Ocean News

Aren't you embarrassed?

 

The only embarrassing part is to even consider answering you, especially when the polls you presented show that your opinion "The warming is NATURAL climate change" is a extrem low 8% major minority.

 

You just keep posting obvious errors, about content of my posts, about non-existent scientific "proofs", about what well publicized polls say, and about my and Hoyt's motives for refuting your assertions.
We refute your misinformation, by offering actual facts.
Our intent is to immunize vulnerable reader's against the contagion of error.

 

You should be embarrassed at the frequency of quoting yourself more than anyone else I know of on this forum. Learn to spell. Climate change is constant, natural and from the beginning of the Universe.

 

Quote
US and Canada promise to lead world to low-carbon economy

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-lead-world-low-carbon-economy-obama-trudeau

Countries previously seen as climate change villains present shared vision on cutting emissions as Justin Trudeau meets Barack Obama at White House

 

The USA made no such promise.
People with no authority to make a commitment made promises and didn't explain they were powerless to commit the USA.
Only the US Senate can make a treaty.
No treaty?
No promise commitment.
Executive agreements by presidents expire when that president leaves office.
Promises made by presidents/politicians, frequently expire as they are leaving their mouth.
It's just another campaign promise to them. Only value it has is votes for them.
They get what they want, and afterward, what was promised to you? Well, the situation is changed, they say.

 

Quote
The more we learn about Antarctica’s past, the scarier the present looks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tarcticas-past-the-scarier-the-present-looks/

For the second time in a month, leading scientists have closely tied the ancient history of the vast Antarctic ice sheet to a key planetary parameter that humans are now controlling — the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Last month, new research showed that during the Miocene era, some 14 to 23 million years ago, Antarctica gave up huge volumes of ice, equivalent to tens of meters of sea level rise, when levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are thought to have been around 500 parts per million. We’re at a little over 400 parts per million now.

And now, new research in the journal Science goes back even farther, to the ancient era when the ice sheet’s growth is believed to have originally begun, some 34 million years ago during a time period known as the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. And it finds that at this time, too, a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels appears to have been involved in allowing glaciation and ice sheet growth.

“Before 33.6 million years ago, there was no ice, and CO2 was above 750, was above the threshold,” said Simone Galeotti, lead author of the new study by a large international collaboration of authors, and a researcher at the Università degli Studi di Urbino in Italy.

The bottom line, said DeConto, is that the new research is “just adding to the mountain of evidence that, when greenhouse gas concentrations were high in the past, climate was warmer, there was less ice” in Antarctica. “

 

So, IF that hypothesis is true?
For the past 20 years CO2 ppm have been steadily increasing.
For past 20 years been no significant warming.
For past 20 years Antarctica has been gaining 200 billion tons of ice each year.
In light of that hypothesis, how would you rationally explain nature behaving the exact opposite of predictions?

My OWN guess is, the hypothesis is BS.

 

Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012."

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral


Regression toward the Mean

The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There's a principle in statistics known as "regression toward the mean," which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

The amount of Arctic sea ice left at the end of the annual melt season is mainly determined by two factors – natural variability (weather patterns and ocean cycles), and human-caused global warming. The Arctic has lost 75 percent of its summer sea ice volume over the past three decades primarily due to human-caused global warming, but in any given year the weather can act to either preserve more or melt more sea ice. Last year the weather helped melt more ice, while this year the weather helped preserve more ice.


Recent research strongly suggests that the main difference between these two periods comes down to ocean heat absorption. Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it's only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming (as Tsonis' research shows).

It would be foolhardy for anyone to predict future global cooling, and those few who are so foolish are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, as my colleague John Abraham found out when challenging one to a bet, only to find the other party unwilling to stand behind it.


Yes, Humans are Driving Global Warming

Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

Shoddy Climate Reporting

These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals, particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.

 

sea ice melt CAN'T cause sea level rise!
If you don't understand something as simple as displacement?
You're on the wrong forum.

 

You should be able to make for yourself a simple observable experiment to prove or disprove that statement.
The thread "What floats your boat" showed a lot of misunderstanding about displacement.

 

I'm not confused.
The weight of the ice is exactly the weight of the water it displaces.
Ice is water in frozen form.
When the ice melts, it is the same weight and volume of the water it displaced as ice.
The melt water precisely fills the space it displaced when frozen.

Sea level neither rises nor falls even a hairs worth.

 

Quote

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level

http://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html

When ice on land slides into the ocean, it displaces ocean water and causes sea level to rise. People believe that when this floating ice melts, water level doesn’t rise an additional amount because the freshwater ice displaces the same volume of water as it would contribute once it melts. Similarly, people also think that when ocean water freezes to form sea ice and then melts, the water is merely going through a change of state, so it won’t affect sea level. However, in a visit to NSIDC in May, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise


In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html#jCp

 

I spent 43 years of my life at sea, more than 30 years as master.
Anybody living along a sea coast will tell you, wind borne salt encrusts everything.

Including ice near coasts, gets salted as the snow precipitation gets laid down.
It is NOT going to be fresh water. It maybe a bit less salty, less dense than seawater.
But it's not going to have much affect, because the difference in weight between fresh and salt water is less than 2 lbs a cu ft.
And the fresh water ice evaporated from the sea, and now returning to it's salt constituent it left behind.
it's NOT new water.

200 billion tons of new land ice are added to Antarctica every year, and only about 67 billion tons of sea ice melt.

The new land ice is coming from the sea.

Sea levels should be dropping! And the sea getting saltier.

 

Similarly, people also think that when ocean water freezes to form sea ice and then melts, the water is merely going through a change of state, so it won’t affect sea level. However, in a visit to NSIDC in May, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise