Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Sorry, but what they are doing wrong is presenting the results of their failed hypothesis as factual.

That is what they are doing wrong.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Sorry, but what they are doing wrong is presenting the results of their failed hypothesis as factual.

That is what they are doing wrong.

Some aspects of these projections are factual. Rising sea levels are factual. Ocean acidification is factual. Climate disruption is factual. However, how all that plays out is statistical projections based on trends and the evidence at hand.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.... since the end of the last ice age. Their predictions, however, regarding that were also wrong. We are currently experiencing rising levels at the rate of 3-4mm/year.

Define "climate disruption". If you mean climate change...it's been going on for, oh, a few billion years.

The myth is that the climate was "balanced" and along came man and screwed it up. Total and absolute ignorant nonsense.

If co2 is so bad, then why was it so high at the START of the current ice age and then dropped? Why does it tend to lag behind temperature increase by about 800 to 1000 years? If co2 is so bad then why, when it was 7000ppm was the diversity of life significantly higher than recent history (geologically speaking)? Why, when it was 7000ppm was the earth not a raging inferno steambath? Today it is approaching 400ppm. Why, if co2 is such a beeyatch, then why...why! do these climatologists not demonize water vapor which is agreed by them as being responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect? The other 5% of the greenhouse effect would be all the greenhouse gases combined...

If man is screwing things up so bad then why are current global temperatures still lower than previous interglacial periods?

Doom porn...

originally posted by: Dianec
Yea it's significant. It will change the salinity of ocean waters, and that in turn will change weather patterns and more, in an unprecidented way.

Did you read what the article says? I don't think you understood it, I may be wrong. The article states that Antarctic sea ice extend has increased, there are areas in which it is receding and recent research shows many of these areas are being warmed by "underwater volcanos". But according to the article the general trend is an increase in sea ice, which means more ice. Does it affect salinity? Sure, it means an increase in salinity levels on overall for that area.

a reply to: bbracken677

Of course they have. We are currently in an interglacial of the Quarternary glaciation. That means warm period after a period of snow and ice accumulation due to the previous period. Melting snow and ice make a rising sea level. Not rocket science to figure that melting ice means rising seas. Glad we agree on that aspect. I suspect where you disagree is the rate of rising sea levels being outside the bounds of normal.

Water vapor is natural and is also where precipitation comes from. Precipitation is kind of necessary for life to thrive on earth. See California. Hence why people don't complain about it. It's kind of a good thing. CO2, in the right amounts, is also a necessary and a good thing as it is basically what our plants utilize during respiration to create O2 for us to breathe. As far as that "high CO2" goes, you must be referring to Robert Berner's GEOCARB III. This is from the GEOCARB III paper:

This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my (million year) or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. (pg 20)

www.geocraft.com...

In short, because these are such huge--10 million year averages--and prone to potential error in estimation, sniping out single measurements is very ill-advised. The planet is incredibly complex and that should be pretty obvious to anyone who actually reads or scrolls through Berner's paper on GEOCARB III.

As far as why today is different from 300 mya, that's just as complicated of an answer as there are many causes to what makes the climate both known and unknown. This paper should help you understand that complexity but the two factors that should be readily discernible are the "dimmer" sun (sun grows in heat over time) and the earth's obliquity.

www.globalchange.umich.edu...

It's also important to note that neither C02 or water vapor are the only greenhouse gases. It's not just one thing on the rise. Atmospheric methane is yet another that is increasing, particularly in the N. Hemisphere where one finds most of the developed world.

It kind of boggles my mind that some think that those things that we do on the planet have null effect on the planet as a whole. Deforestation is a big thing that humans have done over the last several thousand years, predominately in the Northern Hemisphere. Forests are hugely involved with CO2 levels in the atmosphere as they, like the oceans, are a carbon sink but when deforestation happens, they become an atmospheric carbon source (cutting or burning). Europe, a few thousand years ago, was heavily forested but as populations increased, deforestation occurred due to logging, clearing for agricultural use or the development of human settlements. Today, forests like the Black Forest are just a small fraction of their original extent. Not only did we blow it in terms of basically increasing atmospheric carbon in the air but we also removed huge tracts of forest that was previously acting as that CO2 sink. How does this not effect how much CO2 is in the air? If forests have a large capacity to absorb atmospheric CO2 and store it as carbon and we've chopped much of it down particularly in the N. hemisphere (and increasingly in the S. Hemisphere), then how can that not have an effect on what gases exist in the atmosphere?

a reply to: WhiteAlice


Just an FYI: I am a semi-tretired geologist who no longer practices.

Perhaps you should read some of my previous posts. I prefer to link to research papers when possible.

I have posted a significant amount of links regarding the past. I prefer to keep my discussions directed at the last 400 ka since the difference between interglacial periods back then and now are minor. Hence, one may draw direct parallels that are likely to be closer to truth.

With regards to what controls climate? I can discuss Milankovitch cycles, recent learnings regarding the cosmic ray effect on climate (still digesting that, but the correlation to temp is better than co2), GHG, and oceanic cycles as well as the failure of the IPCC modeling on a consistent basis.

The IPCC model is too simplistic and ignores too many factors to have any hope of accuracy. All you have to do is go back to the last several reports they have issued and see the corrections (changes?) made to forecasted conditions. They are making long range forecasts as fact, and playing "eye-witness weather" with the less than long range forecasts... that doesn't work too well.

a reply to: bbracken677

Then as a geologist, you should've noted Berner's remarks on the inherent issues with the Geocarb III and utilizing it for specific CO2 readings. I recalled, btw, that you do have a background in science as well. I don't disagree that there are problems with making projections and if you recall, I cited those issues. However, answering the question of "what will happen?" is precisely the kind of thing that is being laid on these groups of scientists as I see it. They are expected to make projections as if they are somehow able to look into a crystal ball and see the future. The reasons why are fairly self evident. Things haven't been going so good over the last few years in regards to the climate and all the fall out from those changes. If they're requested to make annual reports on their projections, would you prefer them not to revise it based on new data? Isn't the revising of ideas part of the peer review process?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

First off, the presence of bias is obvious to me. They ignore important aspects of climate change and dwell overly so on others.

I agree, there is much pressure to predict, however one does not present predictions as factual when one's hypothesis is deeply flawed. The fact is, our climate is so incredibly complex that we likely are decades away from a working theory.

Therefore, presenting doom and gloom as factual is...disingenuous (to put it mildly). It may very well turn out that pumping as much co2 into the atmosphere as we can will stave off the next glacial period. Talk about doom and gloom...therein lies the threat to man. Don't get me wrong...I am not advocating increasing co2 emissions lol. I just presented a possibility. Pumping co2 into the atmosphere may very well precipitate the next session of glaciation since we are close to the end of the interglacial. Problem is, we just don't know.

When we do not know something, I have a problem with tinkering. People who do not know what makes a car tick should not work on them. People who do not know what makes planes fly, should not be designing them lol. So when we do not know what the ramifications of our actions are...taking no action is no different than taking an action. Should we be polluting? Oh hell no. We should limit emissions for that reason...not because we are going to eff up the climate cause we have no idea what the effect of tinkering will be, if any. There is part 2 of my personal theory on the world and things (I should capitalize lol MPTWT), can we actually affect climate in a positive manner and do we even know what a positive manner represents? I think hubris plays hugely in that sand box.