ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[Punx0r]

You just don't like anything that doesn't support your existing opinions/rants, do you?

 

[Hillhater]

You just don't like anything that doesn't support your existing opinions/rants, do you?

Hmm ?..That seems to be a common problem on this thread !
The words.."kettle, black, and pot,". Spring to mind.

But i simply posted about some nutter who was convinced the ice had melted so much that he could take a 2 boat sailing expedition all the way to the north pole.
At least they are a little better informed now,

 

[jimw1960]

You just don't like anything that doesn't support your existing opinions/rants, do you?

Hmm ?..That seems to be a common problem on this thread !
The words.."kettle, black, and pot,". Spring to mind.

But i simply posted about some nutter who was convinced the ice had melted so much that he could take a 2 boat sailing expedition all the way to the north pole.
At least they are a little better informed now,

I don't think you even looked at your own link. Their goal was just to get as far north as possible. They thought they has a reasonable shot at reaching 88 degrees north. They did not make it, but they did reach past 80 degrees north, which has never been done by a ship that is not an ice breaker. That kind of runs counter to you implying this is some kind of evidence that the ice is not melting.

http://www.arcticmission.com/reaching-80n-interesting-questions-answered/

 

[LockH]

THE SECRETS OF ANTARCTICA
[youtube]PRM9rvXeMPs[/youtube]

 

[Hillhater]

I don't think you even looked at your own link. Their goal was just to get as far north as possible. They thought they has a reasonable shot at reaching 88 degrees north. They did not make it, but they did reach past 80 degrees north, which has never been done by a ship that is not an ice breaker. That kind of runs counter to you implying this is some kind of evidence that the ice is not melting.

http://www.arcticmission.com/reaching-80n-interesting-questions-answered/

I wasnt implying the ice is not melting,...i was implying that some people are exaggerating the rate and have convinced themselves its nearly all gone !
Interesting how peoples objectives change with time and experience....

(from Haddow himself)... “If we can produce a visual image of a sail boat at 90 degrees north I think that could become an iconic image of the challenge that the 21st century faces,” said the explorer.

He said the teams would be assisted in choosing a route through the sea ice, and was confident they would achieve their goal.

“I think it is quite possible with the assistance of a US Agency that have satellites that are going be helping us each day pick the best route through these ever narrowing cracks, and it is quite possible we will reach the North Geographic Pole,” he said.

Read more at http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/explorer-pen-hadow-aims-first-person-sail-north-pole-yacht-57013#Hc4kBBdi6T2IgSqo.99/.

 

[jimw1960]

I wasnt implying the ice is not melting,...i was implying that some people are exaggerating the rate and have convinced themselves its nearly all gone !
Interesting how peoples objectives change with time and experience....

Actually, it is melting at a quite alarming rate. I believe we will see open ocean over the north pole in summers within the next 10 to 20 years. 2017 ranked only third in terms of minimum ice extent, but the total mass of ice, which takes into account the thickness is steadily decreasing. Check out the video on this link.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/old-ice-arctic-vanishingly-rare

 

[LockH]

MAY be relevant. :wink:

Little Ice Age Big Chill Documentary:
[youtube]LObn2Sk7tVg[/youtube]

 

[Izits]

Punx0r convinced me to come here and give a fresh perspective.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Any temperature chart that doesn't go back 100,000 years is meaningless.

As you can see on the charts the Earth's temperature routinely changes by 15 degrees all the time all by itself. The climate change guys are claiming that humans have caused the temperature to go up 1/4 of 1 degree. Clearly an alarmist claim with no basis.

Why would all these people lie about the climate? That's the real question. The average liberal just supports anthropomorphic climate change because the fake news liberal media tells them to. The media and the government is controlled by the deep state and they work for the globalists. The globalists want to destroy western civilization and be in charge of everything. Somehow the general curtailing of human activity dovetails with their goals. I can't say I have every motive in the world figured out.

 

[jimw1960]

Punx0r convinced me to come here and give a fresh perspective.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Any temperature chart that doesn't go back 100,000 years is meaningless.

As you can see on the charts the Earth's temperature routinely changes by 15 degrees all the time all by itself. The climate change guys are claiming that humans have caused the temperature to go up 1/4 of 1 degree. Clearly an alarmist claim with no basis.

Why would all these people lie about the climate? That's the real question. The average liberal just supports anthropomorphic climate change because the fake news liberal media tells them to. The media and the government is controlled by the deep state and they work for the globalists. The globalists want to destroy western civilization and be in charge of everything. Somehow the general curtailing of human activity dovetails with their goals. I can't say I have every motive in the world figured out.

Nonsense. Go back and read all of my earlier posts on this thread and educate yourself. Yes, CO2 levels where higher millions of years ago, but even the most rapid changes were slow compared to the rate of change we are going through now. All of that CO2 from millions of years ago was when the Earth was a much hotter place and humans did not exist. Several mass extinctions occurred along the way and except for the one cause by meteor impact, CO2 played a role in all of them. Basically all of that CO2 from hundreds of millions of years ago was slowly removed from the atmosphere by plants and algae and buried deep in the Earth over a period of hundreds of millions of years. Now, over a period just a couple centuries, we are digging all that carbon out of the ground and releasing it back to the atmosphere. Also, the temperature rise since the industrial revolution is much higher than your claimed 1/4 degree. It is currently over 0.8 Celsius higher, or 1.5 Fahrenheit. It will likely rise by another 2 C by the end of the century. Might not sound like much, but its enough to trigger major changes in weather patterns and rapid sea level rise, which we are already seeing the beginnings of.

Also, that first graph you showed is the temperature record from the Vostok ice core, inferred from oxygen isotopes, which is a reliable method, but the ice core record only takes you up to around 1880 because that is the youngest age of ice that is closed off from the atmosphere. You need to add the 1.5 F rise that has occurred since then. You also need to show strong correlation to CO2 gas concentration in the ice core, as seen in the graph below. Look what CO2 does at the very end of the graph, which is the last 150 years. What do you think the global average temperature will rise to in response?

I hope that helps your understanding of this issue, and try to rembember the following facts, which are not in dispute:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not up for disupte.
2. Humans add over 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 to the atmosphere each year. That's more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. Not up for dispute.
3. CO2 levels are now over 405 ppm and steadily rising. That's 40% higher than preindustrial levels and higher than has been seen on Earth for at least 4 million years. Not up for dispute.
4. Simple physics and laws of thermodynamics dictate that this added CO2 WILL cause the Earth to retain heat. Not up for dispute.
5. Observed warming of atmosphere and oceans for the last 150 years is consistent with those laws of physics and can be predicted by models that honor those laws of physics. Not up for dispute.

 

[Izits]

I hope that helps your understanding of this issue. Consider also the following facts, which are not in dispute:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not up for disupte.
2. Humans add over 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 to the atmosphere each year. That's more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. Not up for dispute.
3. CO2 levels are now over 405 ppm and steadily rising. That's 40% higher than preindustrial levels and higher than has been seen on Earth for at least 4 million years. Not up for dispute.
4. Simple physics and laws of thermodynamics dictate that this added CO2 WILL cause the Earth to retain heat. Not up for dispute.
5. Observed warming of atmosphere and oceans for the last 150 years is consistent with those laws of physics and can be predicted by models that honor those laws of physics. Not up for dispute.

None of this is disputed, but it doesn't mean anything. You've presented nothing at all that shows human activity has any significant effect on the global climate. It's like you're insisting that spitting in the ocean makes the water level rise and so spitting in the ocean causes flooding.

1. Spit is comprised mostly of liquid. Not up for disupte.
2. Humans spit in the ocean all the time. Not up for disupte.
3. Floods have occurred. Not up for disupte.
4. Simple physics dictate that spitting in the ocean makes the water level rise. Not up for disupte.
5. Observed flooding has occurred for the last 150 years is consistent with those laws of physics and can be predicted by models that honor those laws of physics. Not up for dispute.

Does this prove that spitting in the ocean is responsible for flooding and we need a global ban on spitting?
--
(I like how you edited that big chart into your post after I responded to you)

 

[billvon]

None of this is disputed, but it doesn't mean anything. You've presented nothing at all that shows human activity has any significant effect on the global climate. . . .
1. Spit is comprised mostly of liquid. Not up for disupte.
2. Humans spit in the ocean all the time. Not up for disupte.
3. Floods have occurred. Not up for disupte.
4. Simple physics dictate that spitting in the ocean makes the water level rise. Not up for disupte.
5. Observed flooding has occurred for the last 150 years is consistent with those laws of physics and can be predicted by models that honor those laws of physics. Not up for dispute.

1) Humans emit CO2 when they burn fossil fuels. Not up for dispute.
2) Human CO2 emissions have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Not up for dispute.
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration will increase average planetary-surface temperatures. Not up for dispute.
4) The planet has indeed warmed as we have increased CO2 concentrations. Not up for dispute.
4) Warmer water expands. Not up for dispute.

 

[jimw1960]

None of this is disputed, but it doesn't mean anything. You've presented nothing at all that shows human activity has any significant effect on the global climate. It's like you're insisting that spitting in the ocean makes the water level rise and so spitting in the ocean causes flooding.

1. Spit is comprised mostly of liquid. Not up for disupte.
2. Humans spit in the ocean all the time. Not up for disupte.
3. Floods have occurred. Not up for disupte.
4. Simple physics dictate that spitting in the ocean makes the water level rise. Not up for disupte.
5. Observed flooding has occurred for the last 150 years is consistent with those laws of physics and can be predicted by models that honor those laws of physics. Not up for dispute.

Does this prove that spitting in the ocean is responsible for flooding and we need a global ban on spitting?

Well I suppose if you call the laws of thermodynamics "nothing"... Kind of hard to argue with that nonsense. You analogy is flawed because you don't assume that your spitting into the ocean adds 40% to the volume of the ocean. You tell me how much you spit in the ocean and I can calculate how much it will raise sea levels. Same with CO2. You can calculate how much additional heat the Earth must retain based on the amount you increased the concentration. Also look at the graph I just added to my post. It clearly shows the relation between CO2 and temperature. If you don't want to believe that, then go sit in your car with the windows rolled up on a hot day and argue with yourself that the car is not getting hotter.

 

[Chalo]

Don't bother with that kid. He's uninterested in any facts that don't support his reprehensible politics.

 

[nutnspecial]

1) Humans emit CO2 when they burn fossil fuels. Not up for dispute.
2) Human CO2 emissions have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Not up for dispute.
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration will increase average planetary-surface temperatures. Not up for dispute.
4) The planet has indeed warmed as we have increased CO2 concentrations. Not up for dispute.
4) Warmer water expands. Not up for dispute.
--bill von

Cool. Warmth and C02 will help grow more plants to replace the ones we are cutting and sequestering above ground, but also hopefully counteract loss in the areas we are paving and/or simply killing many plants. Humans need plants. Plants also clean the air. And supposedly oil is from the same decomposed biological material as us and them. Everything in balance - can't be any other way

So I guess that's dumb to say.?

 

[billvon]

Cool. Warmth and C02 will help grow more plants to replace the ones we are cutting and sequestering above ground

In Canada and Siberia it will. In most places (rainforests, plains, temperate forests) the additional warmth will cause longer droughts, killing plants by the billion.

also hopefully counteract loss in the areas we are paving and/or simply killing many plants.

This will allow us to kill plants all the faster, which we've gotten quite good at.

And supposedly oil is from the same decomposed biological material as us and them.

Yep. And if we were using oil at the same rate it was being created - then we would have no problems. Unfortunately we're not.

Everything in balance - can't be any other way

That's true. But we might not like nature's way of keeping things in balance, since nature uses tools like mass dieoffs and extinction to maintain that balance when the system is pushed too far out of balance. The extinction of humankind would keep the balance, for example - but is that really something we should be working towards?

 

[Izits]

Now, over a period just a couple centuries, we are digging all that carbon out of the ground and releasing it back to the atmosphere. Also, the temperature rise since the industrial revolution is much higher than your claimed 1/4 degree. It is currently over 0.8 Celsius higher, or 1.5 Fahrenheit. It will likely rise by another 2 C by the end of the century. Might not sound like much, but its enough to trigger major changes in weather patterns and rapid sea level rise, which we are already seeing the beginnings of.

We're going to see here why your co2 graph is dreadfully misleading.

This is the history of the earth. See that tiny red dot over on the right? That's the entirety of your 300,000 year co2 graph.

Here's a proper CO2 graph. Notice that the Earth's CO2 level has been over 1000ppm for the great majority of it's existence. So someone goes up north today and gets a reading of 383. It's totally insignificant.

 

[Chalo]

Except that we couldn't live in Earth during most of its history. Y'know, except for that.

 

[jimw1960]

It's like these guys are totally blind to facts and didn't read a word I wrote. Humans didn't exist during most of Earth's history and there were several mass extinctions along the way that increasing CO2 played a role in. Getting all that CO2 out of the atmosphere and having just enough to keep the planet from freezing is what makes the Earth habitable for humans. It took many many millions of years for that to happen, as your own graph shows. Yet, here we are digging it up as fast as we can and pumping it back into the atmosphere within a couple of centuries.

 

[TheBeastie]

Now, over a period just a couple centuries, we are digging all that carbon out of the ground and releasing it back to the atmosphere. Also, the temperature rise since the industrial revolution is much higher than your claimed 1/4 degree. It is currently over 0.8 Celsius higher, or 1.5 Fahrenheit. It will likely rise by another 2 C by the end of the century. Might not sound like much, but its enough to trigger major changes in weather patterns and rapid sea level rise, which we are already seeing the beginnings of.

We're going to see here why your co2 graph is dreadfully misleading.

This is the history of the earth. See that tiny red dot over on the right? That's the entirety of your 300,000 year co2 graph.

Here's a proper CO2 graph. Notice that the Earth's CO2 level has been over 1000ppm for the great majority of it's existence. So someone goes up north today and gets a reading of 383. It's totally insignificant.

https://i.imgur.com/MMW5pwU.jpg

Thats a nice chart Its.
With all the silly linking of storms with increased CO2 levels, I post this.
I also posted it on a local FB group called "GetUP!" (silly politics for money group, don't worry if you never heard of them). I posted this in the Facebook page of Getup in the comments section, because they made a big fuss about increased CO2 directly responsible for dangerous storms.
This chart is the Australian government statistics from the Bureau of Meteorology on severe storms in Australia chart.
Its a clear massive decrease in Cyclone trend activity. I am absolutely sure when they sought to create this chart they were looking for the opposite but because they are a government funded science organization they had to post it.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml


Getup! profits from claims from celebrities like this.
Beyonce links climate change 8.1 Mexico earthquake.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/09/13/mother-jones-beyonce-links-climate-change-to-earthquake-still-knows-more-about-science-than-entire-gop/
I think that in 100 years time people will look back at todays folks fear of CO2 as more crazy than how todays people saw the madness in WWI trench warfare soldiers pointlessly runing into machine gun fire for a bit of ground that didn't really matter.

On FB Getup! They didn't even bother arguing about Earthquakes and CO2 they just jumped to personal insults that I must be a climate change denier and must die...
If you ask these people simple questions like at what level do plants start to die due to CO2 starvation (150PPM) they have no idea, it's all about pushing their political team or making money or both.

Fossil analysis has shown that a lot of various types of plant species have died in the earth's history due to the lowering co2 levels because they couldn't cope with such low levels and starved to death. I think the warming of the globe over the last few thousand years has been a natural reaction to co2 starvation if anything. Earth is a miracle in a lot of ways to sustain life compared to other planets and if CO2 levels had gotten much lower the planet would have started to just die.

You will notice that any good news on the BOM website is deliberately placed on a URL designed to be overridden in time, they don't like to archive good news articles. They have the same thing with record-breaking seasons of biggest/best crop harvests Australia wide etc, as soon as the quarter is done they override it.
There is plenty of argument that the BOM is riddled with people that want to show climate change doom but the data keeps going against them and they are forced to post it.
Then there are situations where they have been caught deliberately deleting record cold temperature readings.
https://goo.gl/6TozSd
Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix (backup / try loading via incognito tab to pierce paywall)
"Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix"
The BoM said it had taken immed­iate action to replace the Thredbo station after concerns were raised that very low temperatures were not making it onto the official record. Controversy has dogged the bureau’s automatic weather station network since Goulburn man Lance Pigeon saw a -10.4C reading on the BoM’s website on July 2 automatically adjust to -10C, then disappear.

https://goo.gl/wPf9vC Getup! selling fake renewable energy pockets $2million dollars.
GetUp! pockets $2m with a ‘dirty’ deal (secondary link try loading via incognito tab to pierce paywall)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/getup-pockets-2-million-with-a-dirty-deal-on-power-prices/news-story/5a76065bddfae60107b7c0a113a73392

GetUp! claims to have helped 20,000 members switch from Australia’s “dirtiest” electricity retailers to green energy by referring them to a rival company, des­pite the rival admitting it has no idea where its power comes from.
The activist group was paid more than $2 million in exchange for referring members to online retailer Powershop, promoting it as “backed by a 100 per cent ­renewable energy company”.

Some people just wont accept basic science, because it gets in the way of their political tribalism or as some on this forum have admitted they are in the solar panel/green energy business, it gets in the way of them making money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HcEpliMYk
https://youtu.be/1T4WKtVgnI8
[youtube]1T4WKtVgnI8[/youtube]

The real BOM numbers ruined Getups latest post, they claimed we had the warmest winter ever this year but its complete made up baloney.
https://www.facebook.com/GetUpAustralia/photos/a.401481301454.178964.13527056454/10154699163111455/?type=3&theater
As even the BOM even with manipluated temperature readings labeled it as the 5th warmest winter http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml
And during the final month of winter all the news articles were like this because it had even been snowing at beach resort areas.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/coldest-temperatures-for-43-years-in-victoria-as-late-winter-cold-snap-sweeps-south-east/news-story/59baa5cdb414dbb3ddc18aacb2d710a7
Music festivals on the beach were snowed in https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/city-file/article/snow-fall-covers-lorne-sept-2017
The Getup! group are a powerful group with over a million members but they couldn't manipulate the weather for more political power and money, even the most bias and demented political tribal minded follower had trouble swallowing this garbage.

Final video, real climate scientists say co2 will increase the size and health of coral reefs https://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI?t=5m13s

 

[billvon]

With all the silly linking of storms with increased CO2 levels, I post this.

Good to see that in Australia, the intensity of storms is going down. Worldwide, it is going up - so I hope that trend continues for you.

 

[jimw1960]

With all the silly linking of storms with increased CO2 levels, I post this.

Good to see that in Australia, the intensity of storms is going down. Worldwide, it is going up - so I hope that trend continues for you.

That chart is a good example of confusing local weather with global climate. Hey, maybe you can also show us a chart of how many record high temperatures were set each year in Australia versus record lows. I be you see a trend there. Also, let us know what you find out about the trend in cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere (hint: is has increased). Also, why are you hiding the actual conclusions of the study that that chart came from. I will quote them here for your convenience.

There is substantial evidence from theory and model experiments that the large-scale environment in which tropical cyclones form and evolve is changing as a result of global warming. Projected changes in the number and intensity of tropical cyclones are subject to the sources of uncertainty inherent in climate change projections. There remains uncertainty in the future change in tropical cyclone frequency (the number of tropical cyclones in a given period) projected by climate models, with a general tendency for models to project fewer tropical cyclones in the Australia region in the future climate and a greater proportion of the high intensity storms (stronger wind speeds and heavier rainfall).

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

Also, have a listen to this interview with a co-author of that study, who says:

WHITNEY FITZSIMMONS: So with cyclone activity dropping to record lows, is this counter-intuitive to what we're being told about the impact of climate change?

JONATHAN NOTT: No, it's exactly in line with the global climate change models that incorporate tropical cyclone activity. Those models have forecasts that the frequency of tropical cycles will decrease in the future, in the 21st century as a result of global climate change.

Those models are suggesting that this will occur towards the middle and the end of this century but our data suggests that it is already occurring, so things may be happening sooner than we expected. However we cannot say for sure that what we're finding in our data is due to climate change, only that it is in line and in concert with what the model forecasts are suggesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3934519.htm

 

[jimw1960]

Here is the latest installment from the Global Weirding series. Very clear explanations of why human-caused global warming is of concern.

[youtube]CLtFwUTrE4E[/youtube]

You can watch them all at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow

 

[Hillhater]

Are you serious ?
......she certainly is not !

 

[jimw1960]

Are you serious ?
......she certainly is not !

Please provide an a point-by-point rebuttal of anything you disagree with in that video and include citations to peer reviewed research to support your assertions. Otherwise go back to your right-wing blog-0-sphere and keep filling yourself with disinformation while the rest of us work to solve this problem. Dr. Hayhoe is an accomplished atmospheric physicist. Everything she says in that video is well supported by the scientific literature. What are your credentials and sources that anyone should listen to your nonsense? You clearly have no science background.

 

[TheBeastie]

Are you serious ?
......she certainly is not !

Please provide an a point-by-point rebuttal of anything you disagree with in that video and include citations to peer reviewed research to support your assertions. Otherwise go back to your right-wing blog-0-sphere and keep filling yourself with disinformation while the rest of us work to solve this problem. Dr. Hayhoe is an accomplished atmospheric physicist. Everything she says in that video is well supported by the scientific literature. What are your credentials and sources that anyone should listen to your nonsense? You clearly have no science background.

Looks like a bunch of baloney to me, one of the core arguments she makes is that increased co2 levels have lowered crop yields and that's the exact opposite of what reports around the world are saying. Doesn't matter what country you can find recent reports that crops yields are excellent.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/record-co2-coincides-record-breaking-crop-yields-greening-globe
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/news/media-releases/2017/aus-winter-crop-production-continues-climb
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/19/2016s-record-warmth-brought-record-crop-yields-fewer-storms/
Just seems to be happening year after year 2014 http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2014-02-11/record-winter-crop-for-wa/5251438
and 2016 http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2016-09-13/abares-winter-crop-forecast-australia-wheat/7838802

They try and manipulate against basic logic and basic science like photosynthesis and sure some are fooled, that's how they make their money.
I was just watching this interview about the constantly deliberately manipulated or deleted record colds the Australian BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) keeps doing, very interesting, it really appears they were hoping if they could just delete enough days of really cold weather they could come out claiming a new average temperature increase but another scientist happen to also be watching the temperatures and caught them red-handed.
Its also interesting to note that this scientist lost her job at a University because she didn't tow the line and publish reports on climate change doom, shows you what a lot of scientists must do to keep the bosses happy.
https://goo.gl/6TozSd
Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix (backup / try loading via incognito tab to pierce paywall)
"Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix"
The BoM said it had taken immed­iate action to replace the Thredbo station after concerns were raised that very low temperatures were not making it onto the official record. Controversy has dogged the bureau’s automatic weather station network since Goulburn man Lance Pigeon saw a -10.4C reading on the BoM’s website on July 2 automatically adjust to -10C, then disappear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
[youtube]qjqTxziiY9A[/youtube]