ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[markz]

Weather warning and Tornado warning.
TV emergency says get in basement.
Thats rare, but happening more and more. Nice funnel clouds, dark clouds etc.
Should be interesting to see the damage that happens.
Be a good time to get a siding and roofing biz going again

 

[kd8cgo]

The topic BY DEFINITION should be considered along with climate change/ warming.

It is being considered, by those who are studying geoengineering and the climate. It's good to be aware that they are studying it along with climate change.

I was impressed with the evidence in the documentary. A valid hypothesis imo. A good docu-

There was no evidence in the documentary that I was able to find. Could you give us a list, even a short incomplete one of what you think some of the evidence is? We can share our thoughts on it, or maybe give you something to think about that we have to share. Why do you consider the hypothesis valid, what criteria are you using to judge it?

I agree with your impact-minimizing living goals, and I've read some of your threads on related topics and there are plenty of ideas there to pursue. I'm not sure how you are judging "living in tune with the earth" - how are you deciding what is in tune with the earth? Since you reject an entire field of rigorous science on one subject that could inform you about some of the considerations you should keep in mind, what do you use to inform your decisions?

 

[Punx0r]

If by 'these people' you mean the producers of that video, then no, on that topic they are most certainly not rational. They've draw conclusions and attempt to support it with hearsay. There was no evidence presented in the documentary to support the claims they've made. To think otherwise is to misunderstand what 'evidence' is.

I was impressed with the evidence in the documentary. A valid hypothesis imo. A good docu-

 

[Gloop]

I used to be a commercial pilot and i never saw any chemtrails. Contrails yes, but never chemtrails.

Let's be real - if we were geoengineering already, the oceans wouldn't be warming, the ice caps wouldn't be melting, and air temperatures would be declining. Yet they are all the opposite.

The reason people find so much aluminum in the soil, is because aluminum is one of the most common metals in dirt.

Coal plants and tanker ships put out more sulfur aerosols into the lower atmosphere than any amount of geoengineering.
Coal plants put out more radiation than nuclear plants.

Just consider this for a moment. If we stopped polluting aerosols, we stopped emitting the carbon, the air would clear up and we would suddenly be impacted by the full force of AGW.

 

[nutnspecial]

Thanks kd8, maybe I'll analyze the video someday for you guys to re-analyze my analyzations ??

In the meantime, anybody can look the stuff up and tear it apart. That's all I intended, just to put it out there.

Gloop, looks like you know enough about it to comment specifically. Good on you. For the record, chemtrails is a bs term that I'll never use. Look at the geoengineering patents, there are some for spraying aluminum oxide. And call me nuts, but I see trails in the sky that are not always just condensation/ice crystals- over a period of time, they fan out and blanket the sky, horizon to horizon.

You're right, less dimming could mean more melting! An interesting subject. That's the purpose behind many of the patents- to dim with aerosols on purpose!

PS

Since you reject an entire field of rigorous science on one subject

Whoa! Really? I don't think I'm rejecting anything. Trying to use a bigger lense/monocle maybe

 

[kd8cgo]

I think climate change is as or nearly natural as any time it's happened in the past.

There appears to be too much halfassed data, coupled with info of previous climate resets to blame any real large picture climate change/potential human destruction on ourselves. Just doesn't make much sense we are that big of a deal when you take the whole solar system and factor in our highly limited knowledge against it.

Peer reviewed and mainstream doesn't weigh to much with me when I think the system itself is a nice little subversive machine that drives mass opinion in whatever way it's programmed to.

Look closely at it, and you too might see there's no way it could be anywhere near as impartial and just as we are led to believe. Motive is another thing to look at once you can grasp a bit more of the picture.

These are the main quotes that led me to believe you reject the findings of climate science, particularly to the results on anthropogenic global warming which has been a primary focus of study for quite awhile now.

If you don't want to call trails in the sky that are "not contrails" chemtrails, thats ok. What do you call them when you see the ones you believe are not contrails? Is there a name for them I've missed? Here is a quote as well as sources refuting your 'contrails don't fan out and blanket the sky' claim:

It is well established by atmospheric scientists that contrails can not only persist for hours, but it is a perfectly normal characteristic for them to spread out into cirrus sheets. The different sized ice crystals in contrails descend at different rates, which spreads the contrail vertically. Then the differential in wind speeds between altitudes (wind shear) results in the spreading of the contrail across many miles/kilometers in the sky. This mechanism is similar to the formation of cirrus uncinus clouds. Contrails between 25,000–40,000 feet (7,600–12,200 m) can often merge into an "almost solid" interlaced sheet.[33] Contrails can have a lateral spread of several kilometers, and given sufficient air traffic it is possible for contrails to create an entirely overcast sky that increases the ice budget of individual contrails and persists for hours.[34]

Sources: [33]"Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" [34]"Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail"

I respect that you are somehow trying to see the "bigger picture", but I'm not sure what you are looking at to give you any sort of evidence that is convincing enough to believe the things you do. There are multiple problems with your theories, not the least of which you've not presented any evidence for them yet. It's like when Adam on the Myth Busters says "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - but your reality evidence just doesn't need to exist, or the meaning of the word has been changed somehow to "any claims spoken with a suspicious tone of voice." Have you ever tried to look at evidence or the results of anyone studying any of this? If you are basing your opinions on things like documentaries, how do you determine if what they are saying is true or false, likely or unlikely? How are you determining the bad motives of people or findings you disagree with? You say things like "look into it" or "look it up" fairly often, but I'm not sure that means what you think it means, or what I think it means apparently!

If we could come to even a basic understanding of how you weigh the claims that you hear, it could be useful for everyone!

 

[arkmundi]

....There are multiple problems with your theories, not the least of which you've not presented any evidence for them yet... Have you ever tried to look at evidence or the results of anyone studying any of this? ...You say things like "look into it" or "look it up" fairly often, but I'm not sure that means what you think it means, or what I think it means apparently!

If we could come to even a basic understanding of how you weigh the claims that you hear, it could be useful for everyone!

kd8cgo: Sorry to disagree with you here buddy, but it is not at all useful on this thread, which was begun by the OP and variously added to by others to keep track of what is happening in the Arctic, Greenland and Antaractica - the science of it. It is not an arena to debunk the deniers, who must be more accurately construed as trolls.
Nutspecial: please desist from any further posting to this thread. If you want to post your idiocy, then start another thread.
Moderators: please note a formal request to separate out all non-relevant posts on this thread.

 

[kd8cgo]

I could not more strongly disagree with you here. This is a discussion board, and this is currently the most appropriate, current place to discuss and improve ours and others' mutual understanding of the topics surrounding ice sheet dynamics.

The fact that you or anyone would want to stifle any discussion of the matter, especially civil and rational discourse, is deeply troubling.

 

[dnmun]

like i said it is pointless.

some of the holdover from the big blocking high in the north pacific associated with the PacificDecadalOscillation is the huge amount of sea ice still remaining in hudson's bay. something near a record, so they use this as proof of their opinion.

i don't follow the PDO much but i think it is considered to be driven by other forces than el nino. but this means no snow for california this winter again, or here in oregon. already turning into one of the hottest longest driest spells in the NW.

 

[arkmundi]

No, not stifle. A thread to be useful must maintain a certain level of integrity. My request to the moderators is to separate out all of the non-relevant climate-denying-debunking posts into a separate thread. Where you, nutspecial and any others can continue on ad-nausium if you want. In my opinion. Leaving it to the OP and moderators to take what corrective action they deem appropriate.

 

[kd8cgo]

like i said it is pointless.

some of the holdover from the big blocking high in the north pacific associated with the PacificDecadalOscillation is the huge amount of sea ice still remaining in hudson's bay. something near a record, so they use this as proof of their opinion.

i don't follow the PDO much but i think it is considered to be driven by other forces than el nino. but this means no snow for california this winter again, or here in oregon. already turning into one of the hottest longest driest spells in the NW.

No, not stifle. A thread to be useful must maintain a certain level of integrity. My request to the moderators is to separate out all of the non-relevant climate-denying-debunking posts into a separate thread. Where you, nutspecial and any others can continue on ad-nausium if you want. In my opinion. Leaving it to the OP and moderators to take what corrective action they deem appropriate.

I have some further thoughts on this, but I will wait for guidance from the moderation team before further participation here. Your interpretations of the meaning of stifle and non-relevant are strikingly different to anything I've seen before. To eliminate positions you don't agree with that directly concern the topic under discussion on a public forum? Poor taste, and a terrible precedent.

 

[spinningmagnets]

Let's give this a few days to rest, but...do not assume that any moderation will follow a predetermined path.

 

[neptronix]

Well, i got baited back into here via a PM about the thread lock.
Pardon me for posting to a locked thread, but this needs to be said.

Arkmundi is not a moderator of this forum and does not have the right nor ability to shut anyone up who disagrees with him by simply labeling them a troll.
Any moderator here has ability to do such a thing, but is not in the right for doing so. No forum rules have been violated. Nobody here has the right to squash any opinion when it is expressed in a non-inflammatory way, period.

This is a place where freedom to express one's opinion and ideals should be our highest value. There are plenty of places on the internet where a hive-mind mentality exists - echo chambers where no dissenting opinion that my challenge your beliefs is allowed. That leads to intellectual stagnation and polarization - two things that turn off intellectual people from participating here, and in the world outside of ES, prevent people from ever solving the big problems that our world faces today.

I think that most people here value freedom of speech. It's a win/win for everybody. If you can't handle having your feathers ruffled occasionally as a result of this freedom, then endless sphere is not for you, period.

 

[spinningmagnets]

Thread unlocked on Saturday evening.

Whether anyone here agrees or disagrees that climate change is happening or not, or whether any change is human caused or not...please avoid personal attacks. And as Neptonix posted, a poster disagreeing with any stated opinion is not a violation.

 

[dnmun]

this thread was not created for trolls like neptronix and nut case to just trash the info we post up.

it has nothing to do with arguing over whether global warming exists or not. that is an argument they continue because that is how they interact with reality.

i posted this up to inform and not to start some discussion of whether global warming is reality or not. it is reality.

 

[nutnspecial]

Ok, a couple things, then I can go

This is a complex subject, much less with my added ideas. I don't want to come off as being above or supreme to the popular opinion here, I wanted to humbly offer my opinion. This does not include chemtrails, it is about quantifiable patent data and scientific discussion on solar radiation management techniques and also 'ancient' cataclysms as well as new data on magnetic pole shifts and activity.

I am not a scientist either (none of you are right?), but I like to attempt to think for myself about these obviously highly controversial subjects, and seek out independent information.

Kd8 (good job) pulled my quotes, and they are quite valid. I can understand why you'd think I've rejected the statusquo here. Please, only think of my words as questions, not judgement or rejection. I AM attempting to understand, the same as anybody, and admittedly may take different angles. I am leaning in a particular direction perhaps, but some here are not helping convince me that they're nothing more than followers of the crowd, and acting the fanboys' part, which doesn't say much for the validity of beliefsets.

Sorry for the hubbub, I only wished to introduce other information and theories.
Aren't we all heading towards the same thing guys? Why can't we just get along?

Peace

 

[neptronix]

Seems that you have expanded the defintion of a 'troll' to include someone who disagrees with you.
Did you not just read what spinning magnets just typed? he was hoping that y'all could continue discussion without making personal attacks.

If you guys cannot handle differing opinions on topics you feel strongly about, i suggest you not post them. My 2 cents.

I will nto say anything further on the topic at hand - other than... keep it civil.

this thread was not created for trolls like neptronix and nut case to just trash the info we post up.

it has nothing to do with arguing over whether global warming exists or not. that is an argument they continue because that is how they interact with reality.

i posted this up to inform and not to start some discussion of whether global warming is reality or not. it is reality.

 

[LockH]

"Mighty Mammoths Fell Prey to Rapidly Warming Earth"
http://news.yahoo.com/mighty-mammoths-fell-prey-rapidly-warming-earth-121459749.html

Includes:

The study is the latest in a long string of research examining what caused megafauna, or animals weighing more than 99 pounds (45 kilograms), to die off during the Late Pleistocene.

So it looks like humans weighing less than 99 pounds have nothing to worry about. :?

 

[LockH]

"James Hansen's Paper on Sea Level Rise Published Online"
http://theweatherspace.com/2015/07/28/88984-james-hansen-s-paper-on-sea-level-rise-published-online/

Ending last few sentences:

The paper argues that sea level could surge 10 feet within 50 to 100 years.

Sadly, despite all these warnings about climate change, global carbon dioxide emission levels continue to rise as fossil fuels still remain a primary source of energy source.

James Hansen has often been out ahead of his scientific colleagues.

They predict that glaciers in the Antarctic and Greenland may melt ten times faster than predicted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which said that sea levels will only rise by a meter in this century.

... and direct link to paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0190.1

 

[LockH]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/nat...re-season-of-2015-may-soon-be-the-6408837.php

"The staggering 2015 Alaska wildfire season may soon be the state's worst, with nearly 5 million acres already burned — an area larger than Connecticut."

(Perhaps "off topic", but suspect not.)

 

[LockH]

In unrelated news, "situation normal" for government in Scotland.

"Oil and Gas Authority confirms 41 new licences for North Sea operations"
http://www.thenational.scot/busines...41-new-licences-for-north-sea-operations.5641

"“We are backing our oil and gas industry which supports hundreds of thousands of jobs (word "voters" crossed out from earlier version) across the UK."

 

[LockH]

Bit of a gap in this thread from August 31, 2014 to Feb. 22, 2015 but can't recall this article from December, 2014 being chucked in here?

"D.C. has passed sea level rise 'tipping point,' more cities to follow: study"
http://mashable.com/2014/12/20/washington-dc-sea-level-rise/

In part:
SAN FRANCISCO — Major U.S. coastal cities, including Washington, D.C. and Wilmington, North Carolina, have already slipped past a sea level rise-related “tipping point,” and into a new era of increasingly common and damaging coastal flooding events, a new study found.

Other cities along the East and Gulf Coasts are following close behind, with the majority of coastal areas in the U.S. expected to see 30 or more days of “nuisance-level flooding” each year by 2050, regardless of how significantly countries cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming, according to the study.

The study defines this flood frequency as the "tipping point" in the local flood regime, with major implications for the management of coastal roads and critical infrastructure located close to sea level, since there will be far less time for repairs between floods.

Nuisance-type flooding is defined as flooding to a height of between 1 to 2 feet above local high-tide levels. Such floods, the study said, are now five to 10 times more likely today than they were just 50 years ago.

Although the term “nuisance floods” may connote minor flooding with little reason for concern, the impacts of repetitive floods should not be underestimated, the study’s lead author, William Sweet of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), told reporters at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on Thursday.

“It’s an emerging flooding crisis,” Sweet, an oceanographer with NOAA’s National Ocean Service, said.

The new research, published in the open-access journal Earth’s Future, is among the first to look at the rapidly changing frequency of minor coastal flooding in response to sea level rise.

Extremes are rising far faster than the mean

 

[Gloop]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4
This is the best documentary on the Arctic Death Spiral and Methane Time Bomb I have seen.

And a graph courtesy of Andy Robinson.

Who says sea ice decline is linear or even recovering?
Easy to hide the decline if you stretch the X axis and shrink the Y axis, then the decline isn't visible to the naked eye.

 

[dnmun]

richard somerville has a time lapse in this 2013 lecture. david keeling memorial lecture. he has some comments about keeling too and at the end he has links to the australian website for the responses to the trolls.

i prefer this format to utube videos from some guys garage. lectures are more what i am used to.

university of california, Scripps, is way cool.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo

 

[Dauntless]

Related? You tell me. . . .

http://bangkokpost.com/news/general/631224

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6591336/2015/06/23/bangkok-sinking-earth

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/worlds-fastest-sinking-cities-20130910

By The Weather Channel

A new report from Thailand's government says that Bangkok, its capital city and home to some 14 million people, could be underwater in the next 15 years thanks to a combination of sinking land and rising global sea levels.

The conclusion comes from Thailand's National Reform Council, which issued a report last week that warned "immediate and costly solutions are needed to avert a catastrophe," caused by "excessive pumping from the [underground] aquifer, the weight of mushrooming development and rising sea levels," the Bangkok Post reports.

The city, much of which lies at an elevation of just under 5 feet above sea level, already is sinking at a rate of 2 centimeters (about 0.8 inches) every year. Should it continue at this rate for the rest of this century, by 2100 "Bangkok will be fully submerged and unliveable," the Global Post reports.

This sinking, called subsidence by the scientists who study it, is accelerated by the sheer number, size and weight of all the buildings pressing down on the land all around Bangkok, according to the NRC committee that issued last week's report.

"There are about 700 buildings with 20 floors or more and 4,000 buildings with 8-20 floors in Bangkok," said Witthaya Kulsomboom, the head of the committee. "There are also many electric railways. These could cause the submergence of parts of Bangkok and surrounding areas in the future."

Relocation of the capital will have to be considered, Kulsomboom added, especially if development continues unabated and groundwater continues to be pumped from underneath the city.

Among the committee's recommendations were the construction of a seawall to protect the greater Bangkok area from rising seas, estimated to cost about 500 billion Thai baht – or about $14.3 billion in U.S. dollars.