COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[Rigby5]

What's your point?

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 served as a proxy for temperature. After the industrial revolution that correlation was broken.

View attachment 539522

I disagree.
The link between CO2 and global temperature is solid.
What you are forgetting however, is that the connection is about the degree of solar energy that the CO2 allows to radiation back out into space.
That means when you greatly increase CO2, you do NOT instantly increase global warmth.
Instead you have just reset the maximum of how hot the earth will get from retained heat EVENTUALLY.
But it can take decades for the actual heat to be retained over the years.

And this is currently slowed even more by the energy absorbed by polar and glacial ice phase change to liquid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your link is not reliable.
The Principia Scientific International is a fake organization without scientific merit.

{...
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. [1]

PSI claims it provides its members with a “reliable port of call to ascertain the facts behind the news stories to better judge whether information being presented by third parties is accurate information and reflects a balanced view of all facets of the subject.” [2]

The PSI website says the organisation is “for everyone who supports the traditions [sic] scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded ‘post normal science’.”

As of 2014, PSI described itself as a “not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd. That statement has since been removed. [2]

PSI Acumen was registered with Companies House in the UK in March 2013 (see PDF) as a private company, with an address in Battersea Park Road, London. In July 2013, the business address of PSI Acumen was changed (PDF) to an address in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, which is the same as the home address of John O’Sullivan, the organisation’s founder and chief executive officer. PSI Acument LTD was dissolved (PDF) on October 15, 2014. [3], [4], [5]

The two named directors were John O’Sullivan, of the UK, and a Walter James O’Brien, with a US address listed in Fargo, North Dakota. Emails published by climate skeptic blogger Pete Ridley suggest that Walter James O’Brien no longer has any connection to the PSI Acument company. [3], [6]

Principia Scientific reports that one of their “proudest endeavors is the ongoing support given to world-leading independent climatologist, Dr Tim Ball,” who is also a founding member and former chairman of PCI. [7]

Stance on Climate Change​

PSI regularly publishes commentary which claims that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and that it could actually cool the planet. For example, in an article published in November 2013, “PSI Staff” wrote: [8]


In 2013, PSI also began to promote unfounded claims that wind turbines make people sick and that childhood vaccines were “one of the largest most evil lies in history.” [9]

Funding​

PSI is described on its website as being part of PSI Acumen Ltd — a private company registered in the UK with two named directors. No accounts have been filed for the company.
...}

PSI asks for donations on its website and also seeks members. Membership is free, but PSI asks people applying to make a voluntary donation (they suggest about $30). According to their website, [2]

LOL...

Right to attacking the source and not addressing the data provided.

Standard AGW Cultist method when avoiding the empirical evidence and data presented.

Thanks for playing.

 

[ding]

I disagree.
The link between CO2 and global temperature is solid.
What you are forgetting however, is that the connection is about the degree of solar energy that the CO2 allows to radiation back out into space.
That means when you greatly increase CO2, you do NOT instantly increase global warmth.
Instead you have just reset the maximum of how hot the earth will get from retained heat EVENTUALLY.
But it can take decades for the actual heat to be retained over the years.

And this is currently slowed even more by the energy absorbed by polar and glacial ice phase change to liquid.

You can disagree all you want but the data shows the correlation is broken. You can see it with your own eyes.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 540198

They could easily have stopped covid in about a month, but deliberately decided not only not to, but with "flattening the curve", deliberately preventing it from ending through herd immunity as well.

But no one has ever asked anyone to pay more in taxes, over global warming.
It cost LESS to simply conserve fossil fuels and burn less.

 

[Rigby5]

You can disagree all you want but the data shows the correlation is broken. You can see it with your own eyes.

Wrong.
You did not read what I explained.
I will explain again.
Obvious CO2 does not generate heat.
So then what is the correlation?
The correlation is that CO2 traps a % of the heat, and does not let that % escape back out into space.
So what would happen if you instantly double the CO2?
The heat obviously would NOT instantly double as well.
But if doubling the CO2 caused 2% of the solar heat to be retained instead of 1%, then slowly over decades, it would continually get slightly hotter and hotter every year, until some new statis equilibrium was reached.
So the spike in CO2 without the corresponding spike in temperature, is EXACTLY what one should expect, due to the CO2 correlation to global temperature.
You just were over simplifying.
It is NOT instantaneous, but the limit to slow accumulation.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
You did not read what I explained.
I will explain again.
Obvious CO2 does not generate heat.
So then what is the correlation?
The correlation is that CO2 traps a % of the heat, and does not let that % escape back out into space.
So what would happen if you instantly double the CO2?
The heat obviously would NOT instantly double as well.
But if doubling the CO2 caused 2% of the solar heat to be retained instead of 1%, then slowly over decades, it would continually get slightly hotter and hotter every year, until some new statis equilibrium was reached.
So the spike in CO2 without the corresponding spike in temperature, is EXACTLY what one should expect, due to the CO2 correlation to global temperature.
You just were over simplifying.
It is NOT instantaneous, but the limit to slow accumulation.

Ummmm.... 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less CO2. The correlation is broken.

 

[ding]

LOL...

Right to attacking the source and not addressing the data provided.

Standard AGW Cultist method when avoiding the empirical evidence and data presented.

Thanks for playing.

His plan is to systematically deny all evidence that disproves AGW without understanding anything at all about it. He takes it on faith. A modern day church lady.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Greenland ice loss in 2020 was below the record but above average | NOAA Climate.gov

Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower that the record set the previous 12-month period, but but still above the 2002–2020 average. Overall, Greenland continues to lose ice.

www.climate.gov

 

[westwall]

I disagree.
The link between CO2 and global temperature is solid.
What you are forgetting however, is that the connection is about the degree of solar energy that the CO2 allows to radiation back out into space.
That means when you greatly increase CO2, you do NOT instantly increase global warmth.
Instead you have just reset the maximum of how hot the earth will get from retained heat EVENTUALLY.
But it can take decades for the actual heat to be retained over the years.

And this is currently slowed even more by the energy absorbed by polar and glacial ice phase change to liquid.

No, it isn't. It is a failed theory.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I disagree.
The link between CO2 and global temperature is solid.
What you are forgetting however, is that the connection is about the degree of solar energy that the CO2 allows to radiation back out into space.
That means when you greatly increase CO2, you do NOT instantly increase global warmth.
Instead you have just reset the maximum of how hot the earth will get from retained heat EVENTUALLY.
But it can take decades for the actual heat to be retained over the years.

And this is currently slowed even more by the energy absorbed by polar and glacial ice phase change to liquid.

What link? You never posted any evidence "linking" a 120PPM increase in CO2 to temperature. At most, it's a rounding error at .002F, or less

 

[jackflash]

Todays graph is stunning from DMI...

View attachment 660813

I like your B/F quote a LOT like ole Ben knew his stuff!

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Principia Scientific International

COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

Published on June 15, 2020

Written by Cap Allon

Excerpt:

The month of June is breaking records across the Greenland ice sheet, and not records for warmth and melt –as the mainstream media have trained you to expect– but new benchmarks for COLD and GAINS.

The SMB gains occurring right now across Greenland are truly astonishing.

Data-driven FACTS reveal vast regions to the south have been GAINING RECORD/NEAR-RECORD LEVELS of snow & ice all month.

Never before in June has the Greenland ice sheet grown by more than 4 Gigatons in a single day (since 1981 when DMI records began), but now the past week has gone and delivered two such days — June 3, and now yesterday, June 10.

In fact, yesterday’s gains actually neared 5 Gts — you can see from the chart below how anomalous that gain is for the time of year:

LINK

======

CO2 must be pooped out up there, Jack Frost refuses to stand down!

It's just an effect of man made global warming , putin ,and Billy goats
Shut up bigot! and buy a coal powered car!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ummmm.... 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less CO2. The correlation is broken.

They don't get this... None of them do. It is not what their high priest Al Gore has told them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The correlation is that CO2 traps a % of the heat, and does not let that % escape back out into space.

Wrong. All CO2 does is momentarily slow the progression up through the atmosphere. As it rises the CO2 and other atmospheric gases cool. The longwave emissions are dependent on the temperature of the molecule emitting them. As the molecule cools the emitted wave lengthens. Because the ability to absorb is very narrow, 12-16um, the energy is emitted to space at longer wavelengths.

Satellite data disproves the AGW hypothesis. This is also why no hot spot can form above the equator. The graphs above show empirical evidence in the ERBE frame and GCM (global climate modeling) in all the others. Note the slope change from the empirical vs the fantasy. Just one more reason all GCM's fail with 100% certainty. They do not follow reality.

Graph source

 

[Billy_Bob]

So what would happen if you instantly double the CO2?

Almost nothing...

Our recent rise of 0.8 deg C has now diminished to an overall 0.3 deg C rise in 150 years. The last 9 years has seen about -0.6 deg C decrease in global temperature. The log of CO2 indicates we should have seen 1.6 deg C rise just in the actions expected from CO2 alone. We have seen just 0.3 deg C rise.

Below is the Log of CO2 which shows what we expect from this gas alone.



The atmospheric gases are dampening the actions of CO2. It is not enhancing the atmospheric gases ability to hold heat. Our current climate sensitivity number is just 0.3/1... A far cry from the 1/1 to 3/1 relationship the CAGW hypothesis requires to be validated by empirical evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But it can take decades for the actual heat to be retained over the years.

Ice does not hold heat. It reflects energy.

The ocean is the earths energy buffer. A very narrow band of downwelling radiation is what warms it to depth (0.2um-0.6um). The energy buffer lasts about 10-20 years and is expended in the ENSO. About 10 years ago a reduction in this band was seen as solar dimming was noted on the sun. A change in the fusion reaction is lowering the output in this band. We are now experiencing our third deep ocean cooling of both the surface temps and temperatures at depth.

The atmospheric temperatures are now following this cooling as the heat in our oceans has been expended and the ENSO is not recharging. IF the energy reduction, in this region of the suns output, doesn't change soon the cooling will become much deeper and there is nothing we as humans can do to stop it.

There is a reason the earth has glaciated, warmed and glaciated again, over and over, even with levels of CO2 above 1500ppm for eons.

 

[jc456]

Obvious CO2 does not generate heat.
So then what is the correlation?
The correlation is that CO2 traps a % of the heat, and does not let that % escape back out into space.

So if it generates no heat, what difference does it make? If it holds radiation from space and it doesn't generate heat how does it prolong heat? You just contradicted your ownself.

 

[jc456]

Ice does not hold heat. It reflects energy.

The ocean is the earths energy buffer. A very narrow band of downwelling radiation is what warms it to depth (0.2um-0.6um). The energy buffer lasts about 10-20 years and is expended in the ENSO. About 10 years ago a reduction in this band was seen as solar dimming was noted on the sun. A change in the fusion reaction is lowering the output in this band. We are now experiencing our third deep ocean cooling of both the surface temps and temperatures at depth.

The atmospheric temperatures are now following this cooling as the heat in our oceans has been expended and the ENSO is not recharging. IF the energy reduction, in this region of the suns output, doesn't change soon the cooling will become much deeper and there is nothing we as humans can do to stop it.

There is a reason the earth has glaciated, warmed and glaciated again, over and over, even with levels of CO2 above 1500ppm for eons.

Billy, The demofks still don't know the globe is 75% ocean.

 

[mamooth]

The ocean is the earths energy buffer. A very narrow band of downwelling radiation is what warms it to depth (0.2um-0.6um). The energy buffer lasts about 10-20 years and is expended in the ENSO. About 10 years ago a reduction in this band was seen as solar dimming was noted on the sun. A change in the fusion reaction is lowering the output in this band. We are now experiencing our third deep ocean cooling of both the surface temps and temperatures at depth.

Points awarded for such imaginitive insanity there. It takes creativity to make up something that cuckoobananas.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Greenland is still losing mass.

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Greenland Ice Mass Loss 2002-2023

The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research based on observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites (2002-2017) and GRACE Follow-On (since 2018 - ) indicates that between...

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What you are forgetting however, is that the connection is about the degree of solar energy that the CO2 allows to radiation back out into space.

As I understand it, technically speaking, the earth is in energy-balance, meaning that all the incoming solar energy gets absorbed and re-radiated back out into space. The key to the greenhouse effect is that the level in the atmosphere at which the IR photons re-radiate back out into space gets higher and higher and less efficient. This winds up trapping more heat at the surface but ultimately those IR photons will make it back out into space.