Any increase in frequency of the recent Greenland ice sheet melt means:

bobgnote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
55
We are headed, directly into Mass Extinction Event 6, to challenge for a place, among the top killers, of all geologic time.

Most of the Greenland ice sheet just melted. This hasn't happened, since 1889. No big whoop?

The Greenland ice sheet melt previous, to the 1889 melt apparently happened, in the Medieval Warm Period, so a lot of writers are claiming no trend is evident, except toward a modern warm period, which means such melts will be a lot more common, than every thousand or hundred years, but more like every couple of years, then every year, since we are at a tipping point, toward that sort of phenomenon.

Here's a skeptic site, which did notice, how Erik the Red experienced such a melt, but this site noted certain oysters are no longer living, in such northern climes, without noting how this is because CO2 IS ACIDIFYING THE OCEANS, particularly toward the poles:

http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

Between the 9th and 14th century there was a "Medieval Warm Period", when the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere reached its highest point in the past 4,000 years, which was only about 1°C higher than at present. It has been documented that during this period, American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and bay scallops (Aequipecten irradiens) formed populations as far north as Sable Island. Neither of these species exists there today. Radiocarbon dating of relict oyster and bay scallop shells compare reasonably well with the dates of the post-glacial warm period.

--------------

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25257

These guys inaccurately reported that the melt happens "every 150 years." They missed a lot. So these other guys are starting to go over all of this:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ted-absolutely-is-it-worrisome-you-bet-it-is/

--------------

What happened is the reporters of this event are now trying to figure out, how often it really has happened, in the past, but nobody reported on what happened, during the PETM extinction or the P-T extinction, which is where we are headed, from much faster GHG emissions and out-gassing, than either of these warming-related extinctions.

The oceans acidify, to badly injure the food chain, then they heat up, sea levels rise, anoxic events kill other life forms, and on the way, jellyfish take over. NS2 respirators evolve. Failure of species and families will be epic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf

----------------------

http://climatesight.org/2011/02/17/extinction-and-climate/

----------------------

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

----------------------

First up:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...an-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/

All that cold water, from melting Greenland and Arctic ice carries carbonic acid, which will make the ocean less basic, so it averages pH 8.1, when at the end of the 18th Century, it was pH 8.2. Seems like not too much, right? That is about a 30% increase, in acidity, enough to spike, at pH 7.7, so eggs, little fish, corals, and oysters DIE. The food chain can fail, from this, before the oceans heat up!

And by then, most desirable ocean species will be dead. We will be in the middle, of MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6, which will challenge the P-T extinction, for top killer, of all geologic time.
 
Werbung:
Most of the Greenland ice sheet just melted. This hasn't happened, since 1889. No big whoop?

You are kidding? Right? 1mm of water standing 2 miles of ice is hardly most of the greenland ice sheet melting and it refroze within 6 hours. You sound like a hysterical granny.

Really bob, how seriously do you expect to be taken with your handwaving hysterics claiming immient mass extinctions when you can't even name one physical law that supports or predicts the climate effects you attribute to CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses.

It has been days since I asked you to name such a physical law and to date, you have been unable to deliver. If you can't even provide foundational science to support your claims, why are you engaged in the debate?

We aren't headed for any mass extinction but if you believe it is so, feel free to pray to your earth mother god for deliverance.
 
^ Palerider: You've been carrying the ball like a Pro' on this issue! I'm especially impressed with your knowledge of the actual "warming" claims being made by the left. I've tended to stay away from the question of whether global-warming is or is not really happening because there's so much disinformation out there. I prefer to stick to discussing the enormity of variables involved to conduct serious analyses of the big-picture, the potential threat if any, the effect or lack thereof of human behavior on warming, leftist-proposed solutions, and the potential costs and benefits of leftist-proposed projects. The data doesn't exist to do all that, nor is their a simulation model capable of analyzing the universe of variables that would need to be included. Nevertheless, the left continually screams for action Now! :confused:

Thanks for your posts on this!
 
^ Palerider: You've been carrying the ball like a Pro' on this issue! I'm especially impressed with your knowledge of the actual "warming" claims being made by the left. I've tended to stay away from the question of whether global-warming is or is not really happening because there's so much disinformation out there. I prefer to stick to discussing the enormity of variables involved to conduct serious analyses of the big-picture, the potential threat if any, the effect or lack thereof of human behavior on warming, leftist-proposed solutions, and the potential costs and benefits of leftist-proposed projects. The data doesn't exist to do all that, nor is their a simulation model capable of analyzing the universe of variables that would need to be included. Nevertheless, the left continually screams for action Now! :confused:

Thanks for your posts on this!

Thanks. You are correct in that there really is no actual argument to be made regarding warming because the truth is that we aren't sure, at any given time whether the earth is warming or cooling or doing both. The idea of a global mean temperature is idiotic at best but alas, that is what the other side, in an attempt to create a crisis has handed us. If you ask the various agencies promoting the AGW hoax what the actual global mean is, they vary wildly from 14.5C to 16.0C.

How credible can warmist claims of temperature increases per decade that range from tenths of a degree, to hundredths, to even thousanths in some cases when there is a 2.5 degree spread among them on what the global mean is today? The whole thing is a crock and would be absolutely laughable if it weren't for the fact that there are people in power who are prepared to do immeasurable damage to the global economy because they lack the basic education required to see through these charlatans.
 
If you actually read my post, you'd see I am considering any near future Greenland sheet ice melts as evidence, of passing a tipping point. You don't understand tipping points, and you aren't asking questions, about this.

If you actually paid attention to any of my posts, rider, you would admit I claim back-radiation is happening, but you apparently don't believe in back-radiation OR open atmospheric greenhouse effect, based on behavior, of proliferation of molecules, with three atoms, or more.

You provided a non-scientific website and an experiment, to test 2nd Law of Physics phenomena, which doesn't disprove back-radiation. Your posse ranted and posted troll-scat.

We are already suffering extinctions, past 100 x normal, see links, above. We will suffer Mass Extinction Event 6, by any reasonable projection, of modern outcomes. Do you have any REAL questions? I don't see any scientific method, at this site, worth a lot of replies.

If the problem of melts proliferates, more cold water will bring relative acidity, to more eggs, little fish, corals, and oysters, which will affect the ocean's food chain. Oyster die-offs now happen, as cold upwellings disturb shell formation, of oyster larvae. You may have noticed cod aren't recovering, and bluefin tuna are now threatened. Heard of FISH?

I guess fish aren't troll chow.
 
temperature-vs-co2-vs-sunspots.gif



See what is happening, basically?

Sunspots are a good solar measurement, reflecting intensity, while temperature and CO2 speak for themselves. If we add CH4, we could show how other GHGs are related to TIPPING POINTS, since these are critical, and Heartland-brand trolls don't read TIPPING POINT, unless you capitalize this.

CO2 always accompanies temperature, to act as a general forcer, or hey! You can be superstitious, and claim no greenhouse effect exists, like you are one of Heartland's finest trolls. But you also need to know Heartland fund source Koch Brothers funded a study, by Richard Muller, which found global warming is happening, and the science behind this is valid.

That science included the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

Since recent sunspot cycles are mild, TSI is not increasing. Since a lot of ice is melting, average global temperatures should be FALLING, from heat exchange, which is not replenished, by solar radiance, but the GREENHOUSE EFFECT, powered by IR back-radiation is causing average global temperatures to RISE, so a thousands of high-temp records are falling.

In fact, solar intensity decreased, in 1889, in certain ways. That year was the last time the Greenland ice sheet melted, over its entire surface.

No matter how much you deny what is happening, CO2 concentration led the PETM and P-T extinctions, particularly when CH4 out-gassing exacerbated the GREENHOUSE EFFECT. We are out-gassing CO2 and CH4, faster than either of those critical extinctions.

Do you have any LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS? Your science is just a load of Heartland-brand paste.
 
If the problem of melts proliferates, more cold water will bring relative acidity, to more eggs, little fish, corals, and oysters, which will affect the ocean's food chain. Oyster die-offs now happen, as cold upwellings disturb shell formation, of oyster larvae. You may have noticed cod aren't recovering, and bluefin tuna are now threatened. Heard of FISH?

I guess fish aren't troll chow.

Bob, I admit that I don't have a clue whether warming is or isn't occuring. Let me accept everything you've said about it so far for the purpose of discussion. You obviously see global warming as real and as dangerous? You mentioned at least one historical reference to the same kind of phenomena happening. I'm assuming you believe that global warming has occured in the past. If such warming in the past happend at a time well before the industrial revolution, I assume your position is that human behavior alone (or to a great extent) isn't responsible for the present warming? Let me ask a few questions of you.

If I've correctly described your position, (1) what if anything can be done to reverse the present warming? (2) What would be the effect of each of your proposed solutions on global warming? (3) Would those effects be sufficient to offset all of the warming, and if not, would they be sufficient to eliminate the dangers you say would occur? (4) Any clue what your proposed solutions would cost us? (5) Do your answers to my preceding questions assume that India and China will or will not adopt your proposed solutions? Thank you.
 
If you actually read my post, you'd see I am considering any near future Greenland sheet ice melts as evidence, of passing a tipping point. You don't understand tipping points, and you aren't asking questions, about this.

Neither do you understand tipping points, nor neither does climate science understand tipping points. They are hypothetical constructs without the slightest shred of actual evidence for support. They are fear mongering at its worst.

If you actually paid attention to any of my posts, rider, you would admit I claim back-radiation is happening, but you apparently don't believe in back-radiation OR open atmospheric greenhouse effect, based on behavior, of proliferation of molecules, with three atoms, or more.

Backradition, if you think it is happening is entirely a matter of belief. Belief in the face of physical laws that state explictly that it can not happen. For me backradiation belongs in the realm of the tooth fairy, elves, and hobbits. For ther to be a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science, one must "believe" in backradiation which clearly can not happen if you place any creedence at all in the physical laws.

Are you familiar with solar ovens? Parabolic dishes that when pointed at the sun get very hot very quickly and focus the sun to a small point which can be used to heat water rapidly? If you like, I can point you to a web site that will provide you plans to build one very cheaply (less than 25 dollars). A solar oven can provide observable, repeatable proof that backradiation is not happening. I have done the experiment numerous times with scout troops and school groups.

You place a thermometer at the focal point in your solar oven and point it at a clear sky away from the sun. Watch the thermometer. During the day, the temperature will drop between 3 and 5 degrees precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. If backradiation were happening, as you believe, the backradiation would be directed to the focal point and the temperature would increase by some small degree. If you point your solar oven into a clear night sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less, but above freezing, you can, as the second law of thermodynamics predicts, cause ice to form in a cup placed at the focal point in the solar oven. ICE forming when the temperature is as high as 45 degrees. Climate science describes backradiation as a phenomenon that happens 24 hours a day. If there were backradiation sufficient to warm the surface of the earth, how might ice form in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics when the ambient temperature is more than 10 degrees above the freezing point?

The fact bob, is that there is no such thing as backradiation and the belief in it is a matter of faith, not science.

You provided a non-scientific website and an experiment, to test 2nd Law of Physics phenomena, which doesn't disprove back-radiation. Your posse ranted and posted troll-scat.

Actually, I provided you with a perfectly acceptable scientific web site, and a reproduction of an experiment which disproves the quaint 19th century experiment upon which most of modern climate science is based. And the experiment was never intended to disprove backradiation, it was intended to prove that the glass in a greenhouse is not trapping IR radiation but merely preventing convection and conduction. The laws of physics disprove backradiation, but if that isn't good enough for you, the above experiment with a solar oven will provide you with actual observable, repeatable evidence that backradiation is not happening.

We are already suffering extinctions, past 100 x normal, see links, above. We will suffer Mass Extinction Event 6, by any reasonable projection, of modern outcomes. Do you have any REAL questions? I don't see any scientific method, at this site, worth a lot of replies.

Absolute malarky. How many species extinctions can you point to that are due to climate change. Do provide credible links.

If the problem of melts proliferates, more cold water will bring relative acidity, to more eggs, little fish, corals, and oysters, which will affect the ocean's food chain. Oyster die-offs now happen, as cold upwellings disturb shell formation, of oyster larvae. You may have noticed cod aren't recovering, and bluefin tuna are now threatened. Heard of FISH?

Since most of the present species in the oceans evolved at a time when atmospheric CO2 was several orders of magnitude greater than the present, there is nothing to worry about. As to the upwellings from the deep oceans, acidity isn't the problem but rather a lack of oxygen which is in no way due to climate change. Your oyster example is just not valid as you are describing problems farmers are having trying to grow a non native species presumably in the northwest as that has been recently in the news. The "upwellings" you describe are having no ill effect on the native species, but are causing problems with the non native speices that are being farmed in the region.

Scaremongering is not science.
 
By the way bob, the bluefin stocks are threatened because of mismanagement and overfishing.....nothing whatsoever to do with climate change at all. Yet more baseless fear mongering on your part.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bluefin-tuna-stocks-threatened-cites-japan-monaco

CLIP:
Scientists and conservationists have long warned that bluefin stocks in the eastern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea are facing imminent collapse after years of mismanagement by ICCAT. Stocks in the Gulf of Mexico and West Atlantic have already declined so significantly that U.S. and Canadian fleets routinely fail to even meet their annual ICCAT catch quota, while catch limits are routinely ignored and wildly exceeded by European and Japanese vessels.

Studies cited in the Monaco proposal report that Atlantic bluefin stocks have fallen by about 75 percent from 1957 to 2007, with 60 percent of that loss occurring in just the past 10 years as overfishing has accelerated. Scientists warn that continuing to fish the bluefin at current levels will push the population to 94 percent below the size it was before commercial exploitation began, effectively collapsing the fishery and putting some populations at risk of extinction.

I think that if you take time to do just a bit of research, you will find that all such threatened species are due to causes other than climate change.
 
By the way bob, the bluefin stocks are threatened because of mismanagement and overfishing.....nothing whatsoever to do with climate change at all. Yet more baseless fear mongering on your part.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bluefin-tuna-stocks-threatened-cites-japan-monaco

CLIP:
Scientists and conservationists have long warned that bluefin stocks in the eastern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea are facing imminent collapse after years of mismanagement by ICCAT. Stocks in the Gulf of Mexico and West Atlantic have already declined so significantly that U.S. and Canadian fleets routinely fail to even meet their annual ICCAT catch quota, while catch limits are routinely ignored and wildly exceeded by European and Japanese vessels.

Studies cited in the Monaco proposal report that Atlantic bluefin stocks have fallen by about 75 percent from 1957 to 2007, with 60 percent of that loss occurring in just the past 10 years as overfishing has accelerated. Scientists warn that continuing to fish the bluefin at current levels will push the population to 94 percent below the size it was before commercial exploitation began, effectively collapsing the fishery and putting some populations at risk of extinction.

I think that if you take time to do just a bit of research, you will find that all such threatened species are due to causes other than climate change.


Bob must be deflated since the air is being let our of all his sacred cows balloons.
 
Bob must be deflated since the air is being let our of all his sacred cows balloons.

You know, the really sad thing here is that I believe that people like bob actually believe a great deal of what they say. He sounds like he is absolutely convinced and really doesn't realise that he is really absolutely duped. The people who have convinced bob and people like bob that the earth is headed for some crisis and man is to blame are the exact same sort of people who assumed the role of shamen and high priests in more primitive times using knowledge that the average joe didn't have in order to extract obedience and sacrifice. When the hoax finally comes crashing down, and it most certainly will, I can only hope that those responsible for it are brought to justice and made to admit openly to bob and those like him what they did and the reasons they did it.
 
You know, the really sad thing here is that I believe that people like bob actually believe a great deal of what they say. He sounds like he is absolutely convinced and really doesn't realise that he is really absolutely duped. The people who have convinced bob and people like bob that the earth is headed for some crisis and man is to blame are the exact same sort of people who assumed the role of shamen and high priests in more primitive times using knowledge that the average joe didn't have in order to extract obedience and sacrifice. When the hoax finally comes crashing down, and it most certainly will, I can only hope that those responsible for it are brought to justice and made to admit openly to bob and those like him what they did and the reasons they did it.


its pretty obvious he really doesn't understand any of what he cuts and pastes so as long as some "scientist" said it, and more importantly that it supports his fascination with mass die offs (and under the influence of the "hemp" he's so enamored of) that all it takes.

I'm thinking high school.
 
Bob, I admit that I don't have a clue whether warming is or isn't occuring. Let me accept everything you've said about it so far for the purpose of discussion. You obviously see global warming as real and as dangerous? You mentioned at least one historical reference to the same kind of phenomena happening. I'm assuming you believe that global warming has occured in the past. If such warming in the past happend at a time well before the industrial revolution, I assume your position is that human behavior alone (or to a great extent) isn't responsible for the present warming? Let me ask a few questions of you.

If I've correctly described your position, (1) what if anything can be done to reverse the present warming? (2) What would be the effect of each of your proposed solutions on global warming? (3) Would those effects be sufficient to offset all of the warming, and if not, would they be sufficient to eliminate the dangers you say would occur? (4) Any clue what your proposed solutions would cost us? (5) Do your answers to my preceding questions assume that India and China will or will not adopt your proposed solutions? Thank you.

1. Radical re-greening, of all deserts and polluted areas, with immediate development of CO2-neutral biomass are the only remedies, where no relief will serve. If we simply stopped all human emissions, we'd still suffer warming and climate change, since we've already cut forests, to a sufficient degree that will allow warming, and pine beetles and other pests are chipping in, with more chainsaw work, to cause nasty damage, to CO2 respiration. We'll need genetic engineering, or we'll fail, to get past climate change.

2. We will see a gradual improvement. We already have enough CO2 and CH4 out-gassing, from warming lands and waters, to hurtle us toward a PETM extinction, even if we re-green. But if we re-green, and we don't drop any nukes or screw up, with domestic nuclear power, we won't end up like most ocean species or 7 of 10 land species, by the end of the P-T extinction, the leading killer, of all geologic time.

3. CO2 and CH4 are shooting up, in concentration. We can only try, to maximize our leverage, and we can minimize damage, to decelerate the warming and climate change. But now that climate change is underway, we will get whacked, some. For instance, there is a 50-year lag, in re-surfacing, of ocean water, which absorbed the CO2, the last time it was at the surface. Of course, this is a circulation EFFECT, but in 50 years, the water at the surface now will have absorbed CO2, exchanged H2CO3 and CaCO3, and then it will come back up. So any oceanic acidification events 50 years from now will reflect, how CO2 was 400 ppm, in the atmosphere.

4. The better question is what will be the cost, of inaction? We will suffer a profound human die-off, at some point. So we will have to research, cleverly, and move, decisively. Of course, we can't do THAT, when idiots devised an invasion of Palestine, by the middle of the industrial revolution, to gratify their lust, for Crusades and for profiteering, at violating the US Constitution and statutes. We will have to SAVE and reapply funding, by cutting wars, of all types, especially the drug war, which prevents use of hemp, as a resource. War has a carbon footprint. We should cut religion, to save sectarian carbon consumption. And for sure, we have to quit supporting Israel, which is only looking for trouble, while the US supports its war machine and guarantees its oil supply. Got a problem, with religious states? Not until 1882, when the first Zionists migrated, from Britain, to Palestine, which started sectarian insurgencies, since 1886. Cut carbon consumption, get resources.

5. The US exports trouble and sequestered carbon consumption. It isn't Alien Global Warming, dude. The US has to quit borrowing, from China and Russia and Japan, to export the drug war, while keeping hemp out of the world energy market, despite having now drought-affected lands, which may have to grow switchgrass, since switchgrass will grow, on semi-arable land. Algae and switchgrass also have to enter the global energy market, and since the US is an importer of petroleum, the US has to man up and get out of the prison industry business, reapply funding, and show India and China the way, or leave them be. The BRICS nations are going to get their own bank, anyway, since the US is seen to be an anal, fading world superpower, burning out, rather than wisely fading away. See Henry Ford's 1941 hemp plastic car, on YouTube? Look at the vid, with a guy sledging the fender. You can't do THAT, to a Corvette, can you. Ford was making ethanol and plastic, from hemp, since the Model T. We can't catch up with Henry, if we have to keep feeding the PIGS.

The US does not get to pig the rest of the world, indefinitely. Remember, we are burning OUT. We are not fading away. Get a clue, about that. With a clue, we can win. Without, we lose.
 
Werbung:
If I've correctly described your position, (1) what if anything can be done to reverse the present warming?

Moreover, the singular approach of carbon credits is a nuisance. The usual Democratic Party rant, at the end of whatever they believe will happen is to propose CARBON CREDIT systems, which are wasteful, and they don't increase resources. They can increase funding, but who will apply that funding, and how?

Better is to SAVE, by ending the drug and other wars, and then apply funding, to re-green deserts and polluted areas, while implementing aggressive, CO2-neutral biomass.

Attacking the already deadly global warming-climate change problem by partial media of any kind will fail.

Al Gore failing to legalize pot or endorse this, for his entire political career, and then to sell a book and a movie, while endorsing carbon credits is like being confronted, with the HIV epidemic, while bath-houses are still open, but instead of closing the nuisance, Al Gore and black Obamney would increase price of admission, and maybe they would admonish the boys, to stop shooting so much darned methamphetamines and banging each other, without condoms, but Al Gore and black Obamney don't intend to stop the problem, here.

They just intend to screw around, with the problem. So we are stuck, with a problem. And the planet can get sick, to end up like an HIV patient, on sickening drugs, needing a lifestyle the sick planet cannot afford, etc.

Maybe Al and black Obamney should get married, but black Obamney looks like he'll take the swing states, which Al couldn't completely do, in 2000. Black Obamney has promised, in 2008, 2010, and 2012, to prioritize climate change, but does black Obamney copy white Obamneycare and LEAD THE NATION? Noooooo!

He copies, he hedges, he geeks, he goofs. And MAYBE he will prioritize climate change, before the Earth has virtual HIV.
 
Back
Top