ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Ratking said:
Sahara is getting smaller, Norwegian ice glaciers is not getting any smaller, Australia have record cold weather etc.
Click to expand...

Have we done this image yet?

58575e84af2473e23c624edec4a22d37.jpg
 
Hehe... Was hoping we might have agreed here to tap about "Global Climate Change" rather than Warming... or Cooling. At least I hope folks can agree that the earths climate HAS changed in the past? And it may be that there have been more animals ("humans") than at any time of the past... here and that burning up all remaining "fossils" faster and faster may not be... wise?
 
I'm not saying SkepticalScience is a great reference, but that article claiming to critique it is just an attempt to character-assassinate the website founder. That's not science.

Can you please explain the graph? It appears to show that increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing, which is a measure of how much of the sun's energy is absorbed by the Earth.
 
Punx0r said:
I'm not saying SkepticalScience is a great reference, but that article claiming to critique it is just an attempt to character-assassinate the website founder. That's not science.

Can you please explain the graph? It appears to show that increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing, which is a measure of how much of the sun's energy is absorbed by the Earth.
Click to expand...

It is a fact that SkepticalScience is censuring posts and banning people with credentials that they cannot refute. That is good enough proof that the site is full of shit. Real sound science will stand firm to any argument. Censoring tells me that your case is weak. They should be better than that.

I have an Norwegian article that I wanted to translate that explained how it works. But basically showing that the greenhouse effect from co2 i exponential and not proportional as one could think. That means that when the atmosphere have been saturated with co2, more co2 will not cause any more greenhouse effect.

And also, it seems like more factors are at work than I knew:

http://iceagenow.info/2015/09/underwater-volcanoes-heating-the-arctic-ocean/
 
Yes, I noticed the curve isn't linear. However, your argument assumes the effect of radiative forcing due to CO2 is linear, when it likely isn't. As said earlier, a small initial warming effect from CO2 can trigger positive feedback, with additional warming caused by other sources (increased water vapour or methane, reduced albedo from less snow/ice coverage).

Yes, censoring is not good. However, trolls and trouble-makers have to be controlled to prevent a proper discussion being spoiled. Depending on which side you are on this will seem to be either censorship or proper moderation. Having a PhD doesn't automatically make someone right - there are unfortunately plenty of qualified people who believe insane, unlikely or incorrect things.

You don't like the Skeptical Science website - that's fine. The problem is that NASA, the IPCC and ~99% of scientists in the world say similar things.

The idea of volcanic heating under the artic ocean is interesting and should be studied and included in climate models to see what effect it has locally in the artic and globally.
 
You're right: reducing atmospheric pollution and dependence on middle-eastern petroleum is a stupid idea.
 
Ratking said:
And to add a graph explaining why an increase in co2 is not a threat:

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/radiative-forcing.png
Click to expand...

That graph is one of the more ingenious anti-AGW arguments. It almost had me until I did a little reading and dusted off my calculus books. The theory represented in that graph purports that, once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block IR spectrum from reflecting back to space, then the addition of any more CO2 (or any other GHGs for that matter) will have negligible added effect. Seems to make sense on the surface, but a simple understanding of integral calculus and thermodynamics is all you need to debunk it. When you look at the Earth's energy balance, the energy that comes in from the sun has to either reflect back to space or something on the Earth (oceans, atmosphere, land surface) will have to get warmer. In a GHG-free atmosphere, the sunlight comes in in the visible spectrum and it heats the surface until it can reflect an equal amount of energy back into space in the infrared (IR) spectrum, at which point no additional warming will occur. You have energy balance: energy in = energy reflected out + energy stored in heated surface. The laws of thermodynamics are satisfied. All is right with the world.

Now let's add just enough GHG to block the IR spectrum from getting back to space. What happens? Surface warms as before, but before the IR can get back to space, it is absorbed by the atmosphere. What does that mean? It means the atmosphere got warmer. Now, to achieve energy balance, it is the warmed atmosphere acting as middle man that is ultimately radiating the IR energy back into space. Can we agree on this?

Now let's test the theory that adding any additional GHG won't have a greater warming effect on the atmosphere. So let's double the GHG concentration and divide the atmosphere into lower and upper slices: sunlight comes in, surface warms, tries to reflect IR back to space, but now the IR is absorbed just by the lower part of the atmosphere. So what happens then? The amount of energy that the atmosphere is trapping from the same amount of sunlight is now absorbed just by the lower atmosphere. Same energy absorbed by less mass means that lower atmosphere has to be warmer than it was with the lower GHG concentration. That means that the lower slice of the atmosphere must be warmer to radiate IR to the upper slice so that the energy can eventually get back to space (unless you want to void the laws of thermodynamics).

So, if you know your integral calculus, which I'm sure you do, you understand that you can slice the atmosphere into an infinite number of small slices, and it becomes a relatively simple integration problem. Integrating the energy balance equation from land surface to the edge of space can be used to compute the temperature at elevation in the atmosphere given a fixed solar input and GHG absorption properties. The math shows that with a fixed solar input, the atmosphere must necessarily get warmer as GHGs are added in order for the energy to be reflected back to space, regardless of whether some radiative forcing threshold has been exceeded.

Of course the people who publish that graph know this very well. But they also know that 95% of the population doesn't have a clue about laws of thermodynamics and calculus. So why would they push such misinformation on the uneducated masses? I think you can figure the answer to that yourself.
 
Jim, you have the patience of a saint and this thread is a perfect example of just how time consuming it can be to debunk nonsense.

If climate scientists had to waste their time debunking all of the nonsense surrounding climate change they would get nothing done. The problem with egotists is they always think they are right and their biggest blight is the fact that they can convince others to believe in their idiocy. Cults, climate change denialists, die-hard gun lobbyists, Islamists and neocon capitalists all driven by indefatigable beliefs in their moronic ideologies.
 
"Antarctica's Ice Is Melting So Fast a Widespread Collapse Could Happen by 2100, Study Says"
http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctica-ice-loss-study

Using computer models, the study also discovered there could be a doubling of ice shelf surface melting by 2050, which could quickly drive up sea levels.
Click to expand...

:(

This discovery basically tells us that a lot of the damage will be done no matter what we do in the next 35 years, but there's still time to alter the effects of greenhouse gases on the planet in the second half of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
"With climate change, the question is no longer “if” but “how sudden”"
http://inhabitat.com/with-climate-change-the-question-is-no-longer-if-but-how-sudden/

Sybren Drijfhout, professor at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and lead author of the study adds, “There is of course a certain tendency for the whole climate system to become more unstable when the warming gets larger, but we cannot say, ‘as long as it’s this and this much, nothing will happen.’ Every .1 or .2 degrees in temperature is as dangerous as any other, I would say. And that’s the main message of this exercise, or this paper.”
Click to expand...

Take your bets, Ladies and Gentlemen! And... they're off!
 
jimw1960 said:
Ratking said:
And to add a graph explaining why an increase in co2 is not a threat:

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/radiative-forcing.png
Click to expand...

That graph is one of the more ingenious anti-AGW arguments. It almost had me until I did a little reading and dusted off my calculus books. The theory represented in that graph purports that, once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block IR spectrum from reflecting back to space, then the addition of any more CO2 (or any other GHGs for that matter) will have negligible added effect. Seems to make sense on the surface, but a simple understanding of integral calculus and thermodynamics is all you need to debunk it. When you look at the Earth's energy balance, the energy that comes in from the sun has to either reflect back to space or something on the Earth (oceans, atmosphere, land surface) will have to get warmer. In a GHG-free atmosphere, the sunlight comes in in the visible spectrum and it heats the surface until it can reflect an equal amount of energy back into space in the infrared (IR) spectrum, at which point no additional warming will occur. You have energy balance: energy in = energy reflected out + energy stored in heated surface. The laws of thermodynamics are satisfied. All is right with the world.

Now let's add just enough GHG to block the IR spectrum from getting back to space. What happens? Surface warms as before, but before the IR can get back to space, it is absorbed by the atmosphere. What does that mean? It means the atmosphere got warmer. Now, to achieve energy balance, it is the warmed atmosphere acting as middle man that is ultimately radiating the IR energy back into space. Can we agree on this?

Now let's test the theory that adding any additional GHG won't have a greater warming effect on the atmosphere. So let's double the GHG concentration and divide the atmosphere into lower and upper slices: sunlight comes in, surface warms, tries to reflect IR back to space, but now the IR is absorbed just by the lower part of the atmosphere. So what happens then? The amount of energy that the atmosphere is trapping from the same amount of sunlight is now absorbed just by the lower atmosphere. Same energy absorbed by less mass means that lower atmosphere has to be warmer than it was with the lower GHG concentration. That means that the lower slice of the atmosphere must be warmer to radiate IR to the upper slice so that the energy can eventually get back to space (unless you want to void the laws of thermodynamics).

So, if you know your integral calculus, which I'm sure you do, you understand that you can slice the atmosphere into an infinite number of small slices, and it becomes a relatively simple integration problem. Integrating the energy balance equation from land surface to the edge of space can be used to compute the temperature at elevation in the atmosphere given a fixed solar input and GHG absorption properties. The math shows that with a fixed solar input, the atmosphere must necessarily get warmer as GHGs are added in order for the energy to be reflected back to space, regardless of whether some radiative forcing threshold has been exceeded.

Of course the people who publish that graph know this very well. But they also know that 95% of the population doesn't have a clue about laws of thermodynamics and calculus. So why would they push such misinformation on the uneducated masses? I think you can figure the answer to that yourself.
Click to expand...

Give me some time to check this out, and I will get back to you. Thank you for the explanation though
 
I'm not trying to spam down this tread, but it is a good way of documenting links and interesting articles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11912242/Britains-commitment-to-climate-aid-is-immoral.html

The two articles below talks about how an increase in co2 will help plants to grow stronger faster. That will help the food production all over the world. I don't understand how people brand co2 as a polluting gas, when it is essential for life. Even an increase from what we have today is helpful. Especially considered that the sun is going in to a period of less radiation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...y-co2-improves-tree-growth-drought-tolerance/

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/bu...ive-longer-why-we-urgently-need-to-raise-co2/
 
The deniers must be getting desperate - trying claim it is morally correct to burn as much oil as possible to feed the starving :roll:

Two points:

1) A small amount of supplemental CO2 does offer a boost in plant growth, all things else being equal. This is why it is used in greenhouses. However, this won't be much help to plants dying due to climate change. Plants also require the correct amount of water, heat and soil nutrients.

2) No substance is universally good or bad for any living thing. The dose makes the poison. More CO2 is not automatically good.

Lastly, your first link is ironic since only today, UN scientist Jacquie McGlade directly criticised the UK for simultaneously reducing green energy subsides and increasing them for fossil fuels:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34555821

Also, at least part of the reduction in the foreign aid budget is because monetary aid to India is being stopped, because it's not justified when the recipient country has it's own space program.
 
Ratking said:
I'm not trying to spam down this tread, but it is a good way of documenting links and interesting articles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11912242/Britains-commitment-to-climate-aid-is-immoral.html

The two articles below talks about how an increase in co2 will help plants to grow stronger faster. That will help the food production all over the world. I don't understand how people brand co2 as a polluting gas, when it is essential for life. Even an increase from what we have today is helpful. Especially considered that the sun is going in to a period of less radiation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...y-co2-improves-tree-growth-drought-tolerance/

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/bu...ive-longer-why-we-urgently-need-to-raise-co2/
Click to expand...

Ratking. It is true that increased co2 helps plants to grow faster (not sure about stronger, though). In fact, before we started mining fossil fuels, the increased uptake by plants was part of a self-arresting feedback loop in a natural glacial/interglacial cycle. As more co2 entered the atmosphere and the Earth got warmer, ice sheets melted giving more room for plant growth that took up much of the excess carbon and the existing forests could grow faster and fuller. This limited the potential amount of co2 that could remain in the atmosphere. But look at how things are today: the Earth is undergoing a net deforestation. With decreased forest cover, the capacity to store carbon is also decreased. So, sure, the few forested areas that remain protected can grow faster, but on the scale of the whole planet, forests are being diminished and giving up their carbon to the atmosphere.

If you think about it, all the coal, shale, natural gas, and oil deposits on the entire planet represent carbon that was in the atmosphere at one time and taken up plants, swamps, and tundra over ten and hundreds of millions of years. It is pretty well established that the Earth was a much much warmer place hundreds of millions of years ago before all that carbon was sequestered deep in the Earth. So, basically, our use of fossil fuels is liberating all that carbon back into the atmosphere at a rate of 30 billion tons of co2 per year. That is more than 100 times the rate of carbon emission from all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. You just can't plant trees fast enough to keep up with that rate.
 
As more co2 entered the atmosphere and the Earth got warmer,
Click to expand...
You know there is no conclusive evidence that it happened in that sequence.
It could equally have been that as the Earth got warmer, more CO2 entered the atmosphere .! ...Chicken or egg ?

Oh !, and Trees are not the only source of vegetation on this planet , and nor do they need us to plant them,..they get along quite well reseeding, and regrowing themselves.
 
Ratking said:
It seems like changes int the arctics have happened before, for under 100 years ago. But politicians visiting the arctic today shouts doomsday without hesitating :p
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Click to expand...
Amusing...
450px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png


I wonder if over this "brief" (?) time the average output of burned fossil fuel exhausts per capita has changed any... (Hint: About 100 years ago, by one estimate there were about/less than 1000 horseless carriages in all of north america.)
 
Ratking said:
It seems like changes int the arctics have happened before, for under 100 years ago. But politicians visiting the arctic today shouts doomsday without hesitating :p

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Click to expand...


Yes, they were noticing changes to the arctic due to warming over 100 years ago. That warming and associated changes have continued to this day at an accelerating rate, albiet with some noise in the signal that allows deniers to cherry pick data to claim it is actually cooling. I was up in Alaska last year and visited exit glacier. On the road into the park there are signs showing where the glacier terminated back in 1900, 1930, 1960, etc. to where it is now retreating up the hillside to where it originates from the Harding Ice Field. This is just one example of thousands around the world. The worlds ice sheets are losing volume at an estimated rate of 500 cubic kilometers per year.

Frankly, I don't see how you can continue to cling to the idea that you can add 30 billion tons of a greenhouse gas with known properties to the atmosphere and not have a warming effect. It is simple physics and not that difficult to model. You decrease the amount of incoming solar radiation that gets reflected back to space and something has to get warmer. Where modeling gets complicated is in how that additional stored energy gets distributed around the planet. Most of the heat gets absorbed by the oceans, which by the way reduces its capacity to take up CO2.
 
jimw1960 said:
Ratking said:
It seems like changes int the arctics have happened before, for under 100 years ago. But politicians visiting the arctic today shouts doomsday without hesitating :p

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Click to expand...


Yes, they were noticing changes to the arctic due to warming over 100 years ago. That warming and associated changes have continued to this day at an accelerating rate, albiet with some noise in the signal that allows deniers to cherry pick data to claim it is actually cooling. I was up in Alaska last year and visited exit glacier. On the road into the park there are signs showing where the glacier terminated back in 1900, 1930, 1960, etc. to where it is now retreating up the hillside to where it originates from the Harding Ice Field. This is just one example of thousands around the world. The worlds ice sheets are losing volume at an estimated rate of 500 cubic kilometers per year.

Frankly, I don't see how you can continue to cling to the idea that you can add 30 billion tons of a greenhouse gas with known properties to the atmosphere and not have a warming effect. It is simple physics and not that difficult to model. You decrease the amount of incoming solar radiation that gets reflected back to space and something has to get warmer. Where modeling gets complicated is in how that additional stored energy gets distributed around the planet. Most of the heat gets absorbed by the oceans, which by the way reduces its capacity to take up CO2.
Click to expand...

It depends on your point of view and what kind of people you are around I guess. For example, can you show me data that indicates a rise in the ocean globally? I know for a fact that the south pole is covered in more ice than we ever have seen. Another note is that the climate is very complex with thousand of factors, it is gullible that you try to make it in to a simple model. And about cherry picking data, the global warming cults have been taken with their pants down several times trixing with the data, so spare me. I have shown that in several links before. It is a reason that more and more people start to question global warming due to co2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top