would be measured in the tens of millions increase over a 50 or hundred year time frame. It was not till we became a technological society that we were able to witness the massive growth of the human population and that is attributable to better hygiene, sanitation, food supply, transport, medicine, etc.

I agree with Foxfyre, if we do indeed elevate the third world to first world status the growth rate of humanity will decline precipitously and we will most assuredly figure out a way to prevail. All you warmists ever do is whine about how many will die when your very policies ensure that people will indeed perish. You present no constructive methods to deal with the very real problems we have.

All you can come up with is take money away from people and give it to rich people to make them very rich. Plunging the rest of humanity into poverty with all of the attendant issues that ensue.

Have you learned nothing?


Year Population
(in millions)

10000 BC 4
5000 BC 5
4000 BC 7
3000 BC 14
2000 BC 27
1000 BC 50
500 BC 100
200 BC 150
0 170
200 AD 190
400 AD 190
500 AD 190
600 AD 200
700 AD 210
800 AD 220
900 AD 240
1000 AD 265
1100 AD 320
1200 AD 360
1300 AD 360
1400 AD 350
1500 AD 425
1550 AD 480
1600 AD 545
1650 AD 545
1700 AD 610
1750 AD 720
1800 AD 900
1850 AD 1200
1875 AD 1325
1900 AD 1625
1925 AD 2000
1950 AD 2500
1975 AD 3900
1999 AD 6000

 

[Old Rocks]

Toba

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years

Date: 04-Jun-2010

The shrinking amount of sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean today is the smallest it has been in the last few thousand years, a new study suggests.

The sea ice that normally covers huge swaths of the Arctic Ocean has been retreating and thinning over the last few decades, due to the amplified warming at the North Pole, which is a consequence of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The most dramatic sea-ice melt in recent years came in 2007, when sea-ice extent (or the area of ocean covered by the ice) dropped to its lowest level since 1979, when satellite measurements began. This event also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Science & Environment | Peacefmonline.com

Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.

Provide some evidence.

Gladly. This is from the American Institute of Physics. Note the work on the absorbtion spectra of H20, CO2, CH4 was done in 1858 by Tyndal;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?



One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.


Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

 

[gslack]

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH....

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

BUllshit... On various levels...

1. CO2 varies by temperature as well.... Its a fact warmer oceans release more CO2, colder water much, much less CO2...

2. This sentence in the above quote.. "It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds."

Really??? Including clouds??? Water vapor forms clouds you idiot, so yeah including clouds...... Yeah, bullshit alarm going off yet?

3. This sentence above...."It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."

Really?? Then since CO2 varies with temperature its is not considered a "forcing" either.... Unbelievable, the lack of critical thought shown by anyone buying this bunch of pseudo-science BS..... Dude they are making fun of you, and you not only allow it, but you think buying this bullshit makes you appear smart or intelligent.....

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

BULLSHIT!

1. What the fuck does "(in terms of climate response times)" mean exactly? pretty ambiguous statement really, could mean anything... We call that a bullshit statement. Its one of these weaselly things you can say that is neither true nor false because its entirely interpretive. They don't have to prove that, so they use it to make it sound scary....Some scientists...

2. THis sentence.... "If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times)."

Really??? So if I spray a hose into the air all day it will rain some time in my yard or nearby because of it? LOL, sure it will pal sure.... Rain has much more to do with temperatures than simply how much H2O is in the air... Why does it hardly rain in Los Angeles despite all the people using water every minute for everything??? Well tool its because of its unique position and the weather patterns and winds prone to that area. All the H2O they use is evaporated and then where does it go? Well it follows the weather, winds, and temps in that area, and a great deal of it ends up dumped in places like rain forests...

Completely ignorant and anyone who uses this as some kind of evidence of anything other that the authors ignorance, is a complete moron....

3. This entire paragraph really....."This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans."

OMFG!!!! Dude seriously prove any bit of that anyway you can, I would love to see it..

precipitation would remove H2O from the air??? And that would make the earth even colder?????
WTF??????

The author of that crap is an IDIOT!!!! And anyone who cites him is a moron!!!

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

More bullshit....

1. The following sentence..... "CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess."

Oh Really???? So CO2 from fossil fuels is different than other CO2? And natural sinks are the only way it is removed from the atmosphere now? Meaning of course no ocean acidification from man made CO2 emissions... If fossil fuel CO2 (man made) relies on sinks to be removed from the atmosphere than no way it can be adding to the oceans acidity....

You fucking idiots will cite anything and call it evidence even if its claims nullify all your other claims... LOL too funny...


Seriously, did you actually READ ANY OF IT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT?????

 

[westwall]

Toba

I assume you're referring to the Mt. Toba explosion and the supposed near extinction of humanity? I remember one theory put the global population of humans down to fifteen thousand or so.

Cute theory but has many, many problems. First off if humanity were indeed reduced to 1000 breeding pairs as one individual suggested, then so must the rest of the megafauna of the period and there is no supportive evidence of this. It would have been a mass extinction event that would most certainly have made it into the paleontological record and yet it is not there.

Also there is ample evidence that the Neanderthals made it through the event quite handily just as they did the Riss glaciation which lasted for 50,000 years from 180,000 to 130,000 years bp. Also Java man made it through to about 4,000 years bp so the Toba extinction event has many many problems.

 

[westwall]

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years

Date: 04-Jun-2010

The shrinking amount of sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean today is the smallest it has been in the last few thousand years, a new study suggests.

The sea ice that normally covers huge swaths of the Arctic Ocean has been retreating and thinning over the last few decades, due to the amplified warming at the North Pole, which is a consequence of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The most dramatic sea-ice melt in recent years came in 2007, when sea-ice extent (or the area of ocean covered by the ice) dropped to its lowest level since 1979, when satellite measurements began. This event also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Science & Environment | Peacefmonline.com

Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.

Provide some evidence.

Gladly. This is from the American Institute of Physics. Note the work on the absorbtion spectra of H20, CO2, CH4 was done in 1858 by Tyndal;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?



One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation&#8221 rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.


Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

I see your site and raise you this one.

The Disputed Area which causes Global Warming.


Also just having an atmosphere of any kind increases the temperature of any planet you wish to speak of.

 

[RollingThunder]

Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.

Provide some evidence.

Gladly. This is from the American Institute of Physics. Note the work on the absorbtion spectra of H20, CO2, CH4 was done in 1858 by Tyndal;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?



One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.


Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

I see your site and raise you this one.

The Disputed Area which causes Global Warming.


Also just having an atmosphere of any kind increases the temperature of any planet you wish to speak of.

So on the one hand we have the American Institute of Physics and on the other hand, disputing the AIP, we have a random kook with a masters in microbiology and no education or experience in climate science who runs a denier blog. LOLOLOLOL....you are such a funny clueless lunatic, walleyedretard.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not a single citation of a scientific paper to back up this dingbats claims. The whole article is bogus. And addressed in the AIP site.

Come on, Walleyes, you can't just grab any kook out of the bushes to dispute real scientists.

The Disputed Area which causes Global Warming.

The Disputed Area


There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because CO2 absorbs the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no way to get the supposed temperature increase at the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, to produce heat at ground level.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Did you just admit that H20 is responsible for 85% of the greenhouse effect?

 

[Foxfyre]

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Did you just admit that H20 is responsible for 85% of the greenhouse effect?

Yes he did. But he discounts that, and the fluctuations of water vapor in the atmosphere, as unimportant in the face of the relatively very small percentage of CO2 humankind introduces into the atmosphere as well as observable evidence of runaway CO2 into the atmosphere in eras long before the industrial revolution has been a factor.

 

[westwall]

Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.

Oh must I, can you do nothing for yourself? OK, here is one site I found after a cursory check....

Mount Toba Eruption – Ancient Humans Unscathed, Study Claims Anthropology.net

Here's a favorite source of yours so that people can see what you base your opinion on,
You should notice at the top they say the following..

"This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Geology or the Geology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (September 2009)"

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And this link deals with the genetic conditions of the possible effects of the explosion.

Mt Toba Eruption 74,000 years ago

Now I love volcanoes as much as any geologist. And I know what they can accomplish having been near them at full boil. And I assure you that they are extraordinarily powerful
and when there is another Long Valley Caldera type eruption, most life will perish down wind from that eruption.

But the Toba theory as I said has some major problems. First off the genetic bottleneck occured sometime between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago. That is quite simply far too much time to have to deal with. If the bottleneck occured 5,000 years plus or minus the Toba explosion I would certainly be more inclined to give it some creedence, but 100,000 years? I think that is asking an awful lot...don't you?

Secondly the ash fall was predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. So while I agree that
life would certainly be much more difficult there, we once again do not see a mass extinction of the megafauna (like tigers etc.) in the region. If people couldn't make it neither could anything else.

Lastly there is actually quite a lot of archeaological evidence that shows people doing quite well after the Toba eruption and Java man did very well indeed up till around 40,000 years bp (I missed a zero on my first post).

So yes it's an interesting hypothesis, but it still lacks quite a bit of evidence to support it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just means it lacks the evidence so far.

 

[RollingThunder]

Topic of thread: Arctic sea ice melting toward record

Here's the latest research soon to be published in Quarternary Science Reviews, a highly respected, peer-reviewed science journal.

Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history

June 6, 2010

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history.

Thats the conclusion of an international group of researchers, who have compiled the first comprehensive history of Arctic ice.

For decades, scientists have strived to collect sediment cores from the difficult-to-access Arctic Ocean floor, to discover what the Arctic was like in the past. Their most recent goal: to bring a long-term perspective to the ice loss we see today.

Now, in an upcoming issue of Quarternary Science Reviews, a team led by Ohio State University has re-examined the data from past and ongoing studies -- nearly 300 in all -- and combined them to form a big-picture view of the poles climate history stretching back millions of years.

The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years, said Leonid Polyak, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. Polyak is lead author of the paper and a preceding report that he and his coauthors prepared for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Satellites can provide detailed measures of how much ice is covering the pole right now, but sediment cores are like fossils of the oceans history, he explained.

Sediment cores are essentially a record of sediments that settled at the sea floor, layer by layer, and they record the conditions of the ocean system during the time they settled. When we look carefully at various chemical and biological components of the sediment, and how the sediment is distributed -- then, with certain skills and luck, we can reconstruct the conditions at the time the sediment was deposited.

For example, scientists can search for a biochemical marker that is tied to certain species of algae that live only in ice. If that marker is present in the sediment, then that location was likely covered in ice at the time. Scientists call such markers proxies for the thing they actually want to measure -- in this case, the geographic extent of the ice in the past.

While knowing the loss of surface area of the ice is important, Polyak says that this work cant yet reveal an even more important fact: how the total volume of ice -- thickness as well as surface area -- has changed over time.

Underneath the surface, the ice can be thick or thin. The newest satellite techniques and field observations allow us to see that the volume of ice is shrinking much faster than its area today. The picture is very troubling. We are losing ice very fast, he said.

Maybe sometime down the road well develop proxies for the ice thickness. Right now, just looking at ice extent is very difficult.

To review and combine the data from hundreds of studies, he and his cohorts had to combine information on many different proxies as well as modern observations. They searched for patterns in the proxy data that fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

Their conclusion: the current extent of Arctic ice is at its lowest point for at least the last few thousand years.

As scientists pull more sediment cores from the Arctic, Polyak and his collaborators want to understand more details of the past ice extent and to push this knowledge further back in time.

During the summer of 2011, they hope to draw cores from beneath the Chukchi Sea, just north of the Bering Strait between Alaska and Siberia. The currents emanating from the northern Pacific Ocean bring heat that may play an important role in melting the ice across the Arctic, so Polyak expects that the history of this location will prove very important. He hopes to drill cores that date back thousands of years at the Chukchi Sea margin, providing a detailed history of interaction between oceanic currents and ice.

"Later on in this cruise, when we venture into the more central Arctic Ocean, we will aim at harvesting cores that go back even farther", he said. "If we could go as far back as a million years, that would be perfect."

###

Polyaks coauthors on the report hailed from Penn State University, University of Colorado, University of Massachusetts, the U.S. Geological Survey, Old Dominion University, the Geological Survey of Canada, University of Copenhagen, the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Stockholm University, McGill University, James Madison University, and the British Antarctic Survey.

This research was funded by the US Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)