We’re all doomed:
West Antarctic ice sheet collapse ‘unstoppable’ [ABC]
Irreversible Changes Now Affect Antarctica and the World [Live-science]
‘Nothing can stop retreat’ of West Antarctic glaciers [BBC, By Jonathan Amos]
West Antarctic ice collapse ‘could drown Middle East and Asia crops’ [The Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg]
Antarctica’s ice collapse threatens metres of sea level rise within decades [The Ecologist]
Global warming: it’s a point of no return in West Antarctica. [The Guardian Eric Rignot]
“Last week saw a ‘holy shit’ moment in climate change science. A landmark report revealed that the collapse of a large part of Antarctica is now unstoppable”
What else is going on in West Antarctica? Oh. Look where those volcanoes are…
Guess which science correspondent mentioned the word “volcano”? None of the above. Did any of those responsible publicly funded climate scientists mentioned it in their press releases? (A gold star to anyone who can find one). Lucky Antarctic volcanoes are not hot.
Thanks especially to Janama, Jaypac, John, Sophocles and Tom. That is what comments are for!
Locations of volcanoes in Antarctica known to have been active since the peak of the last ice age (the Last Glacial Maximum)
Map Source: The Conversation. See also: Subglacial volcanoes
See also The Volcanic Record of West Antarctica.
Despite the 95% certainty of doom, it’s not like we have all the data on heat sources in Antarctica either. Until November last year we didn’t even know one particular volcano was smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica.
Do volcanoes melt much ice? Could be…
“Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.” Lough et al 2013
The fastest warming areas of Antarctica — the Peninsula and West Antarctica are part of the Pacific Rim of Fire. Not worth a mention in any “news” service? Not the right kind of propaganda…
Remember — if it’s broadcast on the ABC, BBC or CBC, the whole chain of one-sided-information is fully government funded. They have specialist science units trained not to ask hard questions.
Antarctic Doom in a nutshell:
- The Cryosat study telling us melting was twice as fast as expected had only 3 whole years of data.
- Longer studies (800 years) show that this has all happened before.
- The same areas that are warming the fastest happen to be over areas of volcanic activity. (Compare the warming below to the volcano’s above).
Warming Trends in Antarctica NASA, Earth Observatory 1957 – 2006. In the same location as the volcanic chain above. Hm?
[NASA] This image, based on the analysis of weather station and satellite data, shows the continent-wide warming trend from 1957 through 2006. Dark red over West Antarctica reflects that the region warmed most per decade. Most of the rest of the continent is orange, indicating a smaller warming trend, or white, where no change was observed. The underlying land surface color is based on the Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica (LIMA) data set, while the topography is from a Radarsat-based digital elevation model. Sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean surrounding the continent is based on data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) collected on May 14, 2008 (late fall in the Southern Hemisphere).
Coming soon: Yale / UWA / UQ study looking at whether a carbon tax can reduce volcanic activity… 😉
I see Anthony Watts pointed out this coincidence a long time ago.
REFERENCE
Lough et al. (2013) Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica, Nature, PDF
…..And it was such a good theory before those pesky facts got in the way…..
492
Which facts do you mean? The fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the volcanic activity around and under the West Antarctic ice sheet has increased recently?
347
Did I miss the part of the studies where they analyzed the impact of the volcanos versus the impact of an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 levels in the atmosphere on the bottom of the ice field?
191
It’s a bit odd that NASA warming pattern is only on that part of antartica! Something to do with wind pattern changes due to increased CO2 levels and the inbuild capacity of said gas to discriminate between desirable melting ice and non desirable perhaps??
182
There is no evidence currently available, regarding volcanic activity or hydrothermal activity around and under the West Antarctic ice sheet that indicates an increase in activity.
Lack of evidence about something, does not prove that it does not exist.
Hypothesis: The ice could be warmed, slowly melted, and eventually broken, by hydrothermal discharge which would not necessarily show on seismic instrumentation, other than as background noise.
171
Just as there is no evidence currently available to show that anything OTHER THAN CO2 could possibly be responsible for the late 20th century warming, but it didn’t stop them telling us that this since was the only way they could MODEL reality…it MUST be CO2!!!!
Give me strength!
93
You are confusing a thought bubble with a hypothesis. A hypothesis has to be grounded in some scientific principle and supported by some kind of evidence.
612
We wish that was the case too.
71
Meah. whatever.
I live in a land of hydrothermal activity. In one place I lived, I used to heat my house with it. Where you get volcanos, you get hydrothermal, because rainwater seeps through the ground, boils, and even sometimes gets superheated by the pressure, and then comes back up again, as steam. If you have snow and ice at ground level, it melts from below.
New Zealand even uses the steam for power generation. So we have the science, and we have engineering works, so there is your evidence.
My hypothesis is that the self same principles, that work in New Zealand, will also apply in Western Antarctica.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, please share.
181
“A hypothesis has to be grounded in some scientific principle and supported by some kind of evidence’
Then why the **** do you believe the CAGW hypothesis..
No evidence except a few vague but discredited theories and way out of reality models and a short term coincidence (after data adjustment) between CO2 rise and temperature.
You have been serious SUCKED IN to the lie, dude !!
123
“scientific principle and supported by some kind of evidence”
Scientific principle
….. volcanoes get HOT !!!
Evidence that local active vulcanism exists:
Volcanic activity on the Antarctic continent is evident from Mt Erebus, on the Western side of Ross Island. It is an open caldera volcano, with an active lava lake. As part of the ridge that extends from the Antarctic Peninsula, there is a chain of 9 small islands, the South Sandwich Islands, with at least two as active volcanoes.
Now, can you prove that there are NO active volcanoes and vents under West Antarctica, when there is activity all around it?
92
So what, is anyone denying that there are volcanoes? Where is there any evidence to suggest that the heat flux under West Antarctic has recently increased? That is the only way it could account for the recent ice thinning and warming. There is no evidence, just more thought bubbles.
211
Infinitely more evidence than for ANY link to CO2 or climate non-warming.
At least volcanic activity is a very strong possibility.
CO2 warming is definitely NOT !!
103
It must be right if you say so
09
Calling Dr Brian Philip Shehan;
Have you had time to properly read Jo’s article above, or any papers on the subject yet?
I’ve taken a peek at one published provisionally on-line in GRL;
Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2 (McMillan et al 2014)
Note that CRYOSAT 2 was launched in October 2005 amidst great first-time claims of efficacy, replacing the failed CRYOSAT 1. I don’t know details of its testing/calibration and analytical algorithms and it is not clear in the abstract if “the first comprehensive assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change” includes the overstated period 2005-2011.
Whatever, In your various earlier threads here at Jo’s and elsewhere over the past year you have remorselessly claimed that the currently recognised global average temperature pause is not statistically significant by applying the “SkepticalScience” error margin tool. (time-span too short)
Given that the CRYOSAT 2 analysis may properly cover only about three years, or at best I guess about nine years, would you please offer your wisdom on its statistical significance?
70
“It must be right if you say so”
Thanks 🙂
The real evidence points almost totally at volcanic activity of some sort.
There is zero evidence it could be CO2 related.
No evidence of mythical warm ocean currents (SH hadsst2 is getting cooler, adjusted hadsst3 is neutral ),
and West Antarctica is surrounded by sea ice that is expanding.
Warming by ocean water can definitely be ruled out.
And it sure isn’t melting from above.
50
I think that he is looking for evidence that steam will melt ice.
101
Just a had chat to my mate Ocky. He reckons that you first show volcanic activity that produces a colossal amount of heat under the ice is not responsible for melt water at the bottom of the ice before you accuse an extra half a degree at the top of the troposphere.
181
If that is Ocky, Bosch of Qld would you be kind enough to email me his current email so that I may contact him. Email to: [email protected]
20
Sorry, William of Ockham as in Occam’s razor.
Go for the simplest explanation first. Better if its correct and easier to eliminate if its incorrect.
41
Brian/Philip Shehan,
Please take note of Rereke Whakaaro’s more perceptive comments just above.
I can’t lay my hands on it right now but there was a magnificent satellite image a few years ago showing the Antarctic and Patagonia regions. It is remarkable how similar the two peninsulas appear to be, and their close alignment. Also, strikingly, there is clearly a deep tectonic subduction zone between the two.
90
Actually Bob_FJ, I don’t think this is Philip.
Philip’s posts are full of ranting meaningless verbosity, that nobody even bothers reading. (and he cries a lot)
Even under the moniker ‘Dr Brian’ he was just the same. A sort of serial pest.
This guy can only manage one or two line.
11
The griss,
But see this exchange between Heywood and Shehan:
Heywood May 27, 2014 at 11:23 pm
Brian,
Have you ever considered creating your own blog?
Sometimes it’s hard to tell who’s blog this is when I see “Philip Shehan” in every other post.
Just sayin’
Philip Shehan May 28, 2014 at 11:03 am
Thanks Heywood, but no I am not intersted in starting my own blog…
20
Maybe you are right.
Philip strings together a load of junk and nonsense.
And is mathematically inept.
This guy says the same nothing, but in less works.
Could it be his grandma ??
20
I don’t want to appear too thick but isn’t a sign of volcanic activity an increase in heat in the area of said volcanos?
140
Not in the world of post-normal science, because there is deliberately no consensus regarding volcanism.
It might affect global temperatures, you see, but there is no way it can be blamed on mankind, nor taxed. Ergo, it does not exist.
110
Well then the IPCC, Mann and Jones better create some models that show SUVs cause heating of the the tectonic plates!
10
Brian/Philip Shehan,
Here we go,
Satellite image of the Antarctic and Patagonia peninsulas with witness of submarine tectonics. Notice the South Shetland Islands bending away in that direction somewhat like the Aleutians chain.
http://www.oceanoscientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cartebe-googleearth-08mar132.jpg
70
Brian/Philip Shehan,
I see that you are continuing with your typical negativity and inability to comprehend that volcanic/tectonic effects are strongly evident around West Antarctica and the geologically related Patagonian Peninsula, Tierra Del Fuego archipelago, and South Shetland Islands etcetera. Here again (first) is a satellite image of the region clearly showing submarine subduction and more because of the interaction of the Antarctic, Scotia and South America (tectonic) Plates:
http://www.oceanoscientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cartebe-googleearth-08mar132.jpg
Here follows another image describing the regional boundaries between the plates, together with identification of the crust building North and South Scotia Ridges and a big subduction trench:
http://plate-tectonic.narod.ru/scott.jpg
Of course Patagonian volcanism is more easily observed (and spectacular) than under the ice of Antarctica. See; Map of the volcanic arcs in the Andes, and subducted structures affecting volcanism:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/MAGMAARC1.jpg
If you think about it, whilst large bits of rock are being bent at only a few centimetres each year there is still a lot of force generating heat involved, and the circumpolar current unavoidably flows through that region. You should not dismiss its importance simply because there have been inadequate time-surveys to date, not far short of the CRYOSAT record BTW!
Phew I almost hit 200 words! (199)
100
“”We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan, “Before the year is out.”
*sigh*
40
There is a similar phenomenon near the North Pole. It is called the Gakkel Ridge, replete with pyroclastic activity and hydrothermal vents.
Nah, it is CO2 doing all that nasty melting in sub zero temperatures.
310
Just last year they discovered a new submarine volcano chain between Iceland and Svalbard with approx 100 active volcanoes. Some were only meters from the surface and they expect a new island chain to develop over the next 20 years or so. Iceland is peppered with volcanoes. Apparently the Arctic ice melt is greater in this region (along Gakkel Ridge) than on the opposite side (Bering strait) which tends to point to these volcanoes being responsible, in part, for some of the ice melt.
210
How do you tax volcanic activity,that will be the one question for the IPCC and UN,another would be how do you contribute human activity as the cause of this volcanic heat output?
40
GJM,you don’t tax volcanic activity,that’s too far even for the ipcc.They will charge you for the hot water.
30
About four years ago I was flicking through photos of the Arctic taken from a satellite. One had near total white ice covering the Arctic Ocean (April/May I guess) except for a perfect circle of open water quite far N. Later when I ran through the series it seemed to be missing. Maybe I didn’t search long enough but the open water must have been several 100km across to show up so clearly from that altitude.
At Real Climate someone dismissed my suggestion that this might have been an under-water volcanic eruption, saying that the water would have cooled well before it reached the surface. I’d say the opposite. Woods Hole say they’ve photographed Obsidian glass fragments scattered over the sea-bed from a recent times explosive event. They commented that it must have been huge explosion but went unnoticed by us because it was under several km of water.
30
But don’t the volcanoes emit CO2 as well? There, sorted it for you. Alles in ordnung fur die CO2 faschistin.
202
The biggest emissions from those nasty earth pimples are Dihydrogen monoxide. I remember the warmists at some wankfest signing petitions to have that stuff banned.
Warmists should refuse any intake of Dihydrogen monoxide and the problem would be solved.
350
Precisely, no frozen or liquid dihydrogen monoxide should be added to one’s whisky.
Makes a man of you……:o)
170
So true, I’m a whisky rock guy. Sacrilege to dilute a single malt!
100
Ah, but just a dash of the un-frozen stuff releases the full flavour …
50
Which probably explains the rise in numbers of “bull dykes”!
51
Ooh am I ever going to get it from the PC brigade?
50
You keep bulls in place, with fences and gates. Dykes only work for aqueous mammals, such as sea lions.
There, saved you.
20
“Water? I never touch water. Fish copulate in it.” –W. C. Fields
30
I thought it was They pee in it’?
10
The correct answer to “Would you like something in it ” being “Only some more please. If you insist.”
10
I had not thought about West Antarctica and the Antartic peninsula being part of the Pacific Ring of Fire before. It seems much more obvious now, especially after seeing the NASA Earth Observatory Image with the nice big Red Spot of Antarctic Warming.
Also note that the volcanoes are associated with mountain chains!
140
Interesting point. Does the ice need to be melted to break away if its being pushed up, vibrated and or undermined form beneath?
110
Then to save the planet we should get rid of mountain chains.
170
Genius!
110
No, we just have to make sure we don’t build any of them.
This should be a job for the IPMB.
60
Yeah and ban all vulcanoes too!
30
Actually the Western Antarctic melt is due to Western Civilizations CO2 production.
019
Correct!
012
Actually, these two guys above are pretty much correct.
The UNFCCC has 165 Signatories.
24 (of 43 Annex 1 Countries) of those Countries do all the work, and pay all the money for the remaining 122 Countries, China and India among the latter number.
So, actually it is pretty much down to Western Civilisation.
Say, see something important in this?
Those 24 Countries who do all the hard yards and pay EVERYTHING just happen to be the richest Economies on Earth.
No! Surely this isn’t just about the money. Surely not.
Tony.
90
At the Register. The glaciers are slipping into the sea in West Antarctica. This trend in will continue, causing a four foot (1.2m) rise in sea levels.
They forgot to mention that a short-term impetus, such a volcanic activity or small temperature rise will not create perpetual motion, but later achieve a new equilibrium. Newton said every force (‘action’) on one object is accompanied by a ‘reaction’ on another, of equal magnitude but opposite direction. Or in climate-speak, negative feed backs will come into play.
For all of the West Antarctica glaciers to melt would need a rash of volcanoes to develop and/or temperatures to rise by 20 degrees or more.
200
If the ice does melt will that remove the excuse to stop mineral exploration in the region?
60
Absolutely not. The melting ice will confirm how fragile pristine Antarctica is to minor changes. 🙂
It will not happen. The evidence points to local factors causing the ice melt. If that is due to extreme temperature increases – some of the largest on the planet – they will be short-term. The evidence of alpine glaciers and the snows of Kilimanjaro suggest that an initial impetus does not create the equivalent of an avalanche, but a movement to a new equilibrium state. The fast movement of the glaciers occupy a small part of the vast continent. In a couple of years, the scientific community will have moved onto something else. How do I know? In 2008/9 there was panic about the possible collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. See here and here. The later mentions the accelerating Pine Glacier, also the subject of the latest missives. In 2008 this was due to the ice shelves ceasing to act as a dam. Six years later it is because increased water at the the base is lubricating the downwards flow.
10
I assumed that you had already covered this when I was replying to Billy. I take it comments are not for having a fight with trolls?
50
Well exactly, according to Peter Hannam SMH : New research on the effects of ice sheet melt in the Antarctic shows climate change is deforming the Earth’s crust, potentially prompting volcanic activity that could cause global sea-levels to rise much more than predicted.
It’s just a matter of the spin.
160
manalive. Thanks! It’s the perfect circle.
Marvel at the confirmation bias in action.
— Man-made global warming is real – We know that because glaciers are melting
— The melting ice changes earths crust
— That causes volcanoes
— Look – volcanoes are happening where the ice is melting. Proof! Proof!
— Therefore man-made global warming IS real! I told you so.
341
PS: look at the positive feedback! O M G!
Co2 = more volcanoes = more CO2 and more melted ice = even more volcanoes!
We’re all going to die!
401
I am glad that you explained that.
And yes, sadly, we are all going to die. Probably before the end of the century.
160
“We’re all going to die”
Drama queen.
90
I guess they could cover earthquakes with similar logic and reasoning.
Then some similar effects will cause the earth’s rotation and/or orbit to fall off a cliff.
So that’s two more deaths, right?
I’m still struggling with how CO2 is going to make the sun go supernova (excuse the pun), but they’ll probably inform us on a need-to-know-basis. Which means next week or something.
40
So CO2 has made us mortal – with the exception of the infallible climate scientist demi-Gods of course.
80
But the money to study this …where’s the money?
40
Well, certainly we are all going to die…eventually.
But sadly Jo you are way off on your knowledge of the dynamics of glacial melt going on in Antarctica, and while your faithful here of course love your “anything but AGW” approach, you have done a disservice to them in this post. The melting of this ice is from warmer water, melting the tidewater glacial ice from underneath– part of the general warming of the global ocean where the bulk of the energy from AGW has gone.
18
Gates — can’t wait to see your figures on joules released from subantarctic volcanoes — or is that blind faith I see?
51
When you have a smoking gun and bullet hole that matches the caliber, do you then need to find another gun that matches as well because you have a particular bias against the first gun?
Skepticism is always good, but at some point, when you have measured the warming waters melting the ice, and these warming waters match the with warmer currents in the Southern Ocean, at shay point do use Occam’s. Razor a match smoking gun with same caliber bullet hole?
18
You have what? Proof? I don’t think so. You need to demonstrate that the rifling on the gun, matches the rifling marks on the bullet, without a doubt, to prove that the bullet could only have come from that gun, and no other.
You are confusing correlation with causation.
You assume that the water is sufficiently warmed from atmospheric heat in the tropics, and remain sufficiently warm in transfer to the antarctic, where it will still be sufficiently warm to cause metres thick compacted ice to melt. I’ll tell you what, if you can patent, and market, that heat transfer mechanism, you will make a fortune.
Occams razor would suggest that a much warmer, and considerably closer source of heat would be a more reasonable cause for melting.
Oh look! There are all those volcanos, with all of their associated thermal vents, putting out water that is at least boiling, and sometimes even superheated and under considerable pressure. Could that be a likely cause, I wonder?
92
“When you have a smoking gun and bullet hole that matches the calibre”
But your smoking gun is imaginary, and lacks calibre
31
Yes, “small calibre, big bore”.
51
I like that Neville – very droll.
10
Oh gees, look at all that sea ice to the west of west Antarctica.
Funny how these boiling sea currents you are going on about don’t melt that first.. (and that ice is actually expanding.)
So how do these warm currents sneak past underneath that sea ice ????
Was it hiding like Trenberth’s hot spot or in the very depths of the ocean?? Or perhaps it was in disguise.
Or do these warm ocean currents first cause sea ice to form, then melt the ice further south…. another miracle of AGW thermodynamics.. !!
62
Apart from the fact that sea ice around Antarctica is increasing, both HadSST2 and HadSST3 data for the Southern Hemisphere sea surface temperature shows no increase of temperature for at least a decade.
20
Yep, haddsst2 is actually cooling since the 1998 ElNino finished.
So not only is the ocean warming imaginary, but that non-existent warming is sneaking passed the sea ice and melting the West Antarctica ice.
Very clever of it. Trenberth would be proud.
11
That’s a new one. In 2008 it was due to the breaking up of the ice shelves. The very same Pine Glacier was mentioned as accelerating because the ice shelves, that acted as a dam, were breaking up. For instance here and at NASA, and http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/25/antarctic.ice/. Wait another six years and something else will come along.
22
Lets just face it.
These so-called Climate Scientists haven’t a clue about the physical sciences.
They are seriously into political science, and perhaps social science, with a dash of pseudo-science to add some spice.
Do not buy a bridge from these people.
00
Sarcasm doesn’t become you. LOL love your posts Jo. One can only hope that there is an end to this debacle soon.
Ron Cook (no relation the infamous John)
120
Does it cause Earthquakes too? Danny Glover says it does.
90
Interesting link.
“We see the earth as being tremendously dynamic and always changing, responding to the forces.”
Why is it that if I said that among friends or co workers, the response would be something akin to “no s#@$% Sherlock or DUH!”
Yet when people sucking millions in scientific research funding say it as part of their findings, its a stroke of genius for revealing this fantastic new knowledge.
Am I missing something here, or did I really just read 6 paragraphs of the bleeding obvious with the causes of natural planetary activity somehow blamed on man made CO2 witchcraft??
190
In light of the trashing of arguments that Climatology is a law breaker, isn’t this interesting?
80
A -10% difference in water vapour flux would mean it’s not emitting heat convectively as fast as it should, right? Well that would be a spurious source of surface warming. OTOH, if it is supposed to be putting more water vapour in the air, the greenhouse effect should be stronger in the model. As to how much stronger is not easy to tell, depending on change in spectral absorption and optical depth, etc. When the error is corrected I’m not sure whether the increased evaporative cooling outweighs the increased GHE warming.
I wonder how many of the IPCC’s 17 models are affected by that error? And by how much?
How did they get humidity levels to be correct in the models if the water vapour flux was wrong all along? Fudge factors?
Uncertainty abounds in the unsettled models of settled science.
60
Rather than try to unravel the complexities of the black box of computer models lets just see look at the inputs and outputs. For instance
– After 1998, global emissions accelerated as a result of unprecedented global economic growth. The models predicted accelerating temperature rise. Actual event was warming stopped.
– The models predicted warming would be characterized by a temperature hotspot. Actual data has found no hotspot.
– The models said the rapid warming would make hurricanes more frequent and extreme. Actual data after hurricane Katrina was the quietest hurricane period on record.
– The models predict that sea level rise would accelerate. 20 years of actual satellite data show no such trend.
The conclusion I obtain is that the mysterious black box models do not say anything novel about the real world. That could be due to misunderstanding the laws of physics, or due to failing to allow for chaotic systems, or due to incorrect parametization, or missing out other factors, or a combination of the above. It does not matter one jot. Like with economic forecasting, climate models need to make predictions that are better than “dumb” extrapolations from the data. On that basis they are worse.
160
As a beancounter you should appreciate this. The models fail because they are based on human CO2 causing a imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, which is measured. This I regard as a fact however, unlike a good accountant, they say that – without adding up ALL the inputs and outputs of the system. For example, they miss the component that gets converted from thermal energy to kinetic, or the component that get stored in chemical reactions such as photosythesis, or becomes electricity, or sound, or entropy. I contend that there must always be an inbalance due to various mechanisms capable of converting energy to another form, in fact energy conservation REQUIRES there be an imbalance in incoming vs outgoing radiation.
20
I have not looked at all these inputs and outputs. However, I did look at the radiative forcing components in the last two UNIPCC reports. In the 2007 AR4 report there were a number of regularities to suggest the figures had been contrived to tell a story – namely that only CO2 mattered. Yet in 2013, AR5 pretty much undermined AR4, particularly the role of methane and aerosols. Yet, despite having got it so wrong six years earlier, scientists had unshaken confidence in their work.
00
Yes, but much worse, like a business do an audit of the losses, how much energy does the system lose to kinetic, (wind/rain/waves) how much is absorbed in chemical or entropic processes, how much is converted from wind to static electricity. How much gets absorbed by converting cholesterol to vitamin D in mammals. How much disappears in the pings and bangs caused by thermal expansion. How much is absorbed by melting ice, breaking rocks (and other entropic processes). A major problem is that the radiation balance model does not take account of all the outputs (losses), This is a common problem in engineering that is big enough to prevent theory from becoming practice, but it seems to be ok hqve perpetual motion and to ignore “friction” in climate.
00
If they have broken the Second Law, a Warrant should be issued for their arrest.
50
I would like to apply for a grant from the federal government to study the possibility of caping the volcanos under antartica. Venting the blasted things away from were they are should stop the melting. The nasty gases could then be recycled and pumped underground for safe storage. My estimate is that, if done on the cheap, the study over at least five years, pilot plant and associated infrastructures should not cost more then 5-6 billions. Chicken feed when you think about the millions, billions that will die…..
60
Look Pete I don’t want to come across as all negative like,but if you want to impress the IPCC/UN/IMF/World Bank then you will need to change the numbers to 500-600 billions to even get them to take notice,after all they will be after a decent percentage as a patronage/corkage!
40
“change the numbers to 500-600 billions to even get them to take notice”
And 97% of that is their commission.
50
The SMH & Guardian journos remind me of the “Brave Knight” of Monty Python fame – they keep fighting for “CAGW” despite overwhelming evidence that it is absurd – so the likes of Peter Hannam of the SMH just blindly keep fighting for the “CAGW Cause”, losing arms and legs in the process like the “Brave Knight” but Hannam is not brave – he is plain bloody stupid.
80
Yep, that is where the hidden heat goes -into mantle plumes. The whole Earth will be covered soon with hotspots, like a kid with measles.
20
It’s like predicting that Australia will continue to get warmer, but not mentioning that continental drift is to blame, pushing us northward at the blistering pace of fingernail growth. Next I’m sure they’ll say a tax on CO2 will stop us crashing into New Guinea. The more ridiculous their claims the faster the scam will be over.
202
Actually, I believe it’s 5cm per year. A fast finger nail growth.
30
And isn’t PNG also on the Australian tectonic plate?
20
PNG is indeed in the unenviable position of being on the Australian plate boundary. I blame Tony Abbott for this, because he is the cause of every other problem in the world, past, present, or future.
The fact that Indonesia has more volcanoes than any other country in the world, is largely as a result of Australian plate subduction. Perhaps we should be paying Indonesia compensation and/or offering to remove our recycled lithosphere? In any case, won’t somebody please think of the children!?!
40
You may be interested in this paper (pdf) –
http://www.igsoc.org/annals/55/66/a66A189.pdf
It’s called ‘Multiple climate shifts in the Southern Hemisphere over the past three centuries based on central Antarctic snow pits and core studies’ which is a bit of a mouthful. And I warn you it does contain some modeling but it appears to be appropriate.
The era I find interesting is that lumpiness of the graph from late 1930 thro’ to 2000 in figure 5.
A flash video version is also at international glaciological society site at http://www.igsoc.org/annals/55/66/a66A189.html
I thank Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com for drawing attention to this paper.
50
Ian Plimer was pointing out the volcanic activity in Western Antarctica a few years ago.
230
While Wild William Connolly maintains that the “Antarctic ice is melting from underneath… ” which he says “… should come as no surprise.”
Or else…
140
Connolly cannilly avoided the mention of volcanic activity being a possible cause of warm Antarctic waters melting the ice from underneath.
140
Professionally organised tourist cruises of the Antarctic have a “pit stop” (weather permitting) on the Peninsula west-edge where the more intrepid may bathe in a small volcanically heated lake, surrounded by glaciers
This attraction has been offered for over two decades now
260
Really.
I went there about 12 years ago and they never mentioned that. I might have to go back again.
60
found it:
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/antarctica_travel_2.htm
under Popular Places to Visit
30
I have quite literally lost count of the number of times (when in polite conversation about melting Sea Ice at both Poles, and how that is causing immense and unstoppable Sea Level Rise) I have just dropped in the word Archimedes, and been confronted by looks of complete blankness.
It seems that the Science they believe from their
graven imagesumm, people they tout as experts far outweighs the simple Science they all learned at High School.Even after explaining it ever so gently for them, they still stare blankly.
Tony.
310
Please expand on Archimedes. I love this story.
Why did Archimedes run down the street naked shouting Eureka (I have found it)!
60
Because he was naked and had not looked below his waist before. Anyway that’s what my science teacher told me.
🙂
140
Hehehehehe!
40
When you are on a diet, you have to watch your waist..
… because its all you can see !! 🙂
40
AGW and its faux science is producing agnotological effects throughout the whole of the West. The psychology of this mania and belief in AGW is such a potentially fruitful area of study I’m almost tempted to return to uni. But no I’d have to associate with climate scientists and academics.
The West Antarctic is underpinned by volcanoes as this map shows. And there is new research about new volcanic activity emerging.
Can AGW become any crazier?
110
Cohenite:.. “Can AGW become any crazier?”
–
Is the Pope a Catholic?..(At the risk of introducing religion!)
50
As a Protestant I accept that the Catholics are behind whatever is going wrong in the world including climate change globull warming and ice melt at the Poles.
40
Is the point of all this just to get people to look at the Antarctic because the Arctic is predicted to grow wildly over the next few months.
This prediction looks like the death spiral of the death spiral.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Quick look the other way!
60
> avoided the mention of volcanic activity
Because its a dumb idea. Next, you’ll start thinking “oh wait, volcanoes emit CO2, I wonder if they’re causing CO2 levels to go up?”
You can’t do science, or understand anything, if you re-start from zero all the time. Read the prior art.
233
But did you say that the Antarctic Ice was melting from below?
If so what was your explanation?
70
Ocean.
223
Que?
40
The big wet things.
This is all standard stuff; see IPCC AR5 for the std.view (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf, especially fig 4.14 on page 348). GRACE seems to be the popular thing nowadays, and that doesn’t tell you where the change is coming from. Details in section 4.4.2.3 on p 351 and following.
130
Thanks William.
Your reference took me to a 12MB download which stuffed my computer. It did refer to the IPCC but I am not sure if that was the primary source.I never did get to page 384, nor Fig 4.14.
Could you enlighten us about the contents.
How do you mean it is standard stuff?
Would you like to elaborate here?
90
Seriously?.. Why the **** would you touch anything this twerp has had a hand in (probably)
You know up front that it is riddled with mis-information and lies.. because THAT’S WHAT HE DOES !!!
192
> How do you mean it is standard stuff?
Antarctica is cold. Warming the top doesn’t increase ablation; quite the reverse, it increases the snowfall (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4-1.html). For thinning from bottom melting, see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4-2.html. Both of those links are AR4 and shouldn’t strain your machine too much.
126
Really Billy? I’m gonna go out on a limb and ask you why, during a heatwave, there isn’t more snow than during a cold front?
How can a warming in Antarctica from -40C to -30C cause snow to melt, even evaporate and cause clouds, making more snow? If this were the case, every time your fridge gained a degree between cooling cycles you’d end up with a freezer with more ice cubes than when you started.
I mean.. Geez..
211
Ok .
From refererence 1,
<blockquoteAll the models show an increase in accumulation
Are we talking models here?
Are you saying that the warmer the Earth gets, the greater the snow fall in Antarctica and the lower the sea level?
110
Olaf Koenders:
Ice and snow can disappear by sublimation. This happens when the air is dry. Then H20(s) goes to H20(g) in one step. In the winter the small pond in my garden with goldfish is frozen. When the winter is gone the ice is also gone, but there is less water in the pond.
60
And the poor little goldfish???
100
The WC gives you a link.. sanitise it first.. you can expect viruses of all kinds..
Anyone got some bleach ?
50
Backslider:
Not all the water freezes, that happily never happened. When it happens I think all fish in my small pond will die
30
Billy, I don’t see how the ocean could be warming an inner part of W. Antarctica hundreds of miles from the ocean AND all this heat be localised in W. Antarctica instead of all the way around the continent. Besides, if somehow that very area of W. Antarctica was being warmed enough by that small part of the ocean then there wouldn’t be any sea ice right there.
Think Billy, think! Now go edit some Wiki pages and make your theory true. Better still, stop lying.
222
> Think
Thinking is good, but you need to do it based on evidence; and re-thinking everything from scratch, instead of reading the prior art, leaves you stuck at zero all the time. As, alas, our hostess’s post demonstrates only too clearly. Your questions are addressed in the papers referenced at the links I’ve given you. If you don’t want to read them, well, you’ll never know. But argument-from-personal-ignorance is logically invalid.
233
Ever thought Billy that the IPCC is paid to lie to you and you’re just parroting same? You’d make a great politician, skirting the issue without answering anything. Your argument from personal ignorance is the fact you know nothing of the Antarctic’s history dating back millennia. It’s always been unstable due to volcanism and tectonics, reason there’s a mountain range right where your alarmist lies are pointing.
I can hear an icicle dribbling somewhere in the Arctic, go tend to it. Oh? No longer melting? Gained some 60% ice back over the last year has it? Aww.. no wonder you’re going to the opposite end of the planet to create another fictional calamity.
202
And you think THIS is “evidence”?? (your link)
Where is your evidence?
150
BTW, when was the last time I told you to F*** OFF! ?
104
William,
“Thinking is good, but you need to do it based on evidence; and re-thinking everything from scratch, instead of reading the prior art, leaves you stuck at zero all the time.”
So when lost in the bush you should continue under the same assumptions that led you in circles instead of re-evaluating your current position and setting off in a new direction?
You’re not lost Bill, you just don’t know where you are.
152
William,
“Thinking is good, but you need to do it based on evidence; and re-thinking everything from scratch, instead of reading the prior art, leaves you stuck at zero all the time.”
So when lost in the bush you should continue under the same assumptions that led you in circles instead of re-evaluating your current position and setting off in a new direction?
You’re not lost Bill, you just don’t know where you are.
61
Poor WC, always stuck at the bottom of the bowl. !
Even a full flush cannot remove him.
122
The WC says. “Thinking is good….”
Maybe one day, he will experience it first hand.
92
The big wet things
I think he means the warming alarmists. Mostly wet behind the ears.
🙂
61
No Ocean in Antartica, there is only ocean around Antartica, where wave motion will stress the ice, and eventually cause it to disintegrate.
But that doesn’t explain changes to the ice on the continent.
50
I think we must have missed some research, there was one not so long ago that associated “changes” in wind pattern and “massive” changes in currents direction around the globe. I am sure that people more intelligent then me will be able to bend the current around antartica just a little, so to prove that it’s the dredging of a harbour in north Queensland that is responsible for the wind pattern, current pattern and subsequent melting of the ice cap……
All pigs fed and ready to fly!
10
Na, that`s only introduced into conversations out of mischief just to get a bite.
110
Ah the WC appears with his usual ectoplasmic slop. !!
Is that seriously the best you can do.
FEEEEEEEBle !!!
Jo, its time you applied the FULL FLUSH to this T*** !
91
Pointy put the run on him, he’s bored, so he had to show up here.
90
He gets more responses here, than he gets in comments on his own blog.
He is a limelight seeker, he will go where he gets the most bites, and then he tries to dominate the conversation with superciliousness.
80
ps.. look out for any references to Antarctic volcanoes to magically disappear from Wikipedia.
Facts are the WC’s enemy.
121
Hey Billy!!
Better get there quick and edit that!
100
A self admitting statement?
80
[SNIP]
61
[SNIP]
61
[SNIP]
61
Last time I looked, you were just ‘undesirable’, rather than being a simple troll. Why don’t you go back to your oh so popular blog?
81
The other day I decided to look at some of the “conventional” sites regarding climate change – ending up at “the conversation”(not a dedicated site in itself) and found most of the comments inane;maybe Willy you could find their ways more to your liking.
50
According to Willy, its a dumb idea to think that volcanic activity might vary greatly with time. Do we seriously need to prove this assumption? You know, Kaboom!
70
Just in case he says “yes” I came across this Human footprint strangling Old Faithful.
They also mention catastrophically but not GW or Climate Change.
50
You have to remember, Vince, the alarmistas all think climate and the world have never changed in the past.
Everything is constant until you alter an atmospheric trace gas by a tiny amount.
This trace gas is far more powerful than any volcanic or seismic action could ever be.
101
Whoops.. why did I write “Vince” ??? sorry about that ! 🙂
20
That’s OK. Just annoyed that you got more thumbs.
10
Hey, but at least I got a red one. !
Nice to know I annoyed some irksome little alarmista. 🙂
20
W.C. Thanks for your input. It stimulates reactions.
My suggestion on Jo’s first Antarctic thread was that ocean warmth and altered circulation may be to blame for peripheral melting but that does not hold up upon cursory observation cos
1)sea-ice extent is currently very high. Warmer oceans would cause less sea-ice except when there were extremely cold dry katabatic winds off the interior of the continent. These winds are regional and non-constant but sea-ice is fairly uniform.
2)peripheral melting is not uniform around the many thousands of km of “coast-line”. Clearly there is a regional component at work.
3) oceans take decades, if not centuries to change temperature due to a warming atmosphere and then the warming is only going to affect the top 100m at best. The McMillan et al paper suggests abrupt, catastrophic and irreversible changes. I do not see neutrality and impartiality in that paper. Do you?
Logic says that for something with the enormous heat capacity of the worlds oceans to warm by one Kelvin there would have to be an even greater heat source.
On some blogs the increased sea-ice has been blamed on altered currents moving warm waters away from Antarctica. If this theory were true your notion of oceans melting the ice looks precarious.
Lets face it, none of us know. The data are thin and short. We are all making educated guesses.
80
> 1)sea-ice extent is currently very high. Warmer oceans would cause less sea-ice except when there were extremely cold dry katabatic winds off the interior of the continent. These winds are regional and non-constant but sea-ice is fairly uniform.
I don’t think that’s true. The changes in ocean temperature are small; probably not large enough to affect seaice. And, of course, the ocean T changes that are important to sub-ice-shelf melt are sub-surface.
> 2)peripheral melting is not uniform around the many thousands of km of “coast-line”. Clearly there is a regional component at work.
Indeed. And ocean currents, and the way they interact with the Antarctic coast, are also distinctly non-uniform.
> 3) oceans take decades…
Oceans are slow, but they’ve *had* decades.
> then the warming is only going to affect the top 100m at best.
This seems to be a common illusion amongst people who don’t know how the ocean works. It doesn’t just sit there passively and absorb heat from above. It has 3 dimensional structure. Moreover, changes in surface wind stress (from changing atmospheric circulation) can change how the ocean water upwells.
> The McMillan et al paper
Is that part of your canon? Its not part of mine. If you’d like me to comment, please provide a reference.
> oceans to warm by one Kelvin there would have to be an even greater heat source.
> On some blogs the increased sea-ice has been blamed on altered currents moving warm waters away from Antarctica.
If that’s a garbled version of the stuff discussed in http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/11/12/wind-driven-trends-in-antarctic-sea-ice-drift/ then, well, you’ve got it a bit wrong. If you meant something else, you need to provide a link.
> Lets face it, none of us know… We are all making… guesses.
Yes, you are. What you’re missing is that there’s a scientific literature on this. People have been studying sub-ice-shelf melt around Antarctica for ages. Indeed, I used to work with people who did just that. For example, http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2514
06
Did you miss the many comments questioning why the effect of heat from the Earth on ocean currents is ignored? Honest mistake or a straw-man argument? “Dam sceptics don’t know that oceans have depth as well as width and length.”
40
Hi William
Some advice when your mob are dealing with a grumpy reactionary mob like us, you may find that catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Your mob just haven’t worked out that if you dish out the vitriol we will push right back. If you are polite, listen to what we have to say and make a real attempt to engage with us you will actually find that we are curious people who have a deep interest in science and are prepared to listen to both sides of an argument. In case you not comprehending what I have to say I’ll spell it out for you, if you insult people they turn off and you lose. Good science is about throwing out good or bad ideas out into the public domain where the bad ideas get knocked over and the good ones float to the surface hence the volcano hypothesis. There can be no scientific progress if there is consensus. There is no place in science for dogma ie thalidomide which is now saving lives instead of destroying lives. I think the main problem with climate science at the moment is that there is too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns and there is not enough field work being done to collect empirical data to fill in the blanks in our knowledge and data. There are too many desk top studies being done by climate scientists(ie modeling based on guess work because there is no or lack of empirical data to populate the data fields in the models) and not enough field work being done. It seems that climate scientists seem to have an aversion to getting their hands dirty doing some good honest field work like Darwin and Wallace.
60
“climate scientists seem to have an aversion to getting their hands dirty”
Oh , I don’t know, the WC has spent his whole life getting his hands dirty.
…but its isn’t from doing any honest work.
51
Hi the Griss
I think our friend William probably forgets to wash the lubricant from his hands after giving his car a grease and oil change.
10
Actually William it is you that argue from ignorance in that you accept an effect that requires a loop gain of 0.95 in the positive feedback path. Or accept some wild percentage of change in hydrological cycling of up to 20% in some papers when the energy imbalance can only actually drive 0.8% increase in precipitation withuout exhausting the available energy ( leading to no warming ). Or fails to accept the mathematical fact that global warming since 1850 supports not more than 1.4 degrees per doubling, and a simple mathematical analysis of all cause warming supports a sensitivity of no more than 0.5 degrees per doubling. Oh and like most warmists you accept that AGW will cause all sorts of terrible consequences without taking into account the amount of energy that the effect requires, for example melting half the polar ice cap takes a rather large amount of energy, energy once consumed is NOT available to do atmospheric warming any more.
The problem being that you fail to check things for yourself. You argue on the authority of others.
So answer my simple questions and decide for yourself.
1. From 1850 to today the temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees (possibly a little less due to the present pause) For a CO2 rise from 270 PPM to 400PPM – what in the implied sensitivity to CO2 doubling of the evidence assuming that all warming is due to CO2. Ie
If 0.8 = C Ln(400/270) what is C
Using the constant C you found calculate the implied rise for a doubling, substitute C in the formula below and calculate delta T for a doubling
DELTA t = C ln(2)
Now the IPCC implies in AR5 that there is only good evidence of a maority of warming IE 50% being human caused with the other 50% presumably natural, they make no claims for greater than 50% contribution with any confidence. This suggests the 0.8 degree rise is patially cyclic and not due to CO2 (0.4 degrees of it). In this case what is CO2 sensitivity?
2. All cause rise of temperature due to the atmosphere is claimed at 33 degrees, CO2 is currently thermalising 85 percent of incident energy. Assuming that CO2 is the only cause of the 33 degree warming calculate the rate of rise per percent energy thermalised. (33/85) degrees per percent Energy thermalised. What is the maximum temperature rise if CO2 band energy were completely thermalised. ABOUT 5.2 DEGREES. Compare this for a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere at 1 atm with the IPCC implied results for 13 doublings at 3.3 – 5 degrees per doubling ( 42 to 65 degrees) – yet the evidence demonstrates that 5.2 degrees is the maximum CO2 warming that could EVER occur even if we had a 100% CO2 atmosphere including all feedback effects calculated from first principles. Now adjust this to allow for the non CO2 portion of that warming, that is; scale this result to allow for the estimate that only 10 degrees of that 33 degree warming is attributable to Radiative gasses and calculate the maximum possible warming A. (approx 5.2/3) or about 1.8 degrees warming even for a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere. It is hard to believe that the rate of warming per percent energy thermalised is going to magically INCREASE from about 0.12 degrees per percent energy thermalised to the IPCC implied estimate of 2.9 – 4.3 degrees per percent stopband energy thermalised.
Once you’re done, I have harder questions for you.
PS I firmly predict like most little warmists you will either refuse to do the calculations to continue your self-delusion or will ignore my post, for the same reason.
PPS Young warmist Phil Shehan has already done question 1 and calculated 1.9 degrees F per doubling based on temperature and CO2 rise since 1900 – Evidently however his conclusion that warming was inconsequential hasn’t impacted his propensity for warmist outpourings and I therefore conclude he is in denial.
50
Your questions are somewhat confused.
> what in the implied sensitivity to CO2 doubling of the evidence assuming that all warming is due to CO2
But this isn’t really a good question, since the situation is more complex. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change especially the picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png That’s not up to date – AR5 will have an improved version no doubt – but you get the idea I hope. And you need to take non-equilibrium into account. This is why attribution, etc, isn’t done on the back of an envelope or a blog post; there’s a whole vast scientic literature on the subject; you should try reading some of it. You might start with http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/can-we-trust-climate-models.html (disclaimer: I haven’t read the paper yet, but JA is pretty reliable).
> claimed at 33 degrees
Not really, no. You’re thinking of stuff like http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies/ I assume. But that assumes things like constant albedo (to get the 33 oC) and of course an Earth without an atmosphere would have a different albedo.
> CO2 band energy were completely thermalised… Compare this for a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere at 1 atm with the IPCC implied results for 13 doublings at 3.3 – 5 degrees per doubling
You have to be careful not to push the simple formula outside their realm of validity.
06
Again, a huge effect on global temperatures from a very minor component of the atmosphere from modelling by those who think that the science is settled. This is far from a convincing evidence.
30
As predicted you refuse to engage with the data, instead prefering to adopt platitudes like … “its more complex than that” and the usual citation of model based science, that does not fit the observations, no, my post simply asks you to take account of those observations Given the CO2 rise since 1850 and the presumed associated warming, what is the senstitivity, taking into account all feedbacks (which are all built into the observations).
No William it’s NOT more complex, the thermodynamics, and climate/fluid dynamics of the past 150 years is exactly the same complexity as the thermodynamics and fluid dynamics of the next 100 years. There is absolutely no evidence of any warming acceleration (which requires climate sensitivity to increase with temperature) frankly earthly experience clearly shows climate sensitivity DECREASES with temperature, that is CO2 climate change will decelerate with temperature
I see no reason why the rate of warming of 1.4 degrees per doubling seen since the LIA should suddenly jump to double or 3 times that, It’s ludicrous, especially given the models imply a gain of 3, which after accounting negative feedbacks implies an internal positive feedback loop gain of over 0.95! Acceptance of such a high loop gain in a feedback system that has time lags and is NOT oscillatory defies belief for any thinking engineer like myself.
Your refusal to apply some simple mathematical boundary tests on reasonable values of climate sensitivity speaks volumes about your bias on this topic.
Climate sensitivity inferred from the last 150 years of (adjusted) data < 1.4 degrees per doubling. Climate sensitivity inferred from atmospheric warming due to atmospheric warming above blackbody (33 degree) and degree of thermalisation of CO2 stopband energies is < 0.5 degrees per doubling. You look at the real data and see that the real data supports only a small fraction of the IPCC predicted warming even as a boundary test, and you still claim naive scalar models requiring positive feedback with a loop gain of 0.95 are more plausible than what the data tells us, even in simple mathematical plausibility tests like mine. The fact that the models are scalar but the feedback is time lagged speaks volumes about the naivety of climate science. It's the equivalent of trying to infer the AC behaviour of an amplifier from it's DC (scalar) characteristics by assuming there are no phase delays in capacitance or inductance.
Until climate science resolves these inconsistencies in a plausible manner I say you and 97 percent of scientists are dead wrong, simply because YOU ARE.
Then again I suppose you are happy your taxes are being wasted on futile gestures instead on invested into healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and housing the homeless. Killing grannies by creating energy poverty is just dandy I suppose. I hope you are happy with the waste because I'm NOT
30
Bobl @14.12,
Your exchange with William Con’ is interesting but I fear it is futile unless it provides amusement/entertainment for you. I see that you mention “Young warmist Phil Shehan” AKA in full as Dr Brian Philip Shehan, with whom I’ve had similarly futile exchanges, (like he repeatedly evades key issues that he cannot contend). Nevertheless I do enjoy the entertainment from deconstructing his egotistical negativism to anything outside of his “bad attitude/belief system”.
I don’t expect that he will respond to my 1.1.3.2.3 above which makes him look rather foolish!
10
BTW, in case you did not know, Dr Brian Philip Shehan, sometimes uses a nom de blog of Brian
20
Ta Bob… I didn’t know that. I have Dr Shehan firmly planted as an activist unless he decides to properly engage with the data. I find it extraordinary that he ignores his own calculation of probable climate sensitivity. Despite calculating it for himself, it did not implant one shred of scepticism in him, hence I have labelled him non-scientist activist. Since activists, by definition cannot be scientists (within the sphere of their activism).
PS regards WC, I just wanted to assess what he knew, and the depth of his knowledge in climate science. It requires a certain, depth of knowledge to attempt to refute my calculations, noone either here, on WUWT or Real Climate has ever properly addressed these mathematical reasonable value tests. Just waving of arms, platitudes or pointing at (clearly non-physical) models. That’s not surprising though since I developed these arguments a few years ago in an email discussion with Will Kinnimonth and Prof Carter.
Interesting fact, Will K told me the that at any latitude the average temperature tends to be almost exactly the same regardless of whether it’s over land or sea, given the role water vapour is supposed to play one would expect the average temperature over the ocean to be much higher than over a desert – it’s not.
10
Hey Willy, didn’t you just recently get your [SNIP] over at Pointman’s?
[SNIP]
—-
00
Just a question from an inquisitive mind, is volcanism and plate tectonics the embarrassing mad uncle of climate science?. I recall a recent article about heat plumes in roughly the same area from where the PDO seems to manifest it’s intentions. Is there a link?. I never realized the Pacific plate boundary extended that far south and I believe we should be completely open minded about the possible effects the undersea tectonic activity and it’s associated thermal impacts may have on the mass of ice above it. I live within spitting distance (metaphorically) of this plate boundary and have massive respect for the power of the natural events associated with it. There is so much we don’t understand even now. Mind you it wouldn’t surprise me if they attempted to rule this one out, they once tried to rule out the sun.
120
well, I have some not-so-old geological textbooks (1950s) which describe continental drift/plate tectonics as somewhat crazy, relatively radical theories. Thanks to a combination of things including research, the advent of new technology, and the realisation that some good sea-floor maps were needed in order to drive nuclear powered submarines all over the place, it’s no longer just a ‘concept without a mechanism’ in Alfred Wegener’s (and others) heads.
10
If you watch the Antarctic ice melt on one of the visual reconstructions you see a patch of ice melt off the Ross Ice Shelf but bounded by sea ice further out. This patch has been appearing earlier and freezing over later each year. If this area wasn’t melting each year, you’d see an even greater Antarctic sea ice anomaly.
You can see the anomalous water temperatures in the thermal maps.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.1.2.2014.gif
61
Who remembers when 350ppm carbon(sic) was a tipping point:
wikipedia: [2] James E. Hansen said that this tipping point had already been reached in April 2008 when the CO2 level was 385 ppm.
(Hansen states 350 ppm as the upper limit.)
(check those wikipedia links before someone changes them)
Then 350ppm was 380ppm.
Then, 400ppm carbon(sic) was a tipping point:
“Passing the 400 mark reminds me that we are on an inexorable march to 450 ppm and much higher levels.
These were the targets for ‘stabilization’ suggested not too long ago.”
– Dr. Michael Gunson
Global Change & Energy Program Manager; Project Scientist, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
At 400ppm, we were told to ‘look out the window’:
“Levels that high have only been reached during the Pliocene era, when temperatures and sea level were higher.”
– Dr. Carmen Boening. Scientist, Climate Physics Group – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory”
. . .
Talk about “re-start from zero all the time”.
How can you do science, or understand anything, if you re-start from zero all the time?
Looking out the window, it doesn’t look anything like the ‘Pliocene era, when temperatures and sea level were higher’.
How dumb would you have to be to ‘believe’ that idea?
160
OMG!
Who is B9ill McKibben?
80
Towards 700ppm ! :-)))))))
121
“At 400ppm, we were told to ‘look out the window’:”
I did……… and it was a glorious day ! 🙂
70
Interesting. Sort of sticks out doesn’t it?. Why no mention of this from the usual suspects?. Even for a layperson such as myself that sticks out like dogs bits.
70
Reminded me of a young chap at work who’s a warmist and finds my “denialism” baffling, working late he commented on how cold and quick the temperature dropped when the sun went down, I replied all that extra evil CO2 must go to bed at sundown he didn’t see the funny side or the fact he just debunked his warmist belief’s.
140
Exactly. Gerbil Wormers don’t understand why they can freeze to death at night in a desert, but sweat in a rainforest at the same latitude. That evil CO2 has a way of cherrypicking what it wants to hurt 😉
121
LOL! I love that! I will use it with attribution!
80
Not only freeze to death, you can be freeze-dried. The lack of humidity sucks the water out of you.
70
That explains that dried up old hag of a mother-in-law and her freeze ye t’death stares!!!
30
NASA does not seem to think so, they do not even mention it in this very recently released video…. 12th May 2014….. Nor do they mention where the warmed water comes from…..
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/?id=1302
Mind you, there is a history of vulcanism in the area (Western Antarctica) being (literally) covered up, and deliberately ignored….
http://www.lermanet.com/antarcticmelt/index.htm
The subject area was discussed at the GWS forum some years ago…
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1286.html
and, we discussed Steig’s alarmism too….
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1111.html
All the above was also raised again in a thread in the below fb group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/
80
‘That West Antarctic melting couldn’t be caused by volcanoes could it?’ so have those volcanoes just appeared in the last 20 years or so? Or have they been there ‘forever’? Well at least a long time and have just decided to melt the ice!
220
BA – congrats, that’s not a bad point. Now have you got any data on the volcano trends sub glacier and sub marine? Because we have long temperature trends from other proxies and it’s been warmer and cooler. Things aren’t “extremely” unusual in the longer studies.
Trends in volcanic heat output would be excellent (though tricky for the volcanoes they haven’t found yet.)
141
‘Because we have long temperature trends from other proxies and it’s been warmer and cooler’, that will be from the ‘hockey stick’ I take it, because other proxies confirm its accuracy? Or is it a case that some proxies are better than other proxies? Depending on what you want them to confirm?
AGU ice core data, that debunks a global MWP and confirms the ‘Hockey Stick’.
‘Helen Mossley-Thompson…the senior scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Centre…got PHD and masters at Ohio State…[the decay of fossil fuel co2 in the atmosphere has a long tail that 33% of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere 100 years from now and 1000 years from now 19% of the emissions will be with us…for 30 years we at Ohio State…have drilled ice cores from all around the world…we have had a presence in the Polar regions, in Greenland, Antarctic…and the highest mountains in Tibet, Andes, Alaska, Russian Arctic and New Guinea. One of the reasons for this is that there is no single best ice core, single best place to drill an ice core, because it depends what question you are asking…because ice cores carries with them a local to regional signature…from these three ice cores in the South American Andes…you see a nice signature of the LIA cool period you see a modest MWP or WMA… in the South American record…but here is the composite from four ice cores from the Tibetan plateau and you see no LIA and no MWP (MWA)…the source for the moisture for the glaciers in the Andes…is the Atlantic, particular in the North Atlantic basin we have a stronger signature…the one feature that stands out most strongly is the isotopic enrichment of the 20th century {thus proving AGW and confirming the ‘hockey stick}…that reconstruction’s made of many tree ring, some coral records, some high resolution lake sediments and ice cores…and you will have to conclude…don’t look significantly different from the Northern hemisphere…but both carry the signature of the 20th century warming, in practically the last 50 years! {again re-enforcing AGW and the hockey stick!}]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfyrkZezfk
012
From a AGU blog
He was referring to 120 000 years ago and this graph.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D16123 is a paper that uses ammonia as a proxy to get better resolution than you can with oxygen or Ca isotopes. I can’t link to that graph, just the PDF, but here is just the ammonia data.
Take note of the confidence intervals and Watts points out in his article that the use of nitrogen fertilisers in the 20th century might have affected recent values.
50
Blackadder4th –
See my answer at 8.3 above.
30
Blackadder4
You could look here (thanks Jo) and educate yourself as to why the hockey stick is just a joke.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
30
BAD, come to the meetings. The Hockey Stick is discredited as it was based on non empirical data and massaged to get the desired result, therefore everything in your post is just more youtube propaganda for those with too much time and too little effort.
Begs the eternal question though:
What came first the data or the Hockey Stick?
20
A gentleman always ensures that the data comes first.
At least, that was what my father told me.
10
“(though tricky for the volcanoes they haven’t found yet.)”
Not to mention other antarctic ‘known unknowns’ recently discovered that make any UN-IPCC prior antarctic computer simulations redundant.
Seals help solve deep water mystery
“The discovery of a fourth source is like “finding a new component in the engine,” he says.
Until recently only three sources of the deep waters were known – the Weddell and Ross seas and off the Adelie Coast.
Antarctic bottom water – cold, dense water that sits in the abyssal zone between 4000 metres and 6000 metres below the ocean’s surface – plays a plays a key role in global water circulation and the transport of carbon dioxide to the deepest layers of the ocean.
The discovery of a fourth source of deep water is critical to our understanding of Antarctica’s contribution to global ocean circulation, and will improve modelling of its response to climate change, says study co-author Dr Guy Williams, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Co-operative Research Centre.”
. . .
See what I did there?
I linked/mentioned carbon(sic) and antarctica in one sentence without invoking volcanoes.
With that new ‘heat-trapping carbon(sic)’ source discovered by the seals under the ice, you would think the ice would melt quicker, as the redundant models predict.
You know it makes sense, if you just think.
30
It is not the volcanos that melt the ice, per se, it is the hydrothermal vents – the hot water created by volcanism, that melts the ice. If you come to NZ in the winter, you can sit in the sun in a very hot pool surrounded by snow and ice. Same in Iceland.
A point I made up-thread, is that these vents are too small to register on seismic instrument, other than as noise, but they are relentless, and eventually will weaken glaciers to the point where large pieces can fall off.
This is not a new phenomenon, and has nothing to do with changes in the climate.
120
I think that null hypothesis here is that the thermal output of volcanic areas is not constant.
20
I’ll change that to you need to show that the melting due to volcanic activity is either negligible or constant before blaming accelerating ice melt (of which there is actually no evidence because of the poor precision of estimates) on AGW.
20
Foe BA4, I suspect his padded walls are always the same.. I doubt his minders let him have crayons.
52
Duh, what’s a crayon?
05
They’ll let you have some once you get into kindergarten.
51
Seismic /volcanic activity is not constant. See US Geological Survey seismic maps.
Piers Corbyn is having some success in predicting seismic windows based upon his Solar Lunar Action Technique.
History shows periods of increased and decreased activity. In recent years there have been Russian media photos of four Kamchatka volcanoes erupting simultaneously which is very unusual so the short-term sub-glacial warming of bed-rock is a viable theory which warrants investigation and as Proctor rightly says at #13 on the previous thread, we’re only concerned with raising of temperature to the melting point of water.
I have no data on Antarctic bedrock temperatures, but nor does anyone else.
21
However, the pacific rim has been particularly active ( Volcanoes, the Japanese, earthquake and Indonesian sunami etc) over the last few years, thus it’s quite likely to be more active along other parts of the rim too. Problem is BA4, noone knows, but noone will say that. Without being able to quantitatively discount increased volcanic activity along the rime as a cause, one can’t conclude in all honesty that it’s any other factor. Yet noone ever says, you know, we just don’t know enough, and when they do (like say Bengtsson did) they get eaten alive by their own colleagues. How does one spell arrogance, well seems it’s spelled like c-l-i-m-a-t-e s-c-i-e-n-c-e
20
Subaqueous volcanism is the elephant in the climate room. Seventeen terawatts are pumped into the ocean floor globally and yet this major forcing is completely ignored by oceanographers and climate modellers.
Why? Because it is not man made? Because it is random? Because it is geology and we don’t do that stuff? Because it is difficult to get a handle on? Because it is not politically correct? Because it does not attract funding? Because it is too hard? Why is it ignored?
See: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/ocean-vents-faulty-models/
160
Hot bath, hot bathroom, cold bath, cold bathroom…
70
Well, some of us do 🙂
The actual point here is that Antarctic sub-volcanism is not yet very accurately monitored. I would dearly love to read the actual papers underlying this little furore (no, not the older Steig paper) but they are paywalled, of course
On a more general note, though, you are correct in stating that most people don’t “do” or “get” geology. As far as I can tell, most think that “stuff that happened millions of years ago is not relevant today”. That’s a ludicrously uninformed attitude of course, but in the face of this, I gave up trying to inform a long time ago – absolutely a no-win game
This brings me to the reason for my particular animus towards Billy boyo Connelly. During his sojourn at Wiki, the entire geological history of the planet was episodically re-written (and then locked) to ensure the magic gas was recorded as the ultimate cause for all geological changes, particularly throughout the Paleozoic. Connelly is well aware that most people are essentially lazy in aquiring reliable information, so typing a query into Wiki has absolute mass appeal. Disinformation on a grander scale has never been so easy
Corrupting Wiki was a small price to pay for this. In the process, almost the entire discipline of geological science was trashed for common public consumption. A wonderful outcome. If you suspect I have nothing but contempt for him, you may well be close to the mark
121
“If you suspect I have nothing but contempt for him, you may well be close to the mark”
I agree complete.. his destruction of real knowledge to help create this whole fraud shows him as a particularly vile person.
Below contempt.
101
But you must understand Billy boyo Connelly is qualified to wreck Wikipedia, as he is qualified at PhotoShopping PCs, aka ‘qualified’ at computer modeling (or so his Wiki says).
41
> Wiki, the entire geological history of the planet was episodically re-written (and then locked) to ensure the magic gas was recorded as the ultimate cause for all geological changes
Doesn’t sound very likely. But go on: I won’t ask for “the entire geological history of the planet” but can you provide the name of even *one* actual article where this occurred. Bonus points if you can manage to provide a diff.
> essentially lazy in aquiring [sic] reliable information
The way people are lapping up your unverifiable anecdote does tend to support that view.
110
Have you read Pointman recently?
30
William has nowhere to go save here or at Climate etc,so he is losing his so-called relevancy.So sad Willy, so sad to see….
10
These sort of observations could ultimately be the last nail in the coffin of Climate Change. I have great faith in glaciology – they usually get it right. Ice sheets and glaciers are very predictable because it is low Reynolds number flow with no turbulence. Further detailed investigation of heat budgets and current flows will almost certainly show that volcanoes are the cause.
They have to fund this. They can’t sweep this under the carpet – it leaves other prognostications of sea-level rise for dead and so surely the alarmist hand wringing will ultimately have to give way to some real research.
110
Please do not hold your breath. There are reasons yet unknown to anyone but hugely relevant as to why global warming is not only continuing but accelerating faster and faster and faster .Dana says so , loads of people say so , there is a consensus which is relying on the matter!
50
I always wondered about this. Thanks for your input John, Derek, Tiny and of course, Jo. This whole discussion only goes to show me that far too many people aren’t asking the right sort of questions. Almost as if knowledge were the enemy. I’ve never understood that. It’s counterintuitive.
60
> How can a warming in Antarctica from -40C to -30C cause snow to melt, even evaporate and cause clouds, making more snow?
It can’t (well, not in any significant quantity). Antarctica is a polar desert. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_antarctica. The precip comes from over the oceans.
218
I know precisely what Antarctica is, I’m not a 10 year old in mummy’s basement making up Gerbil Worming porn. Obviously the precip begins by taking warmer moist air from the oceans and condensing it as smow on Antarctica, but then more snowfall = bigger eventual glacial output, which is what you Gerbil Wormers are crying about – claiming it’s a collapse, which is precisely what happens when things build up over millennia. It’s been going on all that time and will take hundreds of years to collapse.
Then again, you warmists cry about glaciers disappearing. You can’t have it both ways. Besides, there’s been no warming for nearly 18 years so there’s no impact whatsoever you can point to. It’s a natural cycle of Antarctica, including the volcanism.
172
> I’m not a 10 year old in mummy’s basement
Then you really need to try to avoid making basic mistakes that make you look like one.
> more snowfall = bigger eventual glacial output
Timescale. Snowfall in the centre takes ~10 kyr to get out. You can do this from basic maths: total ice volume divided by average precip gives a rough answer.
417
Wouldn’t the increased weight of the ice cause an increase in the rate of flow?
100
Yes, but you need to think about the timescales. Its a big place. New snow in the centre doesn’t immeadiately translate into more flow at the edges.
215
It only snows in the center?
81
Pot – Kettle.
91
Yes the flow is glacial. That it flows at all is due to the force from all the mass of ice behind it.
20
> Are you saying that the warmer the Earth gets, the greater the snow fall in Antarctica
Yes, at least for moderate degrees of warming.
> and the lower the sea level?
No, because there are other factors at work, namely ablation at the coasts, instability, and sub-ice melt by the ocean. Working out which dominates can’t be done on the back of an envelope. GRACE says the “other factors” are bigger than increased accumulation, so overall we get sea level rise. Per refs already given.
423
Sea level rise? Bah!
http://www.ancientcanalbuilders.com/picts/Charts/FilePost-Glacial%20Sea%20Level-large.jpg
132
More here. No wonder you quote outdated AR4 Billy!
152
He quotes AR4 because he now lives in the past now
He was so much funnier when he sang The Wellie Song
91
Some years ago Billy you parroted the line that the ice will melt at the poles. You and the IPCC never mentioned Antarctica would grow instead, which it’s been doing all its recorded history.
Now that it’s proven you wrong, you assert it was supposed to grow anyway. Strangely you say that water evaporating from an ocean somewhere, dumping snow on Antarctica and the resulting glaciers calving will cause sea level rise? Two words for you: Bonkers and Archimedes – only one applies to you, so don’t be greedy.
The way you jump in and out of theoretical AGW beds as you please shows what an unscientific catastrophe [SNIP] you really are.
133
> you parroted the line that the ice will melt at the poles
{{cn}}. Or, more directly, you made that up.
> You and the IPCC never mentioned Antarctica would grow instead
Try reading what I wrote above (#24). I didn’t say Antarctica would grow. I said there are various competing processes, overall leading to shrinkage, not growth. Come on man, basic reading comprehension, its not that hard.
320
I note Mr Connelly that you did not deny “Some years ago Billy you parroted the line that the ice will melt at the poles.”
You should go back to your old stuff you were so funny back in 1977 – come on give us a verse –
“If it wasne for ya wellies were would ya be ?”
140
> you did not deny
I had thought that “Or, more directly, you made that up” was enough of a clue. But for the entirely clueless: no, I didn’t say it.
318
Sorry you miss my point. Are reading glasses required after all that truth wrecking at Wikipedia?
120
No-one has the slightest idea what you’re on about.
06
“No-one has the slightest idea what you’re on about”
No, The WC.. its just you that doesn’t have the slightest clue.
20
+1 for The Griss.
10
Problem for you Billy is that we have growth, not shrinkage. Take a look, rather then believing statistical models. You do know Billy, don’t you, that statistics is not science?
Oh that’s right! It was you who silenced me on your blog for daring to mention Feynman. Do you remember what my response to that episode was? Yes, it was F*** OFF BILLY!
153
William ,have you read what Pointman has to say about you?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-scorning-of-william-connolley/
Laughter is the best medicine they say hahahahaahahaha
30
P’s article is odd: it says (once you strip out the name calling) little other than P censored some comments, and is pleased by that. Its childish. If you want to read the other half of the conversation, you can: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html
110
Incidentally, since we’re on censorship, I’ll take the opportunity to thank our hostess here for the lack of censorship, which is welcome and unusual. BishopHill is rather less welcoming (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/).
210
Hi William
I agree with your comments about the lack of censorship on Jo’s blog. I find group think boring and troll baiting is entertaining and helps to break up the boredom. Hey and I get to learn some science as well.
51
Willie Connelly –
As alway your ego causes you to completely misunderstand what Pointman had to say, and no it was not, as you say, about censorship.
One day, hopefully you may see the light but it is doubtful.
20
Censorship is changing what is said to what you want it to say – as you did with Wiki. Censorship is not barring fools from commenting.
Wiki was censored. By you. Strange you would praise others for NOT doing what you have done. And still do.
30
It says a lot about a little man with stompy feet who cannot edit everywhere in the world.
A smart person would ignore it. You are not a smart person.
30
PhilJourdan
Please stop exposing so much.
The little pompous egoist may get to see how he appears to so many others. And were is the fun in that?
No while he still has the perverse faith in his own infallibility we can all have a good laugh (at him)!
Though he does remind me of those that supported the phlogiston theory and whose reputations were dashed by the relentless progess of real science.
30
Oh dear . poor little WC, still trying to drum up visitors to his offensive little blog.
Bringing your offensive rudeness and slimy arrogance here is not going to do that.
61
Mr Connelly
97% of this blog say you are wrong and that a consensus on “you parroted the line that the ice will melt at the poles” is indeed fact.
All Wikipedia entries will now be edited to reflect this truth.
Debate closed.
Now are you going on tour again? Japan maybe? Can you still remember the joke about the boy who could fart in stereo?
30
Let’s go back a bit further Billy. You were of the belief that by 1972 global cooling was “widely accepted”. That hasn’t happened yet. Neither did catastrophic global warming.
All the warmist’s and populationist’s prognostications have failed utterly since generations before you were born (yes.. “the end is nigh”.. even more recent “tipping points” that unless we do something incredibly stupid without anything to back up the idea by 1990, 2000, 2010 etc., we’ll all be snookered – always in “even” years BTW, which Nature knows nothing about as it’s a Human construct), but you refuse to heed the message and look ever sillier with every 8 bits you type.
As I said Billy, you’re a calamity snip looking for yet another climate/calamity bed to jump into. Have the intestinal fortitude to admit the obvious, speak the truth for once and take it to your
payersleaders.Thanks for the [snip] earlier mods, I was a tad outta line but I REALLY wanted to be.
10
> You were of the belief that by 1972 global cooling was “widely accepted”
I think you have that rather garbled. The paper you want is http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1 from which http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/01/1970s-cooling-again/ helpfully provides a link to the main figure.
To quote: “By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood… It was not long, however, before scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell’s trend found that it was not necessarily a global phenomenon.”
But that wasn’t a prediction; it was merely an observation. Within the limits of what was available at the time it was reasonable.
01
Down on the Antarctic Peninsular is Deception Bay, which has had a patch of warm water, warm enough in the Summer to swim in. Several did so on a cruise when my wife was there in December 2005.
In fact the patch wanders around a bit depending on tidal flow.
Volcanic activity has been known across that part of Antarctica since explorations began.
100
Looking for references on the estimated amount and temperature of magma from a volcano to make a guess-timate of the delta T a volcano can impart on a hypothetical amount of seawater or ice.
10
If ice is not preserved in the geological record; who knows the answers?
Thank God we’ve got the creative modellers.
20
this shows Antarctica’s orientation as regards to the oceans/the “ring of fire”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Southern_Ocean.svg
20
The only obvious answer to this nonsensical warmist troll post is this LOL
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Just letting you know I am now a 1000% denier of AGW and lukewarmers have become my enemies LOL
70
Ie have become an “Extremist AGW skeptic” hahahaha
70
BTW no one seems to be noticing but this is in any terms a highly significant statistical trend
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Ask any statistician maths physics biology etc…Its not due to AGW or cooling because temperatures have been static for 18 years… so what is causing this rising trend? This if it continues at the current rate will eventually have an albedo effect are we seeing the beginning of the snowball effect? LOL
60
We need not a colour version but a contoured version of the temp anomaly map.
I deal with mapping by computer every day (I’m a petroleum geologist). The computer creates false impressions and hides interpretable data through a variety of smoothing algorithms. Lazy geologists and management promoters use it for feel-good images that say what they want without the viewer having the opportunity to challenge the data that “justifies” what is being said.
A contoured map WITH THE DATAPOINTS on it, or at least a contoured map on a NON-SMOOTHED basis, lets you see, in this case, if the heat is focused on the volcanic areas and then smeared across the rest of the area.
You have to get away from seriously smoothed data. That is why the GISS global maps are so, so misleading. The point of temperature values in Peru where there are no data points is only the most egregious: smearing leads to a belief in global when regional is the case, and regional when local is the case. It would also show where cities cause the problem due to inadequate UHIE corrections.
If a computer maps is shown to you be very, very skeptical, especially if the shower wants you to give him money as a result.
70
Nice scholarly piece on volcanoes in the Antarctic:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991Tecto..10.1257B
30
link fixed..
10
This is something ‘the WC’ should read, so he can actually learn something. (Yes ‘the WC’, you obviously are starting from zero.)
There is extensive evidence of seismic rifts and volcanism underneath the West Antarctica area.
This is the MOST LIKELY cause of any warming of the West Antarctic shelf.
CO2 and worming gerbils have nothing to do with it.
71
error fix..
“This is the MOST LIKELY cause of any warming of the West Antarctic shelf.”
Should read…
This is the BY FAR AND AWAY THE MOST LIKELY cause of any warming of the West Antarctic shelf.
61
I can’t help wondering how much hotter the world would be if those volcanoes were not being cooled off by melting all that ice.
Maybe the complainers should be glad the ice is melting. Show a little gratitude folks. 😉
70
Quite interesting, Jo!
20
What gives me some small concern is if there was a large eruption under the ice in Antarctica – could that precipitate a rather large ice melt leading to a flood of biblical proportions. Ice sheets lasting 17ky and up gives one pause from real worry though.
However consider Yellowstone/Krakatoa/etc. though…
I’m just glad scientists are looking at these volcanoes and hope there are no super-eruptions likely, that would really ruin one’s day!
Or course in a little while (cosmologically speaking that is) the sun will go out – when do we start planning for that?
40
Continental scale cherry picking
20
Off Topic, but intersting
Canadian Weather Forecasters Forbidden From Discussing Climate Change
120
Funny, neither does years of studying the climate if we are to believe the models are a result of those years.
30
Suppose global warming is real. Suppose a lot of Antarctica exposes open coastal soils (once home to a lot of plants). What might happen? Is it conceivable that Aussies and Kiwis could start an immigration move to Antarctica, and become “undocumented immigrants”?
From my perspective, it seems to me that if Aussies find their island-continent too hot, they should be able to obtain, as Commonwealth citizens, exit visas to Canada. If Vancouver and Toronto become too balmy, the Yukon, Nortwest and Nunavit territories will be open. They should be comfortably habitable for at least 4-7 generations of the migrants’ offspring, say. for example if Sidney is 10 meters submerged by the Pacific, and has a higher annualized average temp than Darwin today.
People have migrated for a long time. Aboriginals in Oz migrated from China, as did eastern Pacific islands’ melanesians. The Americas were settled, prehistorically, by Siberians. Scandinavia is populated by people from the Black Sea region.
The northern migrating women were complaining, “It’s too cold here.” The men said, “Okay, me gonna hunt hunt you some fur. If it’s small fur, I’ll get you 20 and you have to sew them together. ”
I remember buying my wife a silver-fox coat. I didn’t hunt for foxes, even though I was a good hunter. She had no idea why it was women from Russia like her loved fur coats.
But I recognized they did. I’m basically a caveman living in an out-of-my-prime-time world.
31
Canada too! Fur, for all the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes, is still the best insulating material for wearable clothing. And those are 2 COOOOOLLLLLD countries.
20
Interestingly, NASA had Antarctica cooling rather rapidly between the years 1981 and 2004. The below NASA image looks quite a bit different than the one in the body of this blog entry.
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
Also….
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr. [E]stimates of the melting glacier contribution to sea level is 4.5 cm for the period 1900 – 2000 with the largest input of 2.5 cm during 1910 – 1950 [Oerlemans et al., 2007]
This study (Jevrejeva et al, 2008), which used 1,023 gauge sites to track sea level rise since the 1700s, indicates that sea level rise was most pronounced during a period of time (1920-1950) that CO2 levels only rose by about 10 ppm (300 ppm to 310 ppm), and sea level rise has actually decelerated overall since 1950 (when compared to 1920-1950), even though CO2 concentration levels rose by about 80 ppm between 1950 and the 2000s (310 ppm to 390 ppm). This establishes that there is no correlation between rapidly rising CO2 concentrations and sea level rise acceleration.
Also interesting from this study is that input from glacier melt added approximately 2.5 cm to sea levels between 1910 and 1950, but just 2.0 cm of sea level rise (from glacier melt) between 1950 and 2000. So with .64 cm per decade of SLR from 1910 to 1950, and .40 cm per decade SLR between 1950 and 2000, we can establish that glacier melt occurred at a 60% faster rate per decade between 1910 and 1950 than it did between 1950 and 2000. Once again, this establishes that there is no correlation between rapidly rising CO2 concentrations and glacier melt rates.
—
Excellent comment Kenneth. Thanks – Jo
120
Al Gore does not have a beachfront mansion. Actually it’s about 60 meters above mean high tide. But he does have an ocean view. If he were a surfer, he might have chosen a beachfront location. But he’s not. Not even an open-water swimmer. He does have a private jet, and low mpg limo. I don’t think it fair to say he has an Antartica-sized carbon footprint. But size 16 EEE still puts him in the top .1% of carbon-burning polluters.
30
You are not making any sense. Relatively speaking he does have an Antartica-sized carbon footprint. I suppose you think we should follow Al Gore’s footsteps and live like he does. The AGW alarmists would love that, NOT!
30
And I’m not even talking about Obama, who recently talked up “climate change”. 747 trips all over the world, but vacation trips alone to Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard and Cali. Even sending Michelle and daughters to Aspen, CO. Aspen is the most chi-chi ski resort in America. It’s America’s St. Moritz. It’s not that good a ski place, experts there are ski-bum instructors to the rich, teaching skiing-incompetents.
Then Obama sent his dogs on Marine-One helicopter to Martha’s Vineyard. They could have gone on Air Force One with him, but he doesn’t like dogs, except to eat. He doesn’t like poor black African-Americans either.
People say, “He’s the first African American president.” Was he raised by black American parents? Not, actually.
John Kerry has burned a lot of fossil fuel.
What these people are saying is, “Fossil fuel burning is bad for you,” peasants. “It’s only good for me and my class.”
The little people aren’t buying it. Because they are stupid, or because they recognize class warfare and the top class’s spewing hypocrisy? Make your choice.
61
John,
The problem with any doomsday scenario where sudden ice melt from the Antarctic causes a catastrophic breakup or melt of the Ice and snow pack fails on many levels.
Aside from rantings and disinformation from professional trolls and recalcitrant propagandists such as blackadderthe4th or William Connolley, one has to consider things such as this within the realms of hard science.
This remains true, even when you have catastrophic events that are off the scale and hard to believe. However, at the end of the day, a review of the facts simply shows that mankind tends to think small and with some blind arrogance.
I am more than sure that if mankind could trace their ancestry back over the last one hundred million years, then our resident Trolls would exercise their Machiavellianism and find fault with some false science and blame current mankind for the previous extinction events.
Although that may play havoc with current AGW theories, but never mind, Irony is not their strong suite.
However, I digress.
I remember seeing a catastrophic made for TV event of what would happen if Yellowstone did indeed catastrophically erupt. Although I wouldn’t quote me, I believe it was a BBC production.
If we were to compare a Yellowstone catastrophic event to something similar in the Antarctic region, then basic physics tends to take over.
I noticed in the comments above that Connolley seems to be of the opinion that precipitation around Antarctic seems to gather neatly in the centre and works it’s way out to the edges of the land mass, via ice or snow calving due to the pressure of this mass in the centre of the Antarctic aided by the magic of Co2.
However, anyone who has been to the Antarctic, or who has studied any terrain maps, for any reason, will see an entirely different geology than the one supposed and assumed by our resident dullards.
What you will see in the West, is a lowland area, dotted by volcanic active presence.
To the right of the Map, you will see the Antarctic highlands, with a Mountain ridge separating the two.
The upper left hand corner is the tip of the Western edge, near Bridgeman Island, which is also the closest point to Argentina and the Cape.
As can be seen, even here in the Western Lowlands, their are quite extensive mountain ranges.
Now, assuming a 1883 Krakatoa event to a Yellowstone worst case scenario, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that once a Volcano in this region erupts with any force, we will have a similar scenario as to what happened recently at Eyjafjallajökull.
Aside from the disruption to Air Traffic and regional farming, the biggest concern about Eyjafjallajökull was that the event might well lead to a period of region to Global Cooling.
Fortunately, Eyjafjallajökull was too small in the grand scheme of things to cause much more than region damage to farming, livestock, drinking water and such.
However, imagine a Mount Tambora 1815 event or a 1883 Krakatoa event. Both would certainly cause a lot of catastrophe conditions, and some considerable ice melt.
What is missing from any proposed scenario, however, is that like Eyjafjallajökull, which did go off under the ice, is the amount of material thrown up in the air.
Both the Mount Tambora 1815 event and the 1883 Krakatoa event caused world wide global cooling because of the ash, gas and other materials launched into the upper atmosphere and the Jet Stream.
These events also contributed to a dramatic decrease in Northern latitude temperatures, leading to bizarre and highly destructive weather events and crop failures.
What do you think might happen if you also launch megatons of ice and snow into the upper atmosphere and the Jet Stream from the Western Antarctic region?
Yes, the water around that area may well get warmer for a few Weeks or maybe Months, but what happens a year later when the Southern Hemisphere gets years without a summer and the Indian Ocean trade winds are disrupted?
South Australia will have regular snow fall down to sea level, probably well into late October.
South Africa will become a Winter wonderland. As would most of Argentina.
Here is a world map, have a look for yourself.
Next time someone tells you that a Eyjafjallajökull or better event will lead to Ten Metre increase in sea level and massive tides, get them to do a bit of homework.
My bet is that the year after any such event, the mean ice and snow mass across the entire Antarctic would have increased by Thirty odd metres.
Unlike some others, my opinion is just based on history and previous such events.
Google the problems caused by Krakatoa or Tambora, then consider the untenable AGW position when Winter snow visits South East Queensland, the year after.
Yeah, so let’s prove AGW, once and for all, let’s all pray for a Yellowstone grade event in the Antarctic Volcanic region, leading to a World Wide Winter for half a decade or more.
Just not in my lifetime, please.
80
who is John?
21
John Robertson. Keep up with the script, please.
10
“Just not in my lifetime, please.”
My response is “In my lifetime, give natural disasters to me, I and my kids will figure out how to survive, and procreate.”
50
I enjoy using ‘lubricates’ in a sentence….”The subglacial volcano has a ‘volcanic explosion index’ of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change.”
40
JoAnne, Judith and Anthony are trying to figure things out. First step, home-tutor. Share with your kids what you know.
My first kid was deemed forgetable by his school math teachers. I took him home for the summer, “He’s head and shoulders above everyone, I don’t get it.”
My second kid was labeled “The dumbest kid in math.” After home=tutoring he got 800 on math level II on the SAT. Actually all my kid s got 800 SAT Level II maths.
That’s the way it goes.
My worst math student is sending his students to Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, Caltech and Duke. His own kids, my grandkids, will have choices.
31
There is one nice little irony I love about this. Given the massive catastrophe they say this will cause, and their consensus that it’s ‘unstoppable’ or ‘irreversible’ or at ‘a point of no return’ – well, there’s no point in any preventive measures, is there? Ignore 350.org, abandon carbon sequestration, forget wind and solar, they’ve just admitted that the only thing we can work on is adaptation.
80
Just for interest.
From the Belgian’s Princess Elisabeth East Antarctic base site these probably little known facts on East Anatarctica’s enormous ice mass.
[ quoted ]
What do you hope to measure with these [ seismic ] instruments?
Firstly, we’d like to study the properties of the lithosphere (crust) of the Antarctic continent. More specifically, we’d like to study the tectonics of the Sør Rondane Mountain region by using information provided by seismometers; This region of East Antarctica near the Princess Elisabeth station is quite interesting geologically. Towards the interior of the continent, beneath the ice sheet lies the East Antarctic Craton, which is one of the oldest pieces of the Earth’s lithosphere that hasn’t been modified by any tectonic activity since its formation about 3 billions years ago.
And then on the other side, more towards the coast, you have remnants of the Mozambique Belt, which makes up most of the eastern part of Africa today. About 500 million years ago, when the supercontinent Gondwana was forming, the south-eastern tip of Africa collided with the part of East Antarctica where the Sør Rondane Mountains are now located. This is when the Sør Rondane Mountains formed. When Gondwana began to break up about 180,000 million years ago, part of the Mozanbique Belt stayed behind, attached to the East Antarctica Craton. So basically the Sør Rondane Mountains lie along the old suture zone between Africa and East Antarctica.
As East Antarctica had a central position in the supercontinent Gondwana, which was a key period in the evolution of the Earth plate tectonics, it’s important to study the tectonics of Antarctica. The seismometers we’ve installed will provide an image of the present state of the Antarctica tectonic plate.[ / ]
&
More interestingly, we also keep track of the seismic activity related to the flow of the ice sheet. The ice sheet is 2 km thick in that part of East Antarctica, and it flows towards the coast at a rate of 350 metres a year, which creates friction against the underlying bedrock of the continent. In some areas, the friction can be more intense due to the subsurface topography of the bedrock. And by monitoring such a seismic activity, we can get a better understanding of the dynamics of the ice sheet. Long-term monitoring the variation of seismic activity of the ice sheet will help determine how stable the East Antarctic Ice Sheet in light of climate change.
Our research is one of the few research projects looking at seismic activity of the ice sheet in East Antarctica. [ / ]
50
According to peer-reviewed science papers, Greenland has been cooling since the 1940s…
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ACLIM.0000018509.74228.03
The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level, suggests a high natural variability in the regional climate.
http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~kmos/papers/B7-Science1998.pdf
The record implies that the medieval period around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present in Greenland. After the LIA, temperatures reach a maximum around 1930 A.D.; temperatures have decreased during the last decades. The results show that the temperatures in general have decreased since the CO [Holocene Thermal Maximum, 5,000 to 8,000 years ago] and that no warming in Greenland is observed in the most recent decades.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Hanna.pdf
Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958–2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change −1.29°C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea, in contrast to global warming (+0.53°C over the same period).
http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf
Meteorological station records and regional climate model output are combined to develop a continuous 168-yr (1840–2007) spatial reconstruction of monthly, seasonal, and annual mean Greenland ice sheet near-surface air temperatures. The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf
[1] We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/12/2/JEQ0120020159
Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2 increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014918/abstract
We find that the recent period of high-melt extent is similar in magnitude but, thus far, shorter in duration, than a period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s.
http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~dozier/Pubs/Chylek_2007JD008742.pdf
‘[T]he melt-day area of the western part of the ice sheet doubled between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s and that the largest ice sheet surface melting probably occurred between 1920s and 1930s,concurrent with the warming in that period.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00025
Mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet over the past decade has caused the impression that the ice sheet has been behaving anomalously to the warming of the 1990s. We have reconstructed the recent (1866–2005) surface mass-balance (SMB) history of the Greenland ice sheet… the present-day changes are not exceptional within the last 140 years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/1013.abstract
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. Averaged over the study area, the increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ∼60 cm over 11 years, or ∼54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift.
60
The Aleutian arc on the other side of the pacific ring of fire in Alaska has more than 52 active volcanoes, many of which have not been studied (or even named) despite these all being visible by satellite (ie these are only the volcanoes which are on-land and visible).
The volcanoes in west Antarctic are almost all … just NOT KNOWN. We do not know how many there are, how active, how much ice cover above them etc etc
Speculation on Glacial ice melt should never be made without careful consideration of volcanic input.
100
Jo, love your blog and hope you will consider a small suggestion.
Would it be possible for you to put the date of your posts at the top rather than the bottom? I think it would make things a little easier when trying to find the last post one has read.
00
> Interestingly, NASA had Antarctica cooling rather rapidly between the years 1981 and 2004. The below NASA image looks quite a bit different than the one in the body of this blog entry: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
Yes, that is interesting. Its also interesting that you provide the picture only, and *not* the page its embedded in. Here’s the page:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/index.html
And on that page you’ll find “Please note, these are preliminary findings and there are errors associated with these trends. Scientists are currently working on ways of minimizing these errors to more precisely determine these trends.” Or, put another way, the picture is wrong. There’s a loong discussion of this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antarctica_cooling_controversy#Satellite_pic.
19
“Scientists are currently working on ways of minimizing these errors ”
Well that’s alright then , if they can smooth over , average,sublimate and add a few proxies I,m sure it might even be a nice new hockey stick!
50
William Connolley: “Or, put another way, the picture is wrong.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
[O]ur spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.pdf
“A clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
20
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Doran et al. It was all the rage years ago. See for example http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/peter-doran-and-how-misleading-talking-points-propagate/
> “A clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance
Yes. As I said, an increase is SMB is what is expected from warming in general.
> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
Good for its time, but you need to be wary of picking old papers that happen to agree with you. That’s why we have the IPCC to synthesis the literature, which has moved on a lot since then. In particular, look at the GRACE results.
05
Joanne,
When did you hide behind that curtain ? We can hardly see you.
Was it when you reclaimed the SkS moniker, in the name of dissidents ?
I seem to have missed the occasion.
Please come out from behind the curtain and let us see the colour in your cheeks again.
Joe
01
From trolls to stalkers…
20
Joe means well.
10
That’s OK James. I can live with the charge. I’d just defer to Heissenberg , that the observation may owe more to the standpoint of the observer .
10
Joe, I thought that was Einstein – psychology isn’t a science.
10
You are right James. I was alluding to uncertainty, though more in the ‘eye of the beholder’ sense and the bias (or ‘certainty’ ) on interpretation that may come from conditioning, than on any quantum mechanical effects. Heisenberg was indeed a sloppy reference.
10
By and large, Joe, you are right on the money, if I may paraphrase – to judge others by actions of their own.
Thanks for the alternate exit.
Oh, and don’t tell BAD.
20
Oh that Heissenberg – I thought you meant his brother Carl – went to college with Freud.
Doh…
Oh yeah just googled Heissenberg – the only other time I heard his name used was as an alias of Walter White on Breaking Bad.
20
I see what you mean Joe. Why darken the image.
But JoNova looks good in any light 😉
41
But I’m not so sure about the Griss – his eyes are a bit close together, for me to trust him.
21
Hey, that’s just becos I’m cross-eyed.
How wude of you !!
21
Why are there curtains on the page header? We’re they always there ? I cannt remember.
Thanks to the WayBack Machine:-
the curtain was always there, but Jo seems to have regressed & faded, to a ghost of her former self.
Did the slogan change really go through without any helpful comment from skeptical dissenters ?
I’d find that quite implausible.
—————–
Ahem. Well spotted, ’bout two weeks ago I got tired of the old image and decided I needed a different one for a while. Yes, somehow the slogan change went unnoticed too. Cheeky eh? – Jo
10
Ahaa. I see, what you high powered Desktop dwellers may not realise: On a Smartphone (because I guess they think they are) only your flowing locks show out from behind that grey curtain (extending up from the right hand side-bar). That is so whether viewed in portrait or horizontally.
I rarely do any of my dissident browsing from anything else.btw.
It may have to be seen to be believed. I’ll send you a couple of snaps …
00
” —————–
… Yes, somehow the slogan change went unnoticed too. Cheeky eh? – Jo
”
Incredible ! While I’ve been largely otherwise occupied for most of May I’d expect my fellow dissidents to have had something to say…
… like (cant help myself) mightn’t it play just as well without the ‘dissident’ word.
Wouldn’t : ‘ Skeptical Science for thinkers ‘ say it all , about the waning comedian’s site of that name and its one time followers ?
While Dissidents have a noble tradition under tyrannical oppression of thought, in the supposedly liberated western democracies it may be misconstrued as merely suggestive of being awkward.
20
Or as Tomo’s comment on the Moon, next up, reminds: ‘Skeptical Science for inquiring minds’ (or would that be enquiring …?
10
I only requested, and not required, of that which I enquire should result in an irquiry answered.
Or something like that…
10
I’ve had an epiphany. Being that CO2 is already so damn scary and bound to cause meters of sea level rise in a few decades (heck maybe even quicker!!!!! 10 more exclamations required for effect!!!!!!!!!!) perhaps we should all build Arks in our backyards just in case we need an escape plan? …actually, for our inevitable escape plan let’s all definitely build arks because we will definitely need them.
I can’t remember what South American tribe it was, but they lived on man made reed islands and they seemed to get along ok.
How does paying bankers for carbon credits stop the exclamation mark seriousness of this all again?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did I mention it was so serious that it’s going to happen in a few decades with just the amount of CO2 we have already released!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ll bring some elephants and horses, everyone else work on the rest quickly because it is SERIOUS!!! A new REPORT has said so!!! Won’t somebody think of the children?
21
> Censorship is changing what is said to what you want it to say
No, it isn’t.
“Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship).
The essence of censorship – as practiced by Pointman, BishopHill, and WUWT – is suppression. Not re-writing. Perhaps you prefer a dictionary definition?
“Examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it:” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/censor)
You’re getting pretty desperate if you have to invent new meanings for words to try to hide your “side’s” faults.
16
It can be you
ignorantblissful person.51
Perhaps the word isn’t censorship, for trying to hijack & sidetrack the discussion, for comandeering the language trying redefine use of words to one’s own purpose, for trying to tell us what it’s really ‘about’ and other such sophist devices.
30
Do not look into the mirror.
A moron will be looking back for you.
You are certainly qualified to prattle on about censorship, rewriting history and being an arrogant tool.
Love Pointmans mockery of your Stupidity.
41
Nicely sidetracked.
20
And reads straight out of the IPCC Policy and Procedures Manual Sec 8.2.2 Catastrophe Agenda > Emergency Response > Dealing with Deniers.
51
Pointman, WUWT have every right to throw your ectoplasmic slop off their sites. Its not censorship.. its common sense.
What is truly disgusting is your wholesale destruction of Wikipedia as a valid source of information, especially in the are of climate science.
And all just to suit your putrid ego.
81
You have a hide Willy to talk about censorship.Supercilious twit!
61
Oh dear.
21
Of course assuming you are THAT William Connolly your attempting to purge Wikipedia entirely of pages related to certain sceptic scientists isn’t suppression right? However it is probably correct that in the main what is being referred to is more revisionism, which just means that you are guilty of both censorship and 1984-esk revisionism. Not a particularly bright CV there in the freedom of expression skillset William. Orwell wasn’t writing a manual you know.
Now since censorship of your view is so bad, let’s have a short discussion about Skeptical Science, Real Climate, shaping tomorrows world, and other warmist pits of blatent censorship and revisionism. Please contrast Jo, and Anthony’s moderation policies to those hives of enlightened free speech /sarc
41
” which just means that you are guilty of both censorship and 1984-esk revisionism”
I believe he wants to go into politics as a Green.!
nuff said !!
41
Why am I not surprised! Wonder if Bob Brown will donate his earthian speech to him?
20
Mattb and the WC would be fun together…
Anyone know where they can rent some clown outfits.?
21
The king of censorship trying to lecture others about what it is?
There is an easier way to recognize it. If Connolley had anything to do with it, it involved censorship. If he proclaims it censorship, you know it is not.
10
Ouch!
10
May 14, 2012; Scientific American: Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Recorded in Octopus DNA
“Researchers can compare genetic patterns of current animal populations to look back in evolutionary time to estimate when populations of animals might have split off.
These fissures are often forced by changing climatic or geographical features, such as giant sheets of ice that come and go with different glacial patterns.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet and some low Antarctic land currently separates the Weddell Sea from the Ross Sea in the Southern Ocean.
Research has suggested that this ice shelf has collapsed a number of times in the past — likely during the Pleistocene interglacial periods, most likely starting some 1.25 million years ago. This melting, along with rising sea levels, would have opened up a seawater thruway between the Weddell and Ross seas for marine life.”
. . .
10
This West-Antarctica-is-collapsing! alarmism has been going on since the 1970s.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/18-West-Antarctic-ice-sheets/nature_mercer_1978_wais.pdf
The prediction in this 1978 paper was for 1978 CO2 levels to double in 50 years (340 ppm X 2 = 680 ppm by 2028). We’re at 400 ppm, a 17% increase in 36 years, which means we’ll have to quintuple our rate of CO2 concentration rise in the next 14 years for this double-by-2028 prediction to come true.
Another prediction in this 1978 paper was that by 2028 we’d have sea level rise by 5 meters, which is 197 inches. According to the IPCC, the sea level rise rate between 1901 and 2010 was 6.7 inches per century (1.7 mm/yr). So if we divide 6.7 inches by 1/3rd of a century (1978-now), we have a grand total of just about 2.2 inches of sea level rise in the last 35 years, or since the prediction of 197 inches of sea level rise in 50 years was made. There are still 14 years left to rise by 195 inches, but as of right now the prediction is just 1/2 of 1% of the way there.
And here’s what the IPCC says in AR5:
“Ice sheet collapse: Exceptionally unlikely (0-1%) that either Greenland or West Antarctic Ice sheets will suffer near-complete disintegration (high confidence).” IPCC AR5 Chapter 12, page 80
20
Thanks Jo, I see what you mean , he is providing nothing of substance just waving his hands. If any proof of AGW was to be had he would stick it in your face. Kindest regards Wayne
[This relates to another comment I snipped. I was saying William was being helpful, because now I know there is no good reason not topoint out the volcanoes are right under the fastest warming parts of Antarctica – Jo]
20
William Connelley:
‘You’re getting pretty desperate if you have to invent new meanings for words to try to hide your “side’s” faults.’
–
Perhaps you have researched the wrong word, in respect of Pointman et al’s activities –
Wikipedia:
‘Sanitation is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with the hazards of wastes as well as the treatment and proper disposal of sewage wastewater.’
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation
–
In your distinguished services to Wikipedia, you may have become more au fait with a similar word:
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitization_(classified_information)
21
“‘You’re getting pretty desperate if you have to invent new meanings for words to try to hide your “side’s” faults.’”
I suspect he means things like “global warming” having to change to “climate change” then to “climate disruption”
.. then to whatever they do next.
And the use of “unprecedented” for things that have happened many times before
Pretty desperate indeed
41
Desperate or Obsequious.
Pavlov’s dog comes to mind, Connolley is a lazy grub, responding to a dinner bell.
He denies others the platform he demands.
I do get the feeling that he and his small cabal propagate this crap for very little gain other than a pat on the head.
If so they are still overpaid.
20
The Griss:
–
‘I suspect he means things like “global warming” having to change to “climate change” then to “climate disruption”’
🙂
🙂
🙂
–
Pal Review is, of course, a much broader concept!
20
Just found this in WUWT. One of the simplest critiques of the 4th IPCC report I have read.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf
30
> he is providing nothing of substance
Ah, you mean “Pal Review is…” or “Pavlov’s dog comes to mind…” or “Sanitation is…” or “he is providing nothing of substance just waving his hands…” or “Ouch!” or “There is an easier way to recognize…” or “Why am I not surprised!…” or…
14
WTF are you going on about, you stupid moronic drone..
Have you been at the trough candy again, perhaps ?
High on your own ego food ?
There is always plenty of it in a public WC.
21
And yes we do know that Pal Review in climate science has provided NOTHING of substance.
Sanitation is necessary for any WC, you should try it some time, and flush yourself.
51
🙂
00
I would disagree with James Bradley’s use of “Pavlov’s Dog”. The real insult of the “denier” tag is that it is meant to incite unreasonable hatred in a human being towards another for no logical reason. It shouldn’t be used as a substitute for “climate whore”.
51
William Connelley:
‘ he is providing nothing of substance …… “Sanitation is…” ‘
–
Wikipedia done it! – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation
–
🙂
10
And the skeptics win again :
00
With the link this time (hopefully)
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html#jCp
00
Its an interesting paper (but its best to read the actual paper, not the PR puff: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1405184111.full.pdf+html). It says:
“we use radar echo strengths to constrain a subglacial water routing model to estimate the pattern of basal melting and geothermal flux for the Thwaites Glacier catchment within the WAIS. The simplifying assumptions in this analysis are…”
Just to be clear: you’re happy to use the results of modelling, but only if they are “good” models, and you’ll measure “good” by whether they support your prejudices?
01
Poor CON man..
Suck it up. FOOL !!!
00
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1992.html
Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.
“Ice sheet collapse: Exceptionally unlikely (0-1%) that either Greenland or West Antarctic Ice sheets will suffer near-complete disintegration (high confidence).” IPCC AR5 Chapter 12, page 80
From this paper (below) we learn: a) the ice sheets in Greenland “survived” +5.0 C (compared to now) for thousands of years during the last interglacial 125,000 years ago; b) the Antarctic ice sheet had retreated 80 km further than it is currently during this interglacial’s warmest period (8,000 years ago); and c) all this warming and glacier melt occurred without any contribution from humans.
http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf
Recent results from the DYE 3 ice core and other sources indicate that the dome melted away, and gave way to forested mountains for the last time during marine isotope stage 11, c. 400,000 years ago. The southern dome, and of course the northern also, persisted in a reduced form during the warm Eemian interglacial (c. 125,000 years ago), when annual mean temperatures over Greenland were c. 5°C warmer than now for some millenia. During the last ice age the southeast coast of Greenland was one of the areas of major ice sheet growth, reaching the shelf edge at the last glacial maximum, c. 20,000 years ago, as shown by bathymetric studies. During the Holocene thermal maximum, c. 8,000 years ago, when annual mean temperatures were c. 2°C warmer than now for some thousands of years, modelling and GPS altimetry show that the southern dome was the most sensitive part of the ice sheet, retreating as much as 80 km behind its present front in some areas.
10
[…] Nova wondered when the original DOOOOOM story about Western Antarctica melt was released whether it could be due to volcanic activity. Surprise? […]
00