East Antarctica may be just as unstable as West

[SSDD]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

 

[ReinyDays]

One recent estimate is 47 TW, equivalent to an average heat flux of 91.6 mW/m^2

Acknowledged ... thank you for this correction ... 92 mW/m^2 works for me ...

You have to average that over the whole earth, both sides, which instantly cuts it by a factor of 4. And then a portion of the radiation doesn't reach the ground.

That's what I did ... 1,360 W/m^2 times ( 1 - albedo (≈0.3)) gives 952 W/m^2 ... then divide by 4 which is the 238 W/m^2 I gave above ... where did you come up with 494 W/m^2? ... that chart on Wikipedia you're using gives the value of "Net Human" radiative forcing as 2.2 (±1.1) W/m^2 ... so 236 W/m^2 outbound energy is correct, as measured by LEO satellites ...

From that article:
the commonly accepted value of climate sensitivity parameter λ, 0.8 K /(W/m^2)

We don't actually know this value ... this is an assumption made just to get started ... we need to keep that in mind if we're trying to project 100 years into the future ...

=====

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

That's a dynamic phenomena you're seeing ... every growing season has a different profile ... or are you comparing average growing seasons in the 19th Century to the averages for the 20th Century? ...

To be expected during a period of global warming ... but that's not climate change, it's the same climate ... what's the crisis of longer growing seasons? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Superheated fluid is emitting from the vents at more than 800 degrees...exactly how many W/m2 do you think it should be emitting?

Try reading a bit on your own. Science is now estimating that there are more than 10 million vents and volcanoes scattered across the sea bed...this isn't a hot spot here and a hot spot there scenario...vast quantities of energy are being released from the sea bed. Let go of your CO2 fantasy.

Vast quantities of energy flowing into vast quantities of ocean makes for a slight increase in temperature ... how do you know these 10 million vents and volcanoes weren't giving off energy 20,000 years ago, during glacial maximum ... this is all part of the 0.1 W/m^2 terrestrial radiation that's all the internal energy escaping ...

This is fringe science ... and no, I don't spend much time reading it ... I can barely keep up with the normal science you so despise ...

 

[SSDD]

Newsflash....your "normal" science is failing miserably. The climate models that can't even predict the past are your "normal" science incarnate. They are so bad that not only do they not jibe with reality, they can't even agree with themselves. The answer does not lie in a complete failure to apply rational scientific principles to the atmosphere and the trace gasses it holds. The oceans drive the climate and the oceans heat the atmosphere...the atmosphere has no power to heat the oceans.

And by the way that 0.1 W/m^2 terrestrial radiation is only counting normal emission from the surface and a few known land based active volcanoes...it doesn't include the vast amount of undersea volcanic activity that is being discovered...nor will it, because normal science on this topic is settled and its aim is a one world government...no amount of observed scientific evidence to the contrary will ever convince "normal" science that it is wrong regarding CO2 because "normal" science has been bought and paid for.

 

[mamooth]

That's what I did ... 1,360 W/m^2 times ( 1 - albedo (≈0.3)) gives 952 W/m^2 ... then divide by 4 which is the 238 W/m^2 I gave above ... where did you come up with 494 W/m^2? ...

By adding the backradiation. But that was a mistake on my part. Not that it matters. 92 milliwatts -- or more correctly, the variation from .092 -- is still nothing compared compared to the solar input of 238, or a forcing of 2.2.

To be even barely significant on a global scale, geothermal heat output over the whole earth would have had to at least double over the past few decades. And that's not remotely possible.

 

[ReinyDays]

To be even barely significant on a global scale, geothermal heat output over the whole earth would have had to at least double over the past few decades. And that's not remotely possible.

Exactly ... this contribution is constant over the time periods of interest ...

 

[SSDD]

That's what I did ... 1,360 W/m^2 times ( 1 - albedo (≈0.3)) gives 952 W/m^2 ... then divide by 4 which is the 238 W/m^2 I gave above ... where did you come up with 494 W/m^2? ...

By adding the backradiation. But that was a mistake on my part. Not that it matters. 92 milliwatts -- or more correctly, the variation from .092 -- is still nothing compared compared to the solar input of 238, or a forcing of 2.2.

To be even barely significant on a global scale, geothermal heat output over the whole earth would have had to at least double over the past few decades. And that's not remotely possible.

Science is coming to realize that rather than the 1500 or so undersea volcanoes they have assumed, the number of volcanoes and vents is more Likely numbered in the million. Even NASA has acknowledged that there may be as many as a million full fledged volcanoes on the sea bed with as many as 75,000 of them being half a mile tall and thousands of them are probably active.

Moving from 1500 active volcanoes to thousands, or tens of thousands or more of them and then toss on more than a million vents and you have far more than doubled the geothermal output.

climate science has been trying for more than a decade to ignore how grossly the geothermal output has been underestimated, but research has reached the point than only the most rabid of anti science deniers can continue to ignore the magnitude of the error.

 

[mamooth]

Moving from 1500 active volcanoes to thousands, or tens of thousands or more of them and then toss on more than a million vents and you have far more than doubled the geothermal output.

The teentsy problem with your undersea volcano apocalypse theory would be that there's zero evidence for it. All you're showing is that undersea volcanoes exist. You've provided zero evidence that a new undersea volcano apocalypse has suddenly sprung up in the past few decades. It is an entirely faith-based belief on your part. Being that there's no evidence for it, no rational people pay any attention to it.

 

[ReinyDays]

The teentsy problem with your undersea volcano apocalypse theory would be that there's zero evidence for it. All you're showing is that undersea volcanoes exist. You've provided zero evidence that a new undersea volcano apocalypse has suddenly sprung up in the past few decades. It is an entirely faith-based belief on your part. Being that there's no evidence for it, no rational people pay any attention to it.

I live within 50 miles of an active volcano ... it's not currently erupting right now ... it might be 1,000 years before it does again ... however much energy it releases when it does erupt will be dissipated in the climate system well within our 100 year window ... the thing about most volcanoes is that they emit seismic waves has the pressure builds and as the erupt ... and this is something we're not seeing ... the volcanoes may be there, but they're not giving off energy into the system ...

Energy must be conserved ... we're reading 236 W/m^2 from outer space and all this energy is accounted for from solar radiation ... until we get better equipment up in orbit, the amount of geothermal output will remain within instrumentation error (± 0.5 W/m^2) ...

 

[SSDD]

Moving from 1500 active volcanoes to thousands, or tens of thousands or more of them and then toss on more than a million vents and you have far more than doubled the geothermal output.

The teentsy problem with your undersea volcano apocalypse theory would be that there's zero evidence for it. All you're showing is that undersea volcanoes exist. You've provided zero evidence that a new undersea volcano apocalypse has suddenly sprung up in the past few decades. It is an entirely faith-based belief on your part. Being that there's no evidence for it, no rational people pay any attention to it.

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated has become undeniable unless you are a raving anti science denier. Clearly you prefer to believe your quarter century old outdated pseudoscience over modern research.

 

[ReinyDays]

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated has become undeniable unless you are a raving anti science denier. Clearly you prefer to believe your quarter century old outdated pseudoscience over modern research.

Please ... provide a peer-reviewed scientific paper that endorses your claims here ...

 

[whitehall]

Ditto the San Andreas fault. What's the worst that can happen? A couple of penguins lose their home?

 

[mamooth]

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated

Which, even if true, is irrelevant, because even if underestimated, that volcanic activity isn't _new_. It's been there darn near forever, and it's already factored into the climate system.

You seem to be under the impression that something doesn't exist until humans discover it. That's just bizarre, and it's why your theory is obvious nonsense.

 

[Wuwei]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

You are conflating the Florida freeze line with Florida's average temperature.

In the last 20 years I have seen 3 major frosts that last only one or two days. They will damage many native plants overnight. The rare frosts are moving southward because of the unstable polar vortex. The short infrequent freezes does not mean that Florida is getting colder on the average. It means that there is a wider range of outlier temperatures.

Yes the citrus crops suffer from an occasional frost, but the main problem for decades is the expanding "greening" problem. Ninety percent of the state’s groves are infected by a bacterium. I have seen a large neighboring grove disappear in just a few years, but not by frost.

 

[Wuwei]

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated has become undeniable unless you are a raving anti science denier. Clearly you prefer to believe your quarter century old outdated pseudoscience over modern research.

The point is that the discussion is about climate change. If the number or intensity of volcanoes is changing, that contributes to climate change. It doesn't matter what the real number of volcanoes is. You haven't demonstrated that the number is increasing. You missed the point.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

In the last 20 years I have seen 3 major frosts that last only one or two days.

Has it really been 34 years since Challenger blew up that frozen frosty morning? ...

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, it sucks to have volcanic activity creating most of this.

Only the most brainless cult fanatics would read an article that says "there's been volcanic activity under Antarctic for a long time" and immediately conclude "DERPDERPDERP VOLCANOES ARE MELTING ALL THE ICE!".

The sad fact is that almost all deniers are just kind of slow.

So YOU and YOU alone KNOW the charts of volcanic activity under Antarctica for THOUSANDS of years --- EVEN THO -- scientists just realized this is a contributing factor to the WAIS melting within the past 5 years... You're a fucking genius -- or just a psychic or something...

 

[SSDD]

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated has become undeniable unless you are a raving anti science denier. Clearly you prefer to believe your quarter century old outdated pseudoscience over modern research.

Please ... provide a peer-reviewed scientific paper that endorses your claims here ...

The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming

“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists.”

“Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe.”

“As illustrated in CSARGW, jumps in HGFA seismic activity can amplify an El Niño event, a phenomenon referred to as a SIENA or a Seismically Induced El Niño Amplification. Accurately predicting two of these amplified El Niños (i.e., the 2015/2016 event plus the1997/1998 episode) is an important outcome of the HGFA seismicity/temperature relationship.”

“Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”



Demezhko et al., 2017

“Recently, geothermal data have been used to estimate transient climatically caused surface heat flux (SHF) changes (Beltrami et al. 2000, 2002; Beltrami 2001; Demezhko et al. 2013; Volobuev 2013; Demezhko and Gornostaeva 2015). This heat flux has been introduced as a useful new paleoclimate characteristic. It should be distinguished from the steady-state background heat flow. The latter is attributed to the Earth’s internal heat sources and does not depend on climate change. Both these fluxes are independent components of the ground surface heat balance. … GST [ground surface temperature] and SHF [surface heat flux] histories differ substantially in shape and chronology. [Subsurface] Heat flux changes ahead of temperature changes by 500–1000 years.”

Further proof El Ninos are fueled by deep-sea geological heat flow

The 2014-2017 El Niño "warm blob" was likely created, maintained, and partially recharged on two separate occasions by massive pulses of super-heated and chemically charged seawater from deep-sea western Pacific geological features.

climatechangedispatch.com

http://www.climometrics.org/12hustso.pdf

So I provided you with peer reviewed publications supporting my position...now how about you provide some peer reviewed publications that support yours and empirically show how much or how little varying CO2 concentrations over bodies of water in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) cause changes in heat over said bodies of water. It is what you believe...lets see the empirical evidence to support it.

 

[SSDD]

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated

Which, even if true, is irrelevant, because even if underestimated, that volcanic activity isn't _new_. It's been there darn near forever, and it's already factored into the climate system.

You seem to be under the impression that something doesn't exist until humans discover it. That's just bizarre, and it's why your theory is obvious nonsense.

Sorry, but once again, you completely fail to grasp the point...the point is that it has always been there, but has been grossly underestimated by climate science...and rather than look to the actual causes of climate change...ie natural variability, the political answer has been man made CO2...a hypothesis which still can't provide any physical evidence in its support...and before you start injecting your typical fiction into the discussion, how about you provide some peer reviewed publications that support your fantasy and empirically show how much or how little varying CO2 concentrations over bodies of water in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) cause changes in heat over said bodies of water. It is what you believe...lets see the empirical evidence to support it.

 

[SSDD]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

You are conflating the Florida freeze line with Florida's average temperature.

In the last 20 years I have seen 3 major frosts that last only one or two days. They will damage many native plants overnight. The rare frosts are moving southward because of the unstable polar vortex. The short infrequent freezes does not mean that Florida is getting colder on the average. It means that there is a wider range of outlier temperatures.

Yes the citrus crops suffer from an occasional frost, but the main problem for decades is the expanding "greening" problem. Ninety percent of the state’s groves are infected by a bacterium. I have seen a large neighboring grove disappear in just a few years, but not by frost.

Right...the freeze line has nothing to do with climate or temperature...do you ever actually listen to yourself?