It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D



There are of course interactions all the way through, it isn't passively separably additive, and that's why you need radiative transfer models.

8K global warming from CO2 comprising only 4% of the total greenhouse by volume is inconsistent with the total greenhouse being responsible for only 33K of global warming overall. I think the estimates of which the article speak must be wrong. Why would the greenhouse effect of H2O increase to maintain an overall greenhouse factor of 1/3? That would imply an increase of the individual H2O molecules’ ability to absorb IR-radiation from the surface, wouldn’t it? But such an effect would be unprecedented in physics.






Some of the water is in the atmosphere because of warming from other long-lived greenhouse gases.

Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas that is produced by the evaporation of surface water and that evaporation occurs due to various causes, not just by the radiance from atmospheric CO2. It is therefore as much a primary forcing in its own right as CO2 and is not just a feedback to CO2. Indeed, it is not a direct feedback to CO2 at all, since its mean atmospheric concentration is affected by other factors besides CO2 as well, such as condensation rates, precipitation rates, air-temperature, air-pressure and so on.


True, and so?






Is Venus powered by nuclear fusion?

If we try to imagine what alternative sources of that amount of power at the Venus’ surface there might be, what can you think of? The heat emanating from the interior? Adiabatic heating? Volcanism? Adiabatic heating seems like the most likely explanation to me as I explain on my blog here: chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk...


Explain the supposed heat flux of 4x energy coming out than in from the Sun?



A simple calculation is wrong or misleading in this case

My argument (which was first proposed in this thread by Yavanna) is simple, and you have not shown that it is wrong and you have no grounds for calling it misleading. It meets the two standard criteria of Occam’s Razor, namely necessity and sufficiency, to prove my claim. And my assumptions are not misleading. They are standard basic assumptions that the climate science community claims to have accepted commonly already. My assumptions are stated explicitly in my argument but let me remind readers of what they are again. 1. CO2 currently comprises less 4% (by volume) of the whole atmospheric greenhouse with other greenhouse gases such as methane existing in negligible trance amounts.


2. The overall atmospheric greenhouse is responsible for raising the mean global temperature by 33K above the earth’s black-body temperature. Water vapour is thought to be more potent than CO2 as it absorbs radiation over a far wider energy-wave spectrum but let us pretend for purposes of calculation that the greenhouse potencies of all of the gases are equal.


That's not correct.


Then the maximum possible greenhouse effect of 4% CO2 in relation to that of the whole greenhouse would be 4% of about 33K and that comes out 1.2K.


If you make an incorrect assumption, the consequences are also incorrect. Why not consider all the nitrogen?


Now this 1.2K is a small amount of global warming in itself, but it is only an estimate of the maximum amount of warming by the atmospheric CO2 that is theoretically possible and this estimate is based on two unrealistically favorable assumptions, namely: i. That CO2’s greenhouse potency is as great as that of each of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere when we know it is not; ii.


In truth CO2 is less potent per molecule than a number of others.


That increments of heat-energy due to the greenhouse effect produce corresponding increments of the global mean temperature in a linear manner when we know full well that they do not and that they produce temperature increments in proportion to their fourth root power in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Yes, but it's even more complicated, and you need the models to predict what actually happens if you want to get the numbers right.


For these two reasons the actual amount of global warming produced by the entire atmospheric CO2 is bound to be considerably less than 1.2K, although we cannot estimate its true value with the information at hand. Nevertheless, 1.2K is of course still a drastically smaller amount of global warming than the 8K that the computer models assert that atmospheric CO2 is responsible.


And why would this caveat apply to CO2 and not to other greenhouse gasses?

Your argument is that you don't believe the more complicated models of calibrated quantitative physics, because you don't like them, and then make assertions from over-simplified untrue assumptions.




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel



Your argument is that you don't believe the more complicated models of calibrated quantitative physics, because you don't like them, and then make assertions from over-simplified untrue assumptions.

No. My argument is that the enhanced greenhouse effect as advocated by the IPCC is irrational and void of any theoretical justification as I have already pointed out to you. That the hypothesised ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ can be ‘modelled’ on a computer does not mean that it relates in any meaningful way to the real world. The essential difference between the post-normal pseudoscience that your favourite government agencies are all spinning as ‘climate science’ for public consumption on the one hand and genuine, real science on the other is that whereas the propositions of your post-normal ‘climate science’ are merely the unquestionable dogma of defined ‘experts’, the propositions of genuine science are demonstrable to and checkable by every individual who wants to check them for himself. Hence post-normal ‘climate science’ is totally unaccountable and ultimately unknowable to the lay populace whereas real, genuine science is fully accountable and completely knowable to it. To summarise, the warmists have presented a case that does not square with accepted physics and whose most basic claims and predictions are untestable and unaccountable, at least as far as the general public is concerned since their models are not open to any independent testing. That is not how science works.




Yes, but it's even more complicated, and you need the models to predict what actually happens if you want to get the numbers right.

Not so. They could easily determine whether or not there is any real cause for worry by measuring the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) In-coming/Out-going radiation imbalance on CO2 absorption wavelengths, since this gives a direct measure of the absolute greenhouse effect from CO2. (Likewise for other greenhouse gases.) However, as far as I have been able to make out, no-one has ever done this. Warmists claim to have done it but when you investigate the methods they used you find that they only calculated it from models instead of observing it instrumentally.




In truth CO2 is less potent per molecule than a number of others

Water-vapour and methane are thought to be a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but for the purposes of argument and in order to give CO2 the benefit of any doubt, I assumed that CO2 and water-vapour are equal in potency.



Why not consider all the nitrogen?

The greenhouse effect from nitrogen is considered negligible and would not have a significant knock-on effect on the calculation. There is also a variety other factors that would influence the amount of back-radiation from CO2 back to the surface, such as the ‘shadowing’ of the CO2 molecules by molecules of other IR-absorbant gases like water vapour, aerosols and clouds. However, since all of these factors act only in such a way as to reduce the net amount of RF reaching the surface, our calculation for the maximum possible RF is unaffected by them. As far as I am presently aware there are no other factors or influences that could possibly cause the RF back-radiance from atmospheric CO2 to be increased appreciably beyond the amount determined by the calculation that I have presented, except perhaps for the unproven possibility of positive feedbacks.



That's not correct.

Cogent counterargument, I must say.



Explain the supposed heat flux of 4x energy coming out than in from the Sun?

You lost me here.



True, and so?

It means that water vapour is a forcing in its own right and does not have to be a feedback to increasing CO2 concentrations as is often claimed (the non-appearance of the tropospheric ‘hotspot’ would support this notion).
edit on 4-8-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
There is another way we can demonstrate the impotency of CO2 and is based entirely on the IPCC’s own data and assumes that the IPCC’s data is correct. The result is somewhat different from the previous calculation but the warming from CO2 is still negligible. The argument is as follows:

The IPCC estimate that doubling the CO2 concentration is sufficient to increase the global temperature by about 3C by 2080/2100. We can calculate the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 using the IPCC’s own figures and see if the claim of a 3C increase is justifiable. First, we need to calculate the RF produced by a doubling of CO2. Apparently the IPCC use the following equation to calculate this: ΔRF = 5.35xLn(C1/C0). Where C1 is the final CO2 concentration, C0 is the reference CO2 concentration, Ln is the natural logarithm of, and ΔRF stands for increment of radiative forcing. If we accept it for argument’s sake we can calculate the amount of RF that the IPCC say CO2 would have. A doubling of 400ppmv is 800ppmv. Slotting those values into C1 and C0 gives us a net-anthropogenic RF of: ΔRF = 5.35xLn(780/390) = 3.7W/sq.m. Now that we know the RF from a doubling of CO2 we can calculate how much radiation-enhancement this contributes to the overall greenhouse. According to Kevin Trenberth (lead IPCC author) the greenhouse back-radiation from all sources amounts to 333W/sq.m (Trenberth 2008: Earth’s Global Energy Budget).

Therefore the anthropogenic contribution from a doubling of CO2 to the entire planetary greenhouse amounts to an inconsequential 1% (i.e. 3.7/333). To calculate the resultant temperature increase we must first calculate the temperature of the Earth without a greenhouse. The effective blackbody temperature of the Earth (i.e. the assumed temperature of the planet without a greenhouse) is conventionally calculated with the following equation: T = [(L) (1 - A) (R)^2//4σ (D)^2]^1/4. Where L is the luminosity of the Sun (6.32x10^7W/sq.m), A is the albedo of Earth (0.3), R is the radius of the Sun (6.96x10^8m), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and D is the distance from Earth to the Sun (1.496x10^11m). Slotting the values into the equation gives us an effective temperature of: T = [(6.32x10^7) (1-0.3) (6.96x10^8)^2//4σ (1.496x10^11)^2]^0.25 = 254.902K = 255K.

Because the Earth’s blackbody temperature is 255K and its average surface temperature is 288K it is suggested that the temperature difference of 33K is due to the greenhouse. This implies that the greenhouse back-radiation of 333W/sq.m from all sources (as calculated by Trenberth) is sufficient to increase the global mean surface temperature of the Earth by 33K above its blackbody temperature of -18K*. Hence this gives us a linear relationship between ΔT (at the surface) and ΔRF (by the atmospheric greenhouse) of 0.1K per 1W/sq.m (i.e. 33/333). Therefore the RF of 3.7W/sq.m produced by a doubling of CO2 by 2080/2100 is sufficient to increase the global mean surface temperature by 0.37K. This calculation assumes that the relationship between ΔT and ΔRF is linearly proportional, which it isn’t. The Stefan-Boltzmann law governs the relationship between radiation and temperature and the law deems that the absolute temperature of a body will increase according to the 4th-root of radiation that is warming it. When the Stefan-Boltzmann law is taken into account the effect is to reduce the size of the possible human component to 0.31K. However we do not need to bother with this small adjustment and can simply conclude that the total global warming on a doubling of CO2 must be no more than 0.37K.

We must now take into account the hypothesised positive feedbacks. The IPCC have a second feedback equation for this (as before, it may not be correct): ΔT = λxΔF. Where ΔT is the temperature increase, λ is the climate sensitivity parameter (a typical value is about 0.8, occasionally referred to as the ‘Hansen Factor’) and ΔF is the radiance from CO2. The IPCC’s second formula takes the radiance from CO2 and converts it into a corresponding temperature increase. The increase in surface temperature of 0.37K from CO2 corresponds to a radiance of 2W/sq.m at the mean surface temperature of 288K by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The IPCC’s second formula tells us that the new temperature achieved after feedbacks have occurred should be as follows: ΔT = λxΔRF = 0.8x2 = 1.6K. Hence the amplification-factor implied by the IPCC’s formula is about 4. So, based on the IPCC’s own figures we should get a benign warming of just 1.6K and CO2’s direct effect can be no more than 0.37K. Clearly this figure is less than the IPCC’s model-generated figure of 3K. So to my mind, the IPCC’s claim that unchecked human CO2 emissions will cause 3K of global warming by 2080/2100 is a gross exaggeration that contradicts the implications of its own “science”.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You call that "debunking"?

Oh my, do you have such broad definitions.

I suppose you could call conversing "debunking".



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
Hence if CO2 is emitting more radiation on its wavelengths to the surface, then by definition, it must also be doing the same to space.

Exactly! And what's in space? Satellites.

Them registering a decline in such radiations is thus inconsistent with AGW theory.


edit on 4-8-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You call that "debunking"?

Oh my, do you have such broad definitions.

I suppose you could call conversing "debunking".


Whatever you want to call it, I'm still waiting for you to address the points I made.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. You don't get it: I don't want to address the points you made, because your points are anecdotical at most - you propose no grounds for an actual scientific discussion, you just want to sling mud at those who do not have faith in AGW. You want to "debunk" me, you like to claim many things about science, but truth is, you don't know pellet about the actual science behind climate. Any discussions with you in this thread are not productive.

The minute you actually find ground for scientific debate, the minute you make points about things such as the forcing effect of water, the greenhouse band radiations, the inequalities between energy input and output, then I will bring these points much address.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D


Hence the amplification-factor implied by the IPCC’s formula is about 4. So, based on the IPCC’s own figures we should get a benign warming of just 1.6K and CO2’s direct effect can be no more than 0.37K. Clearly this figure is less than the IPCC’s model-generated figure of 3K. So to my mind, the IPCC’s claim that unchecked human CO2 emissions will cause 3K of global warming by 2080/2100 is a gross exaggeration that contradicts the implications of its own “science”.

This might explain why most AGW models predictions were way too high relative to observed trend.

Also, I would like to submit another point on the topic of CO2, and this concerns its measurement. Form NOAA:


The most important aspect of the measurements is the ongoing calibrations. Air flows continually through the instrument, after having first been dried in a cold trap where the water vapor freezes out as ice on the walls. Unfortunately, the absorption that we measure in the cell does not depend on the CO2 mole fraction, but on the total amount of CO2 in the cell. Therefore, we either have to extremely accurately control the temperature and pressure in the cell, as well as the flow rate, or we can control them less accurately while using frequent calibrations of the instrument with reference gas mixtures of CO2-in-dry-air spanning the expected range of the measurements.


www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Food for thought.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D
Nice effort, however when you start with faulty assumptions you get faulty results. Junk in = junk out.

It will be interesting to see what mbkennel has to say.


The reality is, if your oversimplified calculations are remotely close to being correct, don't you think this would be addressed by the world's leading scientists.

Tonight I may have time to get in front of a computer to research and plug numbers in to figure out what you have not accounted for.

Let me reiterate that if your calculations are remotely close and CO2 doubling leads to insignificant warming, then there would not be an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the AGW theory is valid and CO2 is a major player.

edit on 4-8-2015 by jrod because: cell phone

edit on 4-8-2015 by jrod because: h



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. You don't get it: I don't want to address the points you made, because your points are anecdotical at most - you propose no grounds for an actual scientific discussion, you just want to sling mud at those who do not have faith in AGW. You want to "debunk" me, you like to claim many things about science, but truth is, you don't know pellet about the actual science behind climate. Any discussions with you in this thread are not productive.


If you think my points are anecdotal then you don't know what an anecdote is. I didn't offer any stories to support my viewpoints. I refuted your points by discussing why your points were flawed. You demanded that I address your sources, I do, and now you pretend like my responses weren't good enough for your imagined standards that a responder should use and are trying to ignore me. I call that a double standard.


The minute you actually find ground for scientific debate, the minute you make points about things such as the forcing effect of water, the greenhouse band radiations, the inequalities between energy input and output, then I will bring these points much address.


You haven't offered a scientific debate in the first place. Not a SINGLE piece of evidence you posted was a scientific journal. Your evidence is just mostly old and outdated NASA articles making arguments on why their models of the day are flawed. Then you use traditional science denialism masked with pseudo-science speak to try to make an argument about why this out-dated data and data collection methods disprove climate change. You can argue differently all you want, but its true. Besides if you were looking for REAL scientific discussion, coming to ATS to do it is probably the last place you should be doing so. So spare me your crap about wanting a REAL scientific debate.

All you've successfully told me is that you don't know how to refute my points.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
a reply to: mbkennel



Your argument is that you don't believe the more complicated models of calibrated quantitative physics, because you don't like them, and then make assertions from over-simplified untrue assumptions.

No. My argument is that the enhanced greenhouse effect as advocated by the IPCC is irrational and void of any theoretical justification as I have already pointed out to you. That the hypothesised ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ can be ‘modelled’ on a computer does not mean that it relates in any meaningful way to the real world.


What are you talking about, the radiative transfer, or complex climate feedbacks governing sensitivity?

The radiative transfer is extremely secure and quantitatively validated.

judithcurry.com...

For example, one primary work with > 2400 citations.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

The idea that this science is somehow done secretly in the dark with made up results is prima facie preposterous. There is a very deep chain of open, published research.

I will take Journal of Geophysics Research over a 30 minute back of the envelope calculation.

The climate models governing sensitivity with all the various additional physical effects over decades, ocean and atmospheric changes, clouds, biology, etc---yes of course there is less certainty there and that's why science has a significant "error bar" on the best estimate. But these effects are real and there is extensive experimental and theoretical work making the models increasingly more realistic and calibrated to observations.

edit on 4-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Nathan-D
Hence if CO2 is emitting more radiation on its wavelengths to the surface, then by definition, it must also be doing the same to space.

Exactly! And what's in space? Satellites.

Them registering a decline in such radiations is thus inconsistent with AGW theory.



This is monty python logic.



Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word)
If...she...weighs the same as a duck......she's made of wood.
B: and therefore...

(pause)

Villager: A Witch!


You seriously think that the scientists have missed this supposed whopper of a "gotcha" all these years? And somebody on the internet just figured out the scam? Climatologists Hate This One Weird Trick!?

Really?

OK, I'm not an expert here but even this can be figured out in a moment. Satellites can look at the atmosphere in different ways.

One way would be to look DOWN at the Earth, through the atmosphere. Then what is observed is the EM radiation from heat emitted by the surface (broadband), intersected by various layers of atmosphere which scatter in different wavelengths depending on their molecular properties. And if you look here, then yes, you see a decrease (absorption) relative to the less scattering case, became more of the infrared flux coming from the surface (not interacting with greenhouse gases) will interact with the atmosphere more strongly and be scattered in directions other than the one going straight into the camera. Absorption lines.

Another way would be to look through the atmosphere, "sideways", from orbit, so that behind the atmosphere is black space. And of course, here you would see more scattered infrared the more greenhouse gas, because more of the infrared going up from the surface will be scattered sideways into the satellite's instruments, compared to going upward out into space as it would without an atmosphere. Emission lines.

Absorption lines & emission lines come from the same physics!


edit on 4-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Science now a days is all about who funds the study and overall bills

That is why we keep having conflicting data

My brother is a university prof and we fight all the time

Greg



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greg987

That is not science.....

You guys keep repeating this while ignoring the fact(threads exists on ATS) that giant oil companies pay people to distort the facts about climate change and mislead the public away from what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us about climate change, man's role, and possible consequences.

If the general public was aware of what was really going on, then we would demand and end to our addiction to fossil fuels.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ignore evidence presented, demand impossible proofs or complete solutions, manufacture a new truth, ect... Seems to happen in every climate change discussion.
edit on 4-8-2015 by jrod because: ad



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D
Nice effort, however when you start with faulty assumptions you get faulty results. Junk in = junk out.

It will be interesting to see what mbkennel has to say.


It's OK for an order-of-magnitude computation, if you were in a general physics qualifying exam (i.e. not specializing in the actual field), and gets roughly within one order of magnitude (factor of 10), but that's far from being good enough to motivate scientists to start talking to the general public & leaders about policy. That had to be far more quantitatively complete and physically realistic, and this was done and pretty settled by early 1990's (Pinatubo eruption helped validate & calibrate climate models).

Again, read the JGR article. I just started and it shows how much I didn't know about it, and how far above this level the true science is.
edit on 5-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


You seriously think that the scientists have missed this supposed whopper of a "gotcha" all these years?

No, I do believe that many scientist did consider the possibility. But for much unscientific reasons (hint: political affiliation), their voice have not reached popular media.

Additionally, who cares what other men did or did not consider? Science is not dependent on consensus, it is dependent on repeated verification. If I propose to verify the claim, you should be applauding the fact that I am following the scientific method (namely, independent verification of the claims) instead of resorting to an appeal to authority logical fallacy.



Satellites can look at the atmosphere in different ways.

All of these ways are still looking at the atmosphere from outside the atmosphere. Because of orbital speed requirements V=sqrt((G(m'+m"))/r), satellites can hardly orbit inside the atmosphere of Earth.



Then what is observed is the EM radiation from heat emitted by the surface (broadband), intersected by various layers of atmosphere which scatter in different wavelengths depending on their molecular properties. And if you look here, then yes, you see a decrease (absorption) relative to the less scattering case, became more of the infrared flux coming from the surface (not interacting with greenhouse gases) will interact with the atmosphere more strongly and be scattered in directions other than the one going straight into the camera. Absorption lines.

You make no sense. More infrared flux coming from the surface will indeed interact more strongly with the atmosphere, but then you propose that when this is the case, the scattered radiation then magically goes in every direction... except the one direction where the satellite is located.



Another way would be to look through the atmosphere, "sideways", from orbit, so that behind the atmosphere is black space. And of course, here you would see more scattered infrared the more greenhouse gas, because more of the infrared going up from the surface will be scattered sideways into the satellite's instruments

This is not a property of the scattering mechanism. This property is simply caused by the fact that the Earth is large - looking at the atmosphere sideways means looking at more atmosphere (angle of incidence). Yes, behind the atmosphere there is black space, but then, there is also more atmosphere. Your statement is analogous to comparing the thickness of a paper (vertical measurement) with its width (sideways measurement).

I believe you could argue that measuring the atmosphere sideways would give us a chance of measuring its emission lines - but then, if you claim that IR emissions are increasing, you would be contradicting your own data (which you did say was showing a decline) in the first place, would you not?


Oh and by the way, I was quite amused by your quote from Monthy Python... not many people know of this litlle gem nowadays.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Antarctica ice has recently been observed to reach new maximums, and gain grounds (well, sea) instead of melting.

www.nasa.gov...

This, coupled with Arctic loss of ice, seems strongly correlated with methane concentration:



However methane is not an exclusively-anthropogenic gas.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Global Dimming sounds more like moving the goalpost.. Another proposition to prove and tick off on the list for the Occam's razor test..

I never really cared about global warming, I figured it was just another scare fad and before it there was global cooling. Then when they introduced the concept of carbon credit I thought the elite might be trying to turn this whole thing into another tool of manipulation to further their agenda. Agenda 21 type stuff. They'll start taxing the air and enslave us using the environment as an excuse or something. These people think of it all.. they're very much insane, you have to learn how to think like a Saturday cartoon villain to understand these people.. they really are like evilly cackling caricatures. They can turn anything to suit their purposes and they never seem to run out of evil plans and ideas.. It's almost ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
Antarctica ice has recently been observed to reach new maximums, and gain grounds (well, sea) instead of melting.

www.nasa.gov...

This, coupled with Arctic loss of ice, seems strongly correlated with methane concentration:



However methane is not an exclusively-anthropogenic gas.

Are you insane? Why are you boasting about Antarctic sea ice extent from a 2-year-old article bumping a thread that was last posted in a year and a half ago?

A serious question, because that page is from 2014; this year, we're at record minimum Antarctic sea ice extent:

This is from Christmas Eve 2016.
edit on 12Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:49:23 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago12 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven


This is from Christmas Eve 2016.

You do know that since Antarctica is in the Southern hemisphere, it's currently summer down there, so it's kinda normal for it to warm up around Christmas Eve?

Besides, the article I've posted said that AGW predicts Antarctica to freeze up. If it's really reaching a "record minimum" (no source...), then it implies that either AGW model lacks accuracy even today, or that AGW is right and the current "minimum" isn't caused by it (just a side effect of El Nino or something). In either cases, your argument is moot.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join