Ocean News

S.E.C. Is Criticized for Lax Enforcement of Climate Risk Disclosure | New York Times

 

That Peabody coal is some of the best. I think I shall buy some stock.

 

El Nino has effects all the way to the edge of the atmosphere | Phys.Org

 

Geothermal is .03% of total heat budget is a LOT more significant than CO2's 400 parts per million and only absorbs 3% range of IR band!

 

Climate isn't simple. "CO2 does it, is naïve." Climate is a multitude of individual events around the globe over considerable time.

http://iceagenow.com/Geothermal_heat_may_be_melting_Greenland_glaciers.htm

"Nov 2007 – Excerpts: “Much has been made of a possible precipitous collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets due to manmade climate change and the catastrophic sea level rise if such a collapse were to occur.

Greenland (Credit: NASA/SVS)

“Hansen et al. believe that the most likely and most critical of these dangerous effects is the possibility of substantial sea level rise due to the breakup of parts or all of the ice sheets covering Greenland and West Antarctica.”

“Hansen’s Glacier Model is Wrong!

“Hansen’s scenario is not reasonable. Indeed, it is not even possible. Hansen’s seeming ignorance of the mechanism by which glaciers flow leads him into major errors.

“Hansen is a modeler, and his scenario for the collapse of the ice sheets is based on a false model. His model has the ice sheet sliding along an inclined plane, lubricated by meltwater, which is increasing because of global warming.

“Unfortunately, Hansen’s model includes neither the main form of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, nor an understanding of how glaciers flow.

“Greenland differs from Antarctica in that the ice sheet spills out through gaps in the mountain rim, and the glaciers overlie deep narrow valleys. According to van der Veen et al. (2007), such valleys have higher than usual geothermal gradients, so it might be geothermal heat, rather than global warming, that causes some Greenland glaciers to have higher than usual flow rates. (citation below)

I’ve been saying for years that underwater volcanoes (geothermal heat)
are heating the seas. It’s heartening that this paper says that geothermal
heat may be melting the Greenland glaciers.

“In reality, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometers of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to “collapse.”

See all of this 7-page paper by geologist Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia. Paper was published under the name “Are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets in Danger of Collapse?”

http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencecenter/greenland_and_antarctic_in_danger_of_collapse.pdf

http://www.globalwarming.org/files/Melting No Problem.pdf

1. van der Veen, C.J., Leftwich, T., von Frese, R., Csatho, B.M. & Li, J. (2007), “Subglacial topography and geothermal heat flux: Potential interactions with drainage of the Greenland ice sheet,” Geophysical Research Letters, v.34, LI2501, doi:10.1029/2007 GL030046.)"

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130811150608.htm

"Modeled basal ice temperatures of the present-day Greenland Ice Shield across the Summit region, GRIP and GISP2 indicate borehole locations.
Credit: Image courtesy of Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, caused by a high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere. This influence is very variable spatially and has its origin in an exceptionally thin lithosphere. Consequently, there is an increased heat flow from the mantle and a complex interplay between this geothermal heating and the Greenland ice sheet. The international research initiative IceGeoHeat led by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences establishes in the current online issue of Nature Geoscience that this effect cannot be neglected when modeling the ice sheet as part of a climate study.

The continental ice sheets play a central role in climate. Interactions and feedback processes between ice and temperature rise are complex and still a current research topic. The Greenland ice sheet loses about 227 gigatonnes of ice per year and contributes about 0.7 millimeters to the currently observed mean sea level change of about 3 mm per year. Existing model calculations, however, were based on a consideration of the ice cap and considered the effect of the lithosphere, i.e. Earth's crust and upper mantle, too simplistic and primarily mechanical: the ice presses the crust down due to its weight. GFZ scientists Alexey Petrunin and Irina Rogozhina have now coupled an ice/climate model with a thermo-mechanical model for the Greenland lithosphere. "We have run the model over a simulated period of three million years, and taken into account measurements from ice cores and independent magnetic and seismic data," says Petrunin. "Our model calculations are in good agreement with the measurements. Both the thickness of the ice sheet as well as the temperature at its base are depicted very accurately. "

The model can even explain the difference in temperature measured at two adjacent drill holes: the thickness of the Greenland lithosphere and thus the geothermal heat flow varies greatly in narrow confines.

What does this mean for climate modeling? "The temperature at the base of the ice, and therefore the current dynamics of the Greenland ice sheet is the result of the interaction between the heat flow from Earth's interior and the temperature changes associated with glacial cycles," explains corresponding author Irina Rogozhina (GFZ) who initiated IceGeoHeat. "We found areas where the ice melts at the base next to other areas where the base is extremely cold."

The current climate is influenced by processes that go far back into the history of Earth: the Greenland lithosphere is 2.8 to 1.7 billion years old and is only about 70 to 80 kilometers thick under Central Greenland. It remains to be explored why it is so exceptionally thin. It turns out, however, that the coupling of models of ice dynamics with thermo-mechanical models of the solid earth allows a more accurate view of the processes that are melting the Greenland ice.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length."

 

I have many supporting posts still to be posted.

I'm concerned the main point may get lost in all the extra material.

The point is, earth's climate is cyclic. (Any chart of millions of years makes it obvious)
Also obvious is COLD is more common than warm, and occurs more precipitously.
Sudden runaway icebox has happened many times, in the same steep descents into long iceages.
We know albedo is a reinforcing runaway affect for cold.
There has never been runaway heating, in the entire history of planet.
Fairly obvious to conclude, there is no similar runaway mechanisms to affect or cause runaway warming. It's never occurred! Thankfully!

Climate is cyclic and needs a cyclic driver, a source controlling climate.
The sun has continuously attracted great scientific minds as the most likely candidate, but without success in determining HOW it could be responsible for climate change.

Recent studies have determined there are 1000 year and 100 thousand year cycles to the sun's magnetic output, and correlation of a response in earth's magnetic output, and a correlation of the climate cycles. Both 100,000 year ice ages, and 1000 year repeating warm periods during the short interglacial periods.

It is NOT all figured out.
A lot of scientists have different pieces of the puzzle.
I'm trying to gather them together for posting here.

The idea is not about more or less HEAT from the sun.
It's about the sun's magneto sphere is a remote, like a TV remote, controlling our internal thermostat (earths magneto sphere) which determines how much or little geothermal heat the EARTH produces!

 

As long as you're betting against AGW, you might as well get you some of that Peabody coal...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...on-everybody-s-list-as-next-bankruptcy-victim

 

Will not be long in the near future, oil and gas is history as the same as the climate change denialist "major minority of the USA"
Quote
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/31/bp-to-announce-70-collapse-in-profits

BP to announce 70% collapse in profits
Figures likely to be even worse after energy firm factors in writedowns and one-off charges as slump in oil price takes its toll.
BP is expected to announce a near 70% collapse in underlying profits on Tuesday as low oil prices continue to take their toll.

The headline figures will be even worse once one-off charges are included.

City energy analysts predict the British oil company will report that earnings in the last quarter of 2015 fell to $730m (£514m), from $2.2bn a year earlier.

But the full impact of the oil price fall could be much heavier as BP takes one-off writedowns on the value of its reserves. It may also take further charges connected to the Deepwater Horizon accident from 2011, in which

BP said it was aware of the forecasts but declined to comment further.

Meanwhile Shell, which reports its fourth-quarter results on Thursday, warned in a trading statement last week that its underlying profits could be halved.

Shell, which has just received the go-ahead from shareholders for a £35bn takeover of rival BG, is expecting to make additional write-offs of up to £5bn.

Concerns about the damage being done to Britain’s oil and gas industry has led the British prime minister, David Cameron, to pledge £250m to Aberdeen. About 70,000 jobs direct and indirect jobs have been lost around the UK due to the crude price slump.

Shell has already promised to cut 10,500 more jobs worldwide once the BG deal is consummated on 15 February. Some job cuts could come in Aberdeen.

Meanwhile, hopes were raised last week that Russia and Saudi Arabia may agree at a meeting next month to hold back oil production in an attempt to push up energy prices.

 

The insurmountable problems with CO2 being a driver of climate is:
1. It requires that climate be super sensitive!
Super sensitive to minute changes in parts per million of a minute concentration of a gas, that is only a weak GHG gas (even if in equal amounts) when compared to other GHGs, methane, sulfur dioxide. and the biggest, overpowering water vapor.
2. Temperature isn't escalating, while CO2 is.
And CO2 NEVER drove climate in all of earth's history, and pretty obvious isn't today! Temperatures simply, obviously are NOT following CO2.
3. The whole hypothesis of CO2 driving global warming requires complicated explanations about positive feedbacks from other forces, like water vapor, that have been proven to work exactly opposite to the CO2 hypothesis.
4. The controller of earths cyclic climate must in and of itself, cycle in intensity.
The only cycle CO2 does is get sucked up by plants and absorbed by the ocean, then outgassed when plants decay and when the ocean warms. That can't explain climate cycles, past or present. And man's puny contribution to CO2, is negligible compared to natural sources.
5. We KNOW CO2 follows warming. We KNOW warming releases more CO2 from oceans, frozen tundra, and encouraging decay of organic materials.
We also KNOW there has never been runaway warming on earth. which if CO2 caused warming in addition to being caused BY warming, there would have been, and we wouldn't be here to discuss it! The atmosphere would already be like Venus.
AGW is BUSTED! And no amount of lawyerish spin will save it!

 

Yob
You are the one that's busted all the time as the the same its proven a major minority are climate denialist in the USA

 

There are folks more open minded and more logical than you myark.



How is earth's magnetic field probably our climate thermostat?
Radiating a magnetic field around the earth takes a lot of energy.
That's one BIG electromagnet.
It radiates away energy produced in the earth's core, without heating the crust or atmosphere.

If we relabeled the 1st law thermodynamics formula with our particular inputs, the formula looks like this:

(continuous energy producing in core dynamo):!:U=Q(heat)-W(magnetic field energy used)

Obvious, if the production of energy in the core is constant, as the magnetic field fluctuates in strength, the heat is inversely proportional.

Geothermal gets hotter if the magnetic field is weak, and cooler if the magnetic field is strong.
And hotter geothermal WILL heat the crust, and then the atmosphere!
That's a thermostat!

 

And the sun's 100 thousand and one thousand year cycles in the sun's magnetic field, affects the strength of earth's magnetic field.
We have a thermostat, an external cyclic controller for the thermostat, and a variable heat source.
And NONE of it requires lawyerish maneuvers to explain!
NOR does it rely on GIGO computer models.
(GIGO, short for garbage in=garbage out)
AND, the cyclic controller of the thermostat is external and will outlast the planet! That is VERY good design.
Since earth's climate cannot possibly affect the sun's magnetic field, any sort of self perpetuating runaway climate is impossible!
Nobody and no earthly force can adjust the thermostat!
Good thing the sun is reliable. Only the sun could screw up our climate!

 

Quote
How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends?

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years.

Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming


Several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

•Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
•If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
•Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

 

I posted the same information some pages back, post 569. That scientists have always been intuiting the sun affected our climate cycles, but were disappointed when they looked at radiance, and sunspots, and solar activity.
They found some encouraging correlations, then they didn't sustain.

So climatologists gave up on the sun, and CO2 got the attention after they decided the climate must be very sensitive to be affected by minor variations in radiance. Why not minor variations in CO2?


Problem is, they gave up, without ever looking in the right place.
And you don't mention the right place in your refutation of the wrong places.

The sun's magnetic field, and earth's magnetic field!
But you won't find anything about the magnetic field influencing climate on NASA's long list of solar magnetics studies.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarmag.html
They've invested in AGW.
You have to find scientists not connected to establishment to get the theories and the data.
I've been posting them.
And you haven't attempted to refute a single one of those posts.
Just straw men you raise that I never endorsed.
See next post where I'll repeat earlier post, to save you looking for it. because I don't think you'd bother to.