Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[gslack]

You don't know when I was born. And even if what you say is true, I assume then, being the old fart that you are, that you still subscribe to the expanding earth theory. That would not surprise me one bit.



My point, my good person, is that whether or not you think they (who they are has not been established so perhaps you should be clear right at this point) could is irrelevant.



Geology has until relatively recently, NOT been a precise science. And even today, only one law has come out of it. In fact, even today, there is a lot of interpretation going on in the geological sciences. Which is why it is most often referred to as a scientific discipline. It is not akin to chemistry and physics, though both of those hard sciences are heavily used in geology.



I never claimed to be a teacher. And I seriously doubt that you've taught a science class in your life.

Ahhhh good old olfraud, you expose yourself......

I expose myself? By being truthful that I am not a teacher? Yeah, what a terrible thing for me to do. I could have just lied, like you did. But I thought, naw! People deserve better than that. Not everyone with advanced degrees gets stuck in academia. Some of us actually go out and make a real living with what we've learned. Any more questions?

You spoke to two posters as if you knew them for a while now. yet are a brand new poster? How is that?

Nice try socko...Not really because you're too obvious...

 

[Abraham3]

Satistified with THAT?? No way... It's "adjusted" to a THEORY.

It is not. It was produced precisely as they described it.

 

[orogenicman]

Ahhhh good old olfraud, you expose yourself......

I expose myself? By being truthful that I am not a teacher? Yeah, what a terrible thing for me to do. I could have just lied, like you did. But I thought, naw! People deserve better than that. Not everyone with advanced degrees gets stuck in academia. Some of us actually go out and make a real living with what we've learned. Any more questions?

You spoke to two posters as if you knew them for a while now. yet are a brand new poster? How is that?

Nice try socko...Not really because you're too obvious...

Yeah? So what? In fact, I know at least one of the people posting in this very thread. I get around. Sue me.

 

[Abraham3]

Let me start this by noting that if you want TSI to be responsible, you're in no position to reject positive feedbacks.

I (being essentially of relatively sound mind) would NEVER claim that any one forcing function drives Climate scale temperatures..
That's part of your movement evidentally..

That's why you will consistently seem me use terms like "primary", "largest", :majority", etc.

Where's the DIP?? Your dip is in that Lying Ass Chart from the IPCC you posted that PURPOSELY underweights the solar insolation amounts...

I really don't like the accusation of liar. Are you saying that there was no temperature dip between 1941 and 1979 or no CO2 dip for roughly the same period? Both dips are shown by every source available, ALL of which predate the existence of the IPCC. So... who's the liar here?

OK.. The dip PRECEDES the 1940 by about the same amount of time as the cessation of solar warming proceeds the current pause in temperature rate.. Get it? SomeONE -- (maybe me) should plot those 2 with a shift in time eh?

Seriously?!?!? That would be manipulating the data to fit a hypothesis.

Remind how the IPCC arrives at that laughably low evaluation of solar insolation change for the past 2 centuries..

Physics. You?

 

[Abraham3]

More than a dozen differant studies, and they all came up with the 'hockey stick'. Of course, they all falsified their data according to you dingbats. Walleyes, when you or someone else has the evidence that will stand up at the annual AGU Conferance, get back to me.

"Hockey stick...lol... yeah made from a tree ring" -- MM

Crusader Frank, do you ever actually have anything to say? Your posts so far have been pretty consistently vacuous. You could try expanding on one of these sound bytes you seem to love so much.

 

[gslack]

I expose myself? By being truthful that I am not a teacher? Yeah, what a terrible thing for me to do. I could have just lied, like you did. But I thought, naw! People deserve better than that. Not everyone with advanced degrees gets stuck in academia. Some of us actually go out and make a real living with what we've learned. Any more questions?

You spoke to two posters as if you knew them for a while now. yet are a brand new poster? How is that?

Nice try socko...Not really because you're too obvious...

Yeah? So what? In fact, I know at least one of the people posting in this very thread. I get around. Sue me.

LOL, you're a new sock... A poor one at that...

 

[Abraham3]

Priceless man.. Just priceless. From "Quotable Liberals" no less.

REALITY ---- based on PhotoShop... Who's confused about reality here?

What makes you think that's been Photoshopped? Long before the Industrial Revolution, Arctic sea ice moved south and melted. Did you think the Huxley quote was referring to something into which you do not buy? Let me guess, you don't believe the Arctic ice extent is shrinking. Or is it the threat to the polar bear population?

First it was photoshopped to get the writing on it at least.. ERGO photoshopped..

Second, there are more polar bears now then there were in the 50's. ANd who can say how many rather large predators are the "norm"? How many over ten foot long and several hundred pound predators do you think an ice covered expanse of cold northern seas should sustain?

LOL, you warmers never think beyond the headlines do you.. You are told the world is ending and YOU can and must save it, and your savior/hero complexes kick in and you want to don some tights and fly to the rescue but you must settle for rambling BS about polar bears in danger...

The polar bears and the world is fine. When the world grows weary of us, including you, it will shrug us off like so much nothing and keep right on going.

Polar bears hunt the arctic waters for food. Not a whole lot of options for much land-based hunting up there. That bear was most likely taking a break on one of it's usual hunting swims.. it wasn't there because the ice melted and stranded it, it swam there..

Just as I rejected an old photograph of open ocean as proof of an ice free Arctic in 1904, I never for an instant took that photo as proof or evidence of anything to do with polar bears or ice extents. My assumption was that FlaCalTenn treated the photograph derogatorily because it was symbolic and representative of those issues. That said...

Polar bears do require ice. The ice is disappearing. The bears have two choices: move south to the coasts (which are now even warmer than they were) or drown. For that matter, spotted seals, harp seals and walruses need ice as well. They cannot deliver and raise their young in the water. They face the same problem: The ice is going away. And there is no question as to whether or not it will hurt them - but when.

 

[Abraham3]

I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job. It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there. It's just good foundational work. I didn't need it to accept AGW. AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented. That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".

So, what's your opinion on Arctic sea ice extents?

And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..

Told you before -- I don't do ice.. I only do proxies for amusement. Sea Ice is a biased game. Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations.. That's just a fools game watching ice CUBES melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.

And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..

I NEVER pulled their data out as a measure of 20th century temperatures. I used it to show that the current situation is unprecedented in the entire Holocene. And I read your (rather disjointed) description of a manner to cool the world off as quickly as its heated but I find it odd that the world's climate scientists don't seem to be aware of your scenario. Makes me wonder why. I've yet to hear a single one of them suggest a means by which the world could have experienced a heat 'pulse' of a magnitude similar to today's and have it over in time not to show in the Marcott and Shakun timelines.

Told you before -- I don't do ice..

That's bloody convenient

Sea Ice is a biased game.

Really? I thought the melting point was a pretty firmly established value.

Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations..

NSIDC (at least) actually uses 15%. Do you have a problem with that? They would have to pick some arbitrary value but as long as they stick with the same value, what's your problem?

That's just a fools game watching ice CUBES melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.

Really? That must explain the long flat sections in these extents graphs... [http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/]. You're ignoring (and I know you know you're ignoring) the critical dynamic. Ice extents have been shrinking steadily, at the very least since satellite measurements began. Temperatures in the Arctic have been climbing faster than anywhere else on the planet. The positive feedback (which I do not accept is nullfied by increased humidity) is accelerating the pace of melting even as the rest of the surface world seems to have ceased its climb. New measures showing mass loss in addition to extent loss show the situation to be even more dire than we had thought. There was a paper out about 4 months back that argued that the primary factor controlling melt rates of floating ice is the temperature of the water underneath. Humid air floating above the ice will not prevent it from melting.

 

[Abraham3]

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

That's an astoundingly well disguised education. And who is the "they" that uses an antiquted computer system? All climatologists? And where in a geology program do you study radiative heat transfer or atmospheric mechanics or even fluid dynamics?

I haven't seen a lot of your posts, but from those I have seen - I simply cannot accept your claim. I believe you're lying.



This sort of puerile chest thumping is just more evidence that you don't have the education you say you've got. I suppose it's possible to get a PhD and still be that much of an asshole, but it's extremely unlikely.

As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work? Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.

"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick"

- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick

I would have thought a PhD would take the time to read the 100 or so words in that tricky article. Actually, I have a really hard time seeing anyone with a graduate education reading the Bishop Hill Blog, much less referencing it.

They didn't pull the article because of anything Marcott et al did wrong. The error was whatever Met Office editor put the hockey stick comment in the headline. Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix NEVER claimed to have produced superior or novel data for the 20th century.

Being a denier, you should certainly be familiar with zealous fans overstating the significance of some scientific revelation or two. It always seemed to me as if your side of this argument invented the practice.

Except it's not chest thumping. There are loads of geology 1st year students. Then the 2nd year starts to winnow the wheat from the chaff, third year and beyond those who can't do the math, physics, and chemistry switch to geography. Want to know what the VAST majority of Bachelors degrees are that are held by your precious climatologists? Yep, GEOGRAPHY.

Look up the requirements for a climatology PhD vs a geology PhD.

And seriously, you expect us to take you seriously when you don't even know that that picture is photo shopped? Get real....

You respond to a charge of chest thumping with more chest thumping. And then - claiming to be a PhD - tell us about drop out rates among college freshmen. Sorry. Don't buy it. Your concerns are in all the wrong places. You sound like someone who didn't make it through college, is bitter about it and wants to blame someone else for their own failures. I don't have a PhD, but I've been working with them on a regular basis for over 25 years. My father and both my brothers had PhDs. Three of my best friends have them. I've got an inkling what a PhD sounds like and you ain't it. Tell you what, though. Rather than waste a lot of time with your PhD nonsense, why don't we just have a conversation on global warming? That's why I came here.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water.

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C.

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

 

[Abraham3]

Edit: I just looked at this clowns posts and they ALL support olfraud. All six of them. How fucking obvious a sock do you have to be

If you mean my views align with poster Old Rocks - big whoopee. They both align with thousands of climate scientists as well.

I will accept your claim of having a doctorate when you demonstrate the knowledge, intelligence and wisdom pertinent to such a state. As for your geologists v climatologists: comparisons are odious, particularly when they are composed of fresh bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water.

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C.

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started

 

[flacaltenn]

I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job. It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there. It's just good foundational work. I didn't need it to accept AGW. AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented. That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".

So, what's your opinion on Arctic sea ice extents?

And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..

Told you before -- I don't do ice.. I only do proxies for amusement. Sea Ice is a biased game. Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations.. That's just a fools game watching ice CUBES melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.

And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..

I NEVER pulled their data out as a measure of 20th century temperatures. I used it to show that the current situation is unprecedented in the entire Holocene. And I read your (rather disjointed) description of a manner to cool the world off as quickly as its heated but I find it odd that the world's climate scientists don't seem to be aware of your scenario. Makes me wonder why. I've yet to hear a single one of them suggest a means by which the world could have experienced a heat 'pulse' of a magnitude similar to today's and have it over in time not to show in the Marcott and Shakun timelines.

Told you before -- I don't do ice..

That's bloody convenient

Sea Ice is a biased game.

Really? I thought the melting point was a pretty firmly established value.

Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations..

NSIDC (at least) actually uses 15%. Do you have a problem with that? They would have to pick some arbitrary value but as long as they stick with the same value, what's your problem?

That's just a fools game watching ice CUBES melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.

Really? That must explain the long flat sections in these extents graphs... [Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis]. You're ignoring (and I know you know you're ignoring) the critical dynamic. Ice extents have been shrinking steadily, at the very least since satellite measurements began. Temperatures in the Arctic have been climbing faster than anywhere else on the planet. The positive feedback (which I do not accept is nullfied by increased humidity) is accelerating the pace of melting even as the rest of the surface world seems to have ceased its climb. New measures showing mass loss in addition to extent loss show the situation to be even more dire than we had thought. There was a paper out about 4 months back that argued that the primary factor controlling melt rates of floating ice is the temperature of the water underneath. Humid air floating above the ice will not prevent it from melting.

Yeah -- that's right -- 15%... Even more a rigged game.. To show SIE "ICED" based on 85% open water says virtually NOTHING about climate. You said it yourself, it's open water temp and insolation.. Actually toss in wind and currents as well. And the temperature (because it melts at 32deg) is IRRELEVENT over more than 9 months of the year. It's a nonlinear forcing at the Arctic, but AGW lumps all that into "GLOBAL" Climate Sensitivity.. So that the journalism majors who flunked every science course they took can follow along..

That's why I dont do ice. Dont' do glaciers either because glaciers were doomed a 1000 yrs ago. And moreover --- I don't crave living in a climate where they are growing..

So why is IPCC severely UNDER-RATING the Solar Insolation numbers??

 

[polarbear]

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water.

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C.

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

Really ? So the 10 % of the sunlight which is not reflected can melt 10^6 km^2 of ice which is on average 3 meters thick ?
Per m^2 that would take 1002 MJ or 105 Watt/m^2 for the entire melt season duration which is ~ 110 days and that came from just 10% of the sunlight which was not reflected...meaning that there would have been 1050 watt/m^2 arctic insolation.
Fact is, that inside the arctic circle insolation peaks for 30 days only at 200 MJ/m^2 (and that`s during the time when the sun shines for 24 hours per day)...which gives you only 77 watt/m^2 and not 1050 watt/m^2.
It`s also a fact that :
Insolation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignoring clouds, the daily average irradiance for the Earth is
approximately 250 W/m2

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

That`s using one hell of an insolation number, 4 times higher than the global average in side the arctic circle !
...Or over 13 times the solar irradiation that actually reaches inside the arctic circle.
But you are not the only one that did so. There are a shitload of blogs which are all using the same numbers and "math" that was in your post.
Had you ever been out on the Lincoln sea`s ice pack during the polar melting season you would have been able to observe that the bulk of that ice is not melted by the 10% absorbed sunlight, from the top down.
Not even the huge junks of ice that drift out the Nares Strait south, else icebergs would not get top heavy and roll over.
The bulk of the ice is dissolved by warm water which is driven north by ocean currents which are measured in magnitudes of Sverdrup units...that`s 10^6 cubic meters of warm water per second...
For example the Gulf /Florida current pushes on average over 1 500 000 000 cubic meters of warm water past Newfoundland which then enters the arctic basin and circulates around Greenland and Ellesmere Island ...So now compare that amount of heat energy per second with the meager 200 MJ per month/m^2 solar insolation... and with only 10% of it these ridiculous bloggers manage to melt millions of km^2 of polar ice.
That folks is indeed one hell of a feedback...and in the final analysis, of course, all of it coming from 380 ppm CO2

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Polar, the numbers come straight out of a Chemistry textbook. And the present CO2 level is 400 ppm.

The Keeling Curve | A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego

Heat of fusion for ice to water, water to ice 334 joules per gram

Heat needed to increase or decrease the temperture of water one degree C. 4.18 joules per gram

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water.

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C.

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water.

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C.

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

Are we still 8 degrees warmer than we were 14,000 years ago?

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, ice melting and exposing million of square kilometer of sea water to sunlight is a big deal.

This big.

90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. Of that 10% that is not, it requires 334 joules of energy to melt one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water.

It requires 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the 334 joules of energy that was required to melt one gram of ice to water, heat of fusion, now raises the temperature of 80 grams of water 1 degree C.

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

That, folks, is one hell of a feedback.

And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

Now Frankie Boy, you've been alarmed by the wrong apocalyptic scenario.. It's not CO2 that should cause you fear --- it's the Milankovitch Cycles that done that number on North America.. A 1/2 mile thick IceCap over Cleveland caused by ???? Milankovitch Cycles.

What are they? --- The public hasn't yet been warned... When do they happen?

No one seems to care.... Bastard reality show babies ARE important..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

Now Frankie Boy, you've been alarmed by the wrong apocalyptic scenario.. It's not CO2 that should cause you fear --- it's the Milankovitch Cycles that done that number on North America.. A 1/2 mile thick IceCap over Cleveland caused by ???? Milankovitch Cycles.

What are they? --- The public hasn't yet been warned... When do they happen?

No one seems to care.... Bastard reality show babies ARE important..

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC

 

[Old Rocks]

And the ice has been melting since everything north of Ohio was buried under it, right?

What started that process 14,000 years ago?

We're still 8 degrees warmer than when that process started

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

Now Frankie Boy, you've been alarmed by the wrong apocalyptic scenario.. It's not CO2 that should cause you fear --- it's the Milankovitch Cycles that done that number on North America.. A 1/2 mile thick IceCap over Cleveland caused by ???? Milankovitch Cycles.

What are they? --- The public hasn't yet been warned... When do they happen?

No one seems to care.... Bastard reality show babies ARE important..

So, you continue to prove what a dumb fuck you truly are.

Milankovitch Tutorial