Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no it aint, the plants wants 1500 ppm co2 to this day,

ask a professional greenhouse operator.

i havnt read about aquarium operators but i would suspect at least some has experimented with pumping in co2, with positive effects

Which means what? That because plants can use high levels of CO2 therefore it's a general truth that as life forms adapt, they retain the adaptations that they had before. Do you understand that oxygen was once poisonous to most life? Are you saying that because life was once adapted to an atmosphere and water without oxygen that that as life forms adapt, they retain the ability to live without oxygen?

And just recently it was found that with the rise of industrialization the shells of various microscopic forms of sea life have been getting thinner. And now Dungeness crabs are apparently under threat.

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Which means what? That because plants can use high levels of CO2 therefore it's a general truth that as life forms adapt, they retain the adaptations that they had before. Do you understand that oxygen was once poisonous to most life? Are you saying that because life was once adapted to an atmosphere and water without oxygen that that as life forms adapt, they retain the ability to live without oxygen?

And just recently it was found that with the rise of industrialization the shells of various microscopic forms of sea life have been getting thinner. And now Dungeness crabs are apparently under threat.

I just want to say that unless you are reading the actual study, you do not know. See my post above about this article we are discussing in this thread. It's like reading about the loss of bees. Sometimes there are many reasons. Sometimes they cancel each other out, or multiply. So unless you read the actual study, and the study is then considered the end all be all, then we have a situation that is under study, with potentials that are unknown, as with most of science. I am not saying that Dungeness crabs are not under threat,as it would mirror other reports regarding shellfish. Oysters as I said above, but I do not remember the details of that study, but I no longer believe anything unless I am reading the study directly as opposed to the magazine articles reporting on the study. Again see my summary last page on this article

[Chomper Higgot]

38 minutes ago, Forethat said:

So what YOU are saying is that the ability to adapt through natural selection is an ability that is now lost, and if the conditions will change to what they were hundreds of million years ago they wont adapt?

 

Did you say utter nonsense?

Erm....

 

Adaptation of species takes thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Humans have been burning fossil fossil fuels on an industrial scale and thus releasing CO2 stored in fossilized fuels over a period of a couple of hundred years ( the rate of burning fossil fuels/releasing fossilized CO2 has accelerated dramatically over the last 50 years).

 

So humans burning fossil fuels creating changes to the environment at a rate faster than other species can adapt.

 

Its not too hard to understand.

 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The ocean acts as a sink for CO2 and I think this is an equilibrium issue. Without going back over the research acidification is linked, but there are other mechanisms at play in the oceans in that dying animals release CO2, and debate of how much CO2 the oceans can store etc. I am not weighing in to state anything other then there are lots of unknowns on this.  I have also read that high CO2 leads to death of certain sea life like Oysters, and other shellfish for example.

Another one of those oh it's all so complicated apparently reasonable statemens.. But actually a lot of climate theory isn't all that complicated at all. At least not relatively. Take Global Warming and Greenhouse gases. As I posted earlier in this thread an enterprising young scientist took a look at global warming models all the way back to the 1970's. 10 of the models predicted the rise in warming correctly without any modification. But there were another 5 models including that of James Hansen, that didn't predict correctly. This was because they estimated incorrectly how much greenhouse gas was going to be created by human activity. But guess what? When the correct amounts were plugged into their models, they turned out to be very accurate. The really big picture isn't as complex as denialists would make out. Of course it's baffling to some such as Judith Curry, who predicted global cooling for an era that has seen record warmth.

And the same goes for the oceans. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the level of dissolved CO2 in the water will also increase. That's fairly basic chemistry.  This lowers the PH which in turns makes it harder for basic forms of sea life to make shells.

And of course, as the oceans warm, O2 concentrations are decreasing. Already populations of fish are moving north (when they can) leaving tropical seas with less and less species of fish. The kelp forests of Tasmania have virtually disappeared thanks to warming. And the same is happening to California's.

[WalkingOrders]

57 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

WRONG! The quotes and info about her I got from climatedepot.com which is a major denialist website.

Have to strength of your convictions to put them to the test. Read for yourself instead of believing what any website is telling you. That is what knowledge is; Judithcurry.com Belief is a religion

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I just want to say that unless you are reading the actual study, you do not know. See my post above about this article we are discussing in this thread. It's like reading about the loss of bees. Sometimes there are many reasons. Sometimes they cancel each other out, or multiply. So unless you read the actual study, and the study is then considered the end all be all, then we have a situation that is under study, with potentials that are unknown, as with most of science. I am not saying that Dungeness crabs are not under threat,as it would mirror other reports regarding shellfish. Oysters as I said above, but I do not remember the details of that study, but I no longer believe anything unless I am reading the study directly as opposed to the magazine articles reporting on the study. Again see my summary last page on this article

Don’t ever gat on an aircraft to fly anywhere unless you have read and understood all the science of aerodynamics, metallurgy, strength of materials, jet engine thermodynamics, hydraulics, electronics, navigation, automatic control, and at the point of landing, tire materials strength.... etc.

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Another one of those oh it's all so complicated apparently reasonable statemens.. But actually a lot of climate theory isn't all that complicated at all. At least not relatively. Take Global Warming and Greenhouse gases. As I posted earlier in this thread an enterprising young scientist took a look at global warming models all the way back to the 1970's. 10 of the models predicted the rise in warming correctly without any modification. But there were another 5 models including that of James Hansen, that didn't predict correctly. This was because they estimated incorrectly how much greenhouse gas was going to be created by human activity. But guess what? When the correct amounts were plugged into their models, they turned out to be very accurate. The really big picture isn't as complex as denialists would make out. Of course it's baffling to some such as Judith Curry, who predicted global cooling for an era that has seen record warmth.

And the same goes for the oceans. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the level of dissolved CO2 in the water will also increase. That's fairly basic chemistry.  This lowers the PH which in turns makes it harder for basic forms of sea life to make shells.

And of course, as the oceans warm, O2 concentrations are decreasing. Already populations of fish are moving north (when they can) leaving tropical seas with less and less species of fish. The kelp forests of Tasmania have virtually disappeared thanks to warming. And the same is happening to California's.

Actually it's all pretty complicated research the subject at Judithcurry.com there are far better teachers over there, again, writing on all sides of the minutia to the big picture. 

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t ever gat on an aircraft to fly anywhere unless you have read and understood all the science of aerodynamics, metallurgy, strength of materials, jet engine thermodynamics, hydraulics, electronics, navigation, automatic control, and at the point of landing, tire materials strength.... etc.

If I fly on an airplane, I would not think that I have then the knowledge to discuss with you what goes into the metallurgy involved and how it could be improved or how the plane could be made to fly better, or how the engine did not get me there fast enough and then claim I am an engineer able to fine tune it etc etc etc...what is your point? other then following me and trolling? 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Actually it's all pretty complicated research the subject at Judithcurry.com there are far better teachers over there, again, writing on all sides of the minutia to the big picture. 

She's at it again:

Plausible scenarios for climate change: 2020-2050

Posted on February 13, 2020 by curryja | 206 Comments

by Judith Curry

A range of scenarios for global mean surface temperature change between 2020 and 2050, derived using a semi-empirical approach. All three modes of natural climate variability – volcanoes, solar and internal variability – are expected to act in the direction of cooling during this period.

https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/13/plausible-scenarios-for-climate-change-2020-2050/#more-25721

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

If I fly on an airplane, I would not think that I have then the knowledge to discuss with you what goes into the metallurgy involved and how it could be improved or how the plane could be made to fly better, or how the engine did not get me there fast enough and then claim I am an engineer able to fine tune it etc etc etc...what is your point? other then following me and trolling? 

1. The point is your assertions wrt to science that is only acceptable if you or those you argue with have read the actual scientific papers.

 

2. I’m not ‘following’ you.

 

3. It appears from your posting history that it is you who is trolling ( refer your statements wrt needing to have read scientific papers).

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

She's at it again:

Plausible scenarios for climate change: 2020-2050

Posted on February 13, 2020 by curryja | 206 Comments

by Judith Curry

A range of scenarios for global mean surface temperature change between 2020 and 2050, derived using a semi-empirical approach. All three modes of natural climate variability – volcanoes, solar and internal variability – are expected to act in the direction of cooling during this period.

https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/13/plausible-scenarios-for-climate-change-2020-2050/#more-25721

I am sure you are smarter then all of that right? You are a Phd in Climate science who taught at one of the most prestigious science universities in the world?

 

A thread presenting both sides of Ocean acidification:

https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidification-discussion-thread/

[WalkingOrders]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1. The point is your assertions wrt to science that is only acceptable if you or those you argue with have read the actual scientific papers.

 

2. I’m not ‘following’ you.

 

3. It appears from your posting history that it is you who is trolling ( refer your statements wrt needing to have read scientific papers).

I suggest you scroll up and read my take on the article that prompted this thread. Go ahead. Please respond. I detail the differences between an Article written, versus the Research Paper that is being written about. They often are two different things. Perhaps we can agree on that?  SEE #262

Edited February 24, 2020 by WalkingOrders
cite

[WalkingOrders]

I find it absolutely comical that someone would spend so much time here debating Judith Curry with non-scientists using magazine articles from her detractors, but refuses to go over and debate with the woman herself. If someone has such a problem with her but refuses to debate her or even discuss the points, to find common ground, or prove her wrong, or learn something, or speak with scientists who are in agreement or even disagreement with her, it speaks volumes. 

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm....

 

Adaptation of species takes thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Humans have been burning fossil fossil fuels on an industrial scale and thus releasing CO2 stored in fossilized fuels over a period of a couple of hundred years ( the rate of burning fossil fuels/releasing fossilized CO2 has accelerated dramatically over the last 50 years).

 

So humans burning fossil fuels creating changes to the environment at a rate faster than other species can adapt.

 

Its not too hard to understand.

 

Well, I guess that is the issue - some believe that mans burning of fossil fuels creates changes to the environment at a speed that will cause mass extinction, while others claim that the changes are minute and that CO2 levels are only responsible for a small percentage of the increase.

 

Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years. I wonder if that is the reason NSIDC no longer plots the data for the years 2012-2018 in their diagrams....? But I'm confident there's a way to measure that it is melting somewhere, you simply have to be creative in the way you measure.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

I like the idea of not polluting the environment though, that in itself should be an incentive to stop doing it.

[brokenbone]

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm....

 

Adaptation of species takes thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Humans have been burning fossil fossil fuels on an industrial scale and thus releasing CO2 stored in fossilized fuels over a period of a couple of hundred years ( the rate of burning fossil fuels/releasing fossilized CO2 has accelerated dramatically over the last 50 years).

 

So humans burning fossil fuels creating changes to the environment at a rate faster than other species can adapt.

 

Its not too hard to understand.

 

every plant that goes into a greenhouse adapt to 1500 ppm in an instant,

its safe to say every plant will adapt to 1500 in an instant,

and not only adapt in an instant, but thrive in an instant

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

every plant that goes into a greenhouse adapt to 1500 ppm in an instant,

its safe to say every plant will adapt to 1500 in an instant,

and not only adapt in an instant, but thrive in an instant

You know.... earlier on here, someone asked me to provide a source that when the production levels of oil go down, the price of oil goes up, and the price of commodities goes up. They wanted a magazine article to prove that crazy idea I had! ???? 

[brokenbone]

42 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Another one of those oh it's all so complicated apparently reasonable statemens.. But actually a lot of climate theory isn't all that complicated at all. At least not relatively. Take Global Warming and Greenhouse gases. As I posted earlier in this thread an enterprising young scientist took a look at global warming models all the way back to the 1970's. 10 of the models predicted the rise in warming correctly without any modification. But there were another 5 models including that of James Hansen, that didn't predict correctly. This was because they estimated incorrectly how much greenhouse gas was going to be created by human activity. But guess what? When the correct amounts were plugged into their models, they turned out to be very accurate. The really big picture isn't as complex as denialists would make out. Of course it's baffling to some such as Judith Curry, who predicted global cooling for an era that has seen record warmth.

And the same goes for the oceans. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the level of dissolved CO2 in the water will also increase. That's fairly basic chemistry.  This lowers the PH which in turns makes it harder for basic forms of sea life to make shells.

And of course, as the oceans warm, O2 concentrations are decreasing. Already populations of fish are moving north (when they can) leaving tropical seas with less and less species of fish. The kelp forests of Tasmania have virtually disappeared thanks to warming. And the same is happening to California's.

1] every scientist worth his salt acknowledge they havnt got a clue how to model clouds,

even ipcc acknowledged that in an early statement.

it went something like " we should acknowledge we are dealing with a non linear chaotic system that is not possible to predict nor model"

2] the very same data that noaa used as basis for their narrative that 2015-2019

saw a warming has been used to display as a cooling

3] i maintain that co2 is a building block for shells

and sea saw much larger shells at 3000 ppm then what can be found today at 400

4] i call bs on fishes migration at a 0.1c or so increase in sea temp,

mind you we are recovering from minor ice age

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

That requires the ability to be humble, and to have a mind that desires to search for truth rather then be told. It requires the ability to admit to what one does not know, and again, the desire to learn; To not be afraid of what may be found in the search.

I guess that means you are disqualified. To borrow from one of your countrymen who seems to be no longer with us, discussion with you is like pounding sand down a rathole.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever you are interested in listening to anyone else on this thread. Humble and desiring to learn? Yeah right.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Well, I guess that is the issue - some believe that mans burning of fossil fuels creates changes to the environment at a speed that will cause mass extinction, while others claim that the changes are minute and that CO2 levels are only responsible for a small percentage of the increase.

 

Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years. I wonder if that is the reason NSIDC no longer plots the data for the years 2012-2018 in their diagrams....? But I'm confident there's a way to measure that it is melting somewhere, you simply have to be creative in the way you measure.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

 

Really? Not according to the graph you've posted. According to that sea ice levels have been mostly below the 1981-2010 median.

And from 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously.

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/#ixzz6EsdEbTdg

 

As for some believe one way and some believe another,  the sum of knowledgeable someones  is far greater on one side of the issue than the other.

 

That said, I do agree with you that for reasons of pollution alone, stopping the burning of fossil fuel is a good idea. As the IMF points out, about 6 percent of the world's GDP consists of subsidies to fossil fuels. Much of that subsidy being in the form of medical care and lost productivity due to fossil fuel pollution.

 

 

[bristolboy]

39 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I am sure you are smarter then all of that right? You are a Phd in Climate science who taught at one of the most prestigious science universities in the world?

 

A thread presenting both sides of Ocean acidification:

https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidification-discussion-thread/

It's funny. On one of John Oliver's shows he tellingly illustrated the problem with your approach. The way the global warming dispute, such as it is, is depicted on cable news, with 1 pro and 1 con, lead to the public misconstruing the state of opinion in the community of climatologists. So instead of having 1 pro and 1 con, Oliver brought on 97 scientists (well, actors in lab coats) on the pro side of global warming and 3 on the anti side. The point is Curry is part of a small and reactionary community of mostly has-beens and cranks. People who can't adjust to a new way of doing science. And we can see that their predictions have proven to be wrong time and time again. Yet instead of critiquing themselves and their models, they continue to critique the scientists who have predicted it right.

[brokenbone]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Not according to the graph you've posted. According to that sea ice levels have been mostly below the 1981-2010 median.

And from 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously.

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/#ixzz6EsdEbTdg

 

As for some believe one way and some believe another,  the sum of knowledgeable someones  is far greater on one side of the issue than the other.

 

That said, I do agree with you that for reasons of pollution alone, stopping the burning of fossil fuel is a good idea. As the IMF points out, about 6 percent of the world's GDP consists of subsidies to fossil fuels. Much of that subsidy being in the form of medical care and lost productivity due to fossil fuel pollution.

 

 

arctic

 

December 2019 sea ice grew by an average of 82,100 square kilometers (31,700 square miles) per day. This is faster than the 1981 to 2010 average gain of 64,100 square kilometers (24,700 square miles per day) and is the third fastest December ice growth rate in the satellite record, behind 2006 and 2016.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2020/01/

 

windmills wont ever be competitive, and sun isnt going to be for a very long time to come

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[WalkingOrders]

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess that means you are disqualified. To borrow from one of your countrymen who seems to be no longer with us, discussion with you is like pounding sand down a rathole.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever you are interested in listening to anyone else on this thread. Humble and desiring to learn? Yeah right.

Here shall I say again, I am not one of the ones here who is a true believer, asking anyone to accept anything I say as the Gospel. Must I fall to my knees and beg forgiveness for denying the consensus view? I refuse to be lectured into accepting a belief that the end is near. Got that? I refuse! Science is not Religion kids.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Here shall I say again, I am not one of the ones here who is a true believer, asking anyone to accept anything I say as the Gospel. Must I fall to my knees and beg forgiveness for denying the consensus view? I refuse to be lectured into accepting a belief that the end is near. Got that? I refuse! Science is not Religion kids.

When you write caricaturing nonsense like "I refuse to be lectured into accepting a belief that the end is near." you kind of undermine your pretense of rationality.

[WalkingOrders]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's funny. On one of John Oliver's shows he tellingly illustrated the problem with your approach. The way the global warming dispute, such as it is, is depicted on cable news, with 1 pro and 1 con, lead to the public misconstruing the state of opinion in the community of climatologists. So instead of having 1 pro and 1 con, Oliver brought on 97 scientists (well, actors in lab coats) on the pro side of global warming and 3 on the anti side. The point is Curry is part of a small and reactionary community of mostly has-beens and cranks. People who can't adjust to a new way of doing science. And we can see that their predictions have proven to be wrong time and time again. Yet instead of critiquing themselves and their models, they continue to critique the scientists who have predicted it right.

You have yet to articulate what exactly YOUR view is. You can quote all day long but you are not very good at saying what it is you are advocating. Here let me go there again. What do you want? What do you think? What are you trying to accomplish? What Government is your own that you are trying to influence? And to what end? What are you asking of those who are not in line with the consensus view? What do you want of us? You still do not review my review of the article here. Its very clear how magazines manipulate Research papers for political purposes. That is why I do not put much faith in them but prefer to look direct at research when I can. A difficult path. So to my questions? My position is simple. The science is not settled, nor are the best paths forward to mitigate. 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm....

 

Adaptation of species takes thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Humans have been burning fossil fossil fuels on an industrial scale and thus releasing CO2 stored in fossilized fuels over a period of a couple of hundred years ( the rate of burning fossil fuels/releasing fossilized CO2 has accelerated dramatically over the last 50 years).

 

So humans burning fossil fuels creating changes to the environment at a rate faster than other species can adapt.

 

Its not too hard to understand.

Good, then here's something you will understand:

 

Gene expression is the primary mechanism that converts genome-encoded information into phenotypes, and DNA methylation is employed in the epigenetic regulation of gene expression. We investigated variations in global DNA methylation and gene expression between three Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) populations located in northern and southern Finland using mature seeds.

 

Altogether, our results suggest that differential DNA methylation and gene expression contribute to local adaptation in Scots pine populations and may enhance the fitness of trees under rapidly changing climatic conditions.

 

One of countless ways genetic base life adapts on different time scales. After 3 billion years, life says "Been there, done that". 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30113688

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

When you write caricaturing nonsense like "I refuse to be lectured into accepting a belief that the end is near." you kind of undermine your pretense of rationality.

Articulate your position. do your best. Don't use a magazine article to do it please.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

arctic

 

December 2019 sea ice grew by an average of 82,100 square kilometers (31,700 square miles) per day. This is faster than the 1981 to 2010 average gain of 64,100 square kilometers (24,700 square miles per day) and is the third fastest December ice growth rate in the satellite record, behind 2006 and 2016.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2020/01/

 

windmills wont ever be competitive, and sun isnt going to be for a very long time to come

windmills already are very competitive. 

Europe is building more wind and solar — without any subsidies

New renewable energy projects are expected to be profitable with little government support.

The French electric utility Engie announced last week that it’s going to develop 300 megawatts of wind energy across nine wind farms in Spain, backed by $350 million (€300 million) in investment.

Here’s the key: It’s doing all this without government support...

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/30/17408602/solar-wind-energy-renewable-subsidy-europe

The article goes on to list lots of other projects surging ahead. Do try and get over your nostalgia for the fossil fuel age It is coming to a close and its demise is now being financed by capitalists.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Articulate your position. do your best. Don't use a magazine article to do it please.

I have no idea what a magazine article has to do with your ridiculous comment about the end of the world.

[brokenbone]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

windmills already are very competitive. 

Europe is building more wind and solar — without any subsidies

New renewable energy projects are expected to be profitable with little government support.

The French electric utility Engie announced last week that it’s going to develop 300 megawatts of wind energy across nine wind farms in Spain, backed by $350 million (€300 million) in investment.

Here’s the key: It’s doing all this without government support...

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/30/17408602/solar-wind-energy-renewable-subsidy-europe

The article goes on to list lots of other projects surging ahead. Do try and get over your nostalgia for the fossil fuel age It is coming to a close and its demise is now being financed by capitalists.

i have no nostalgia for oil for heating or electric generation,

never had it back home, it was nuclear and water all the way.

denmark & germany has the highest energy cost in europe,

coincidentally that happened when they went windmills

[brokenbone]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I have no idea what a magazine article has to do with your ridiculous comment about the end of the world.

but you just posted that article just a couple of pages ago