Accelerating melt of ice sheets now 'unmistakable'

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

All you've demonstrated is that there are local climatological phenomena that can be long lasting. Nothing about the global phenomenon which is what is being referred to by the terms Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global Warming.

In addition, your claims for the effect of solar activity, and particularly the Maunder Minimum,, on the climate are greatly overblown. The Little Ice age began hundreds of years before the Maunder Minimum and persisted well after it was over. I know that there's a logical fallacy called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc., After This Therefore Because of This.  But I've never heard of  Ante Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Before This Therefore Because of This

 

UNUSUAL VOLCANIC EPISODE RAPIDLY TRIGGERED LITTLE ICE AGE, RESEARCHERS FIND

New evidence from northern ice sheets suggests that volcanic eruptions triggered the multiple-century cool spell known as the Little Ice Age, and pinpoints the start of the climate shift to the final decades of the 13th century. Researchers have long known that the Little Ice Age began sometime after the Middle Ages and lasted into the late 19th century. But, estimates of its onset have ranged from the 13th to the 16th century.

https://news.agu.org/press-release/unusual-volcanic-episode-rapidly-triggered-little-ice-age-researchers-find/

 

The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations

 Using northern hemisphere surface air temperature reconstructions, the LIA can be most readily defined as an approximately 480 year period spanning AD 1440–1920, although not all of this period was notably cold. While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html

Solar activity was low throughout the whole of the LIA period, with the lower lows at the Sporer and Maunder minimums. The effect of this has been shown to be more than just regional and the temperature drops were significant. Your narrative has now changed and will obviously not allow any other point of view...except yours...so I'll leave you to it.

[Bkk Brian]

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Sun effects? Says it all.

So you didn't read the NASA link........

 

Yes the sun effects, but its the lack of them that have anything to do with climate warming now.

 

Here's one of the smoking guns, the other is in the link:

 

"No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet."

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I thought as much. This link actually contradicts the assertions you made. They were that it had global effect and was linked to sunspots.

 

For these reasons the Little Ice Age, though synonymous with cold temperatures, can also be characterized broadly as a period when there was an increase in temperature and precipitation variability across many parts of the globe.

 

 

So that's why it was called the little Ice Age? Better read it again.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

So that's why it was called the little Ice Age? Better read it again.

Is that your argument? The name of it supports your claim? Unbelievable. It does not say it was global. It does say it was intermittent, unlike the consistent increases in temperature directly linked to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that we are experiencing right now. It doesn't even mention atmospheric CO2 levels which we absolutely know (with the help of 19th century physics) to be the cause of the current global warming. It further postulates that there was a period of increased volcanic activity which is likely to have been the cause.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Solar activity was low throughout the whole of the LIA period, with the lower lows at the Sporer and Maunder minimums. The effect of this has been shown to be more than just regional and the temperature drops were significant. Your narrative has now changed and will obviously not allow any other point of view...except yours...so I'll leave you to it.

That claim is BS. There is not even a definite date for the onset of the LIttle Ice Age but the latest is 1560. Systematic tracking of solar cycles only began in the mid 18th century. Even the earliest records used by Rudolf Wolf, which were not systematic, date back only to 1610. There was no systematic survey of solar activity until the mid 18th century. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Wolf

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The ice sheets are melting, and the climate is changing such that most of it will become virtually uninhabitable and apparently the ONLY thing we can do wait for solar panels to be developed that work in the dark. 

 

5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel | Department of Energy

 

 

 

 

I got some exciting news for you. Storage devices don't need sunlight or wind to work and their cost is rapidly heading downward.

[Keep Right]

There has been three major ice ages in the last three billions years of earth's history. We are simply in between the last and the next ice age to come. So sit back and enjoy your life because you can do absolutely nothing to stop this occurrence.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Keep Right said:

There has been three major ice ages in the last three billions years of earth's history. We are simply in between the last and the next ice age to come. So sit back and enjoy your life because you can do absolutely nothing to stop this occurrence.

We just keep going round and round in circles. The climate deniers simply don't understand what rate of change means.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

There has been three major ice ages in the last three billions years of earth's history. We are simply in between the last and the next ice age to come. So sit back and enjoy your life because you can do absolutely nothing to stop this occurrence.

You sure about that?

 

Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age

Humanity has become a geological force that is able to suppress the beginning of the next ice age, a study now published in the scientific journal Nature shows. Cracking the code of glacial inception, scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the relation of insolation and CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere to be the key criterion to explain the last eight glacial cycles in Earth history. At the same time their results illustrate that even moderate human interference with the planet's natural carbon balance might postpone the next glacial inception by 100,000 years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160113160709.htm

 

Without human caused climate change the next period of glaciation was projected to occur in about 50,000 years.

[onthedarkside]

Off topic troll post and reply removed:

 

Please stay on topic which is, the current climate change that is leading to:

 

Accelerating melt of ice sheets now 'unmistakable'

[Lacessit]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:04 AM, ozimoron said:

We're going to crash into that tree anyway so why hit the brakes?

I guess hitting a tree at 20 km/hr has better outcomes for the driver and passengers than hitting one at 100 km/hr.

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

So you didn't read the NASA link........

 

Yes the sun effects, but its the lack of them that have anything to do with climate warming now.

 

Here's one of the smoking guns, the other is in the link:

 

"No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet."

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

I read it. Your confuse the issue by introducing solar irradiance in place of sunspot activity, of which the latter was far lower around the MM than today. I have not said that the sun is causing global warming now. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I guess hitting a tree at 20 km/hr has better outcomes for the driver and passengers than hitting one at 100 km/hr.

And the kids in the back seat might actually survive.

[ozimoron]

Just now, nauseus said:

I read it. Your confuse the issue by introducing solar irradiance in place of sunspot activity, of which the latter was far lower around the MM than today. I have not said that the sun is causing global warming now. 

Good, then we can agree that discussion about the sun is off topic for anthropomorphic climate change?

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The ice sheets are melting, and the climate is changing such that most of it will become virtually uninhabitable and apparently the ONLY thing we can do wait for solar panels to be developed that work in the dark. 

 

5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel | Department of Energy

 

 

 

 

Places such as Siberia will probably become more inhabitable.

The real problem of climate change IMO will be the mass migrations of humans seeking places where they can grow food, as desertification of arid areas advances.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Places such as Siberia will probably become more inhabitable.

The real problem of climate change IMO will be the mass migrations of humans seeking places where they can grow food, as desertification of arid areas advances.

In Australia's case most of those areas are likely to suffer more flooding so there's nowhere to go.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I thought as much. This link actually contradicts the assertions you made. They were that it had global effect and was linked to sunspots.

 

For these reasons the Little Ice Age, though sy.en there was an increase in temperature and precipitation variability across many parts of the globe.

 

 

That link plus other previous ones report a lowering of temperatures in many regions on most continents, while these "many parts" of the globe described  as "warmer" are nameless or are not identified - probably because they are not obvious - that is because, generally, the world cooled. 

 

An increase in temperature and precipitation variability does not necessarily mean an overall increase in temperature, itself. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by nauseus

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

That link plus other previous ones report a lowering of temperatures in many regions on most continents, while these many parts of the globe described  as "warmer" are nameless or not identified - probably because they are not obvious - that is because, generally, the world cooled. 

 

An increase in temperature and precipitation variability does not necessarily mean an overall increase in temperature, itself. 

The article explicitly said and I quoted the relevant part that the Earth was nevertheless in a warming trend during that period and makes the point that the disparate periods of cooling were an aberration to that trend.

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I read it. Your confuse the issue by introducing solar irradiance in place of sunspot activity, of which the latter was far lower around the MM than today. I have not said that the sun is causing global warming now. 

I'm not confusing anything, this topic is about global warming today and the reasons for it. Which is nothing to do with the sun.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Keep Right said:

There has been three major ice ages in the last three billions years of earth's history. We are simply in between the last and the next ice age to come. So sit back and enjoy your life because you can do absolutely nothing to stop this occurrence.

There probably won't be another ice age, unless humans manage to create a nuclear winter.

Ice is reflective, the term is albedo.

When ice melts, it exposes dark rock beneath. Said rock is more capable of absorbing more solar radiation and heat, following the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

As permafrost melts, compounds in the ice called clathrates decompose. That reaction releases methane, which is 100 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. There are billions of tonnes of clathrates locked up in permafrost.

As Randy Bachman said, you ain't seen nothing yet. It's not a natural cycle of ice ages, it is something humans have created.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

That claim is BS. There is not even a definite date for the onset of the LIttle Ice Age but the latest is 1560. Systematic tracking of solar cycles only began in the mid 18th century. Even the earliest records used by Rudolf Wolf, which were not systematic, date back only to 1610. There was no systematic survey of solar activity until the mid 18th century. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Wolf

So what is it 1610 or 1850?

 

BS back.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm not confusing anything, this topic is about global warming today and the reasons for it. Which is nothing to do with the sun.

Wrong. The sun contributes about 98% of the heat warming the planet. It's the interaction between constant levels of solar radiation and increased levels of CO2 that result in more heat going into the oceans. Warmer oceans accelerate the melting of ice, and also make storms more violent.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Wrong. The sun contributes about 98% of the heat warming the planet. It's the interaction between constant levels of solar radiation and increased levels of CO2 that result in more heat going into the oceans. Warmer oceans accelerate the melting of ice, and also make storms more violent.

Go back and read this post & link for context:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1292629-accelerating-melt-of-ice-sheets-now-unmistakable/?do=findComment&comment=18036214

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Wrong. The sun contributes about 98% of the heat warming the planet. It's the interaction between constant levels of solar radiation and increased levels of CO2 that result in more heat going into the oceans. Warmer oceans accelerate the melting of ice, and also make storms more violent.

100% of the warming of the Earth came from or comes from the sun. Increased CO2 only results in more of that heat being absorbed by the planet.

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, nauseus said:

So what is it 1610 or 1850?

 

BS back.

I am citing the various opinions of climatologists. But for the purposes of addressing your claim that "Solar activity was low throughout the whole of the LIA period" it doesn't matter. EThere aren't any reliable records of sunspot activity that cover the entire LIA even if you assign the latest date to its beginning.

[bignok]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:09 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the brakes don't work anyway.

IMO it's more about making money than about actually doing anything.

South pole is expanding.

 

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

[bignok]

42 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm not confusing anything, this topic is about global warming today and the reasons for it. Which is nothing to do with the sun.

Topic is about Ice.

[bignok]

31 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

100% of the warming of the Earth came from or comes from the sun. Increased CO2 only results in more of that heat being absorbed by the planet.

Co2 comes from the planet not space.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

South pole is expanding.

 

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

No. The south pole is not expanding. How did you come up with that one?

[bignok]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

So you didn't read the NASA link........

 

Yes the sun effects, but its the lack of them that have anything to do with climate warming now.

 

Here's one of the smoking guns, the other is in the link:

 

"No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet."

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

Many factors influence warming or cooling.

 

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change