Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It's not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.
The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren't up for that.,
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It's unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It's not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.
You're not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.
If anything we're finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,
toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.
The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren't up for that.
Not at all, mankind's lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It's unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.
They're outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing feedbacks. That makes no sense.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It's not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.
You're not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.I don't seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.
If anything we're finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26.3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.
Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there's nothing "unbelievably intense" about the ones we are seeing today.toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.What did you think anthropogenioc global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven't been broken by "large amounts" - they've just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain.
The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.
The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren't up for that.
Not at all, mankind's lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.I'm sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It's unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.
They're outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin's denialism.
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:02:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It's not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.
You're not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.
I don't seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.
If anything we're finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,
Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26.3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.
And WHY would anyone listen to the "nonsense" coming from an idiot such as yourself that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING your OWN COUNTRY is a good idea?
Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there's nothing "unbelievably intense" about the ones we are seeing today.toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.
What did you think anthropogenic global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven't been broken by "large amounts" - they've just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain.
The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.
The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren't up for that.
Not at all, mankind's lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.
I'm sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It's unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.
They're outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.
Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin's denialism.
Not nearly as silly as your cult-like belief in a climate catastrophe.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.
Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
If there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing feedbacks. That makes no sense.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.
Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
Got to admire your attention span at being terrified of life.
Stupid people like me just enjoy things before some supernova toasts
us all.
On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
That isn't so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.
There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system.
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred BloggsIf there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused >by asteroids, like ... ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says>
... and super-volcanoes like ... ><https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt>
The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent, >inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods, >heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated, >property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently >flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not >causing extinction of humankind.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things
Are you proposing an oscillating system? What causes the turnarounds?
Past ice/warm cycles don't look periodic to me. External and maybe volcanic forcings sound more likely.
Lots of people do "control theory" by guessing.
That doesn't work, because numbers matter. Positive feeedback doesn't necessarily change a system much, but most people (and journalists) assume radical results.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:02:55 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
That isn't so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat >than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water. >There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.
If there is net positive albedo feedback, we'd have no ice or we'd be 100% covered with ice.
There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system.
Why? Where?
Earth has had tropical phases and ice ages, without humans.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred BloggsIf there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ... ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says>
... and super-volcanoes like ... ><https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt>
The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent, >inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods, >heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently >flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred BloggsIf there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, and >just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them andFrom palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says>
... and super-volcanoes like ...
<https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt>
The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently >> >flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:21:19 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:If there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, andFrom palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says>
... and super-volcanoes like ...
<https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt>
The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent, >> >inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods, >> >heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/
just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them and
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.
The source is cited.
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It's just back and forth, back and forth...
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:If there's one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it's that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ... ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says>
... and super-volcanoes like ... ><https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt>
The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent, >inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods, >heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently >flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/
That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, and
just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them and
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:39 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:02:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It's not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.
You're not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.
I don't seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.
If anything we're finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,
Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26.3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.
And WHY would anyone listen to the "nonsense" coming from an idiot such as yourself that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING your OWN COUNTRY is a good idea?Sewage Sweeper invents his own nonsense - his misunderstandings of what I've posted are bizarre, but no stanger than his misunderstandings of stuff he has posted in the delusion that it supported his demented poit of view.
toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.
Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there's nothing "unbelievably intense" about the ones we are seeing today.What did you think anthropogenic global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven't been broken by "large amounts" - they've just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain.
The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.
The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren't up for that.
Not at all, mankind's lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.
I'm sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It's unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.
They're outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.
Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin's denialism.
Not nearly as silly as your cult-like belief in a climate catastrophe.Main-stream science isn't any kind of cult. You clearly didn't get the kind of academic training that would let you understand it, or if you did, senile dementia has washed it all away.
Since I'm not an anonymous troll I can cite links to my own cited scientific papers - here's one. It's now got 28 citations;
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/7/11/015/meta
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
That isn't so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:47:14 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:39 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:02:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Sewage Sweeper invents his own nonsense - his misunderstandings of what I've posted are bizarre, but no stranger than his misunderstandings of stuff he has posted in the delusion that it supported his demented point of view.
Hey Bozo, let's get something VERY CLEAR here: I DIDN'T invent this NONSENSE that YOU posted - YOU DID!
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren't frightening the children of the planet.
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:02:55 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
That isn't so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.
If there is net positive albedo feedback, we'd have no ice or we'd be
100% covered with ice.
There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system.
Why? Where?
Earth has had tropical phases and ice ages, without humans.
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren't frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You
are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion
of Global Warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4
John :-#(#
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4
John :-#(#
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
You're missing information in the original BBC article, which is:
"It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That's the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly's of about -0.02 %.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.
You tell me who's the lunatic here.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4
John :-#(#
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
You're missing information in the original BBC article, which is:
"It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.That's not "information". It's justa verbal flourish.
That's the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly's of about -0.02 %.It's not in "stark contrast". It's just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.
You tell me who's the lunatic here.It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
You're missing information in the original BBC article, which is:
"It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That's not "information". It's just a verbal flourish.
That's the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly's of about -0.02 %.
It's not in "stark contrast". It's just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.
You tell me who's the lunatic here.
It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You're not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO >followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren't frightening the children of the planet.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com> wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the >Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO >followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you >weren't frightening the children of the planet.But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We're doomed.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
<snip>For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
You're missing information in the original BBC article, which is:
"It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That's not "information". It's just a verbal flourish.
That's the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly's of about -0.02 %.
It's not in "stark contrast". It's just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.
You tell me who's the lunatic here.
It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You're not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.Presumably you meant to write "you are " or "you're scale and movement blind". That isn't a disability I've ever heard of, and I probably wouldn't be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect.
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:41:41?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com>
wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8 >> >
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren't frightening the children of the planet.
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We're doomed.
I think it's the Greenland glaciers doing the sliding. The ones in Antarctica float away.
Apparently the Bay area thinks it's serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
Apparently the Bay area thinks it's serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don't have much time
left. We'll all doomed to drown.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com> wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the >Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO >followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you >weren't frightening the children of the planet.
But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We're doomed.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com> wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the >Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO >followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you >weren't frightening the children of the planet.
But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We're doomed.
I think it's the Greenland glaciers doing the sliding. The ones in Antarctica float away.
Apparently the Bay area thinks it's serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.You tell me who's the lunatic here.
It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You're not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write "you are " or "you're scale and movement blind". That isn't a disability I've ever heard of, and I probably wouldn't be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect.
You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.
That idiotic statement about 'one year low' is a case in point. You're too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seemoblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.
You're pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 6:16:18?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
Apparently the Bay area thinks it's serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don't have much time
left. We'll all doomed to drown.
New conditions (climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution) apply, >invalidating your linear extrapolation. Everyone else has known this for decades.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:14:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 6:16:18?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
Apparently the Bay area thinks it's serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don't have much time
left. We'll all doomed to drown.
New conditions (climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution) apply, >invalidating your linear extrapolation. Everyone else has known this for decades.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1999/fs175-99/images/events.jpg
On 2023/09/19 12:11 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:propaganda that is pretty lame, but got enough to miusdlead gullible twits like you aren John Larkin.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO >> followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
Fred does over-interpret the climate scientific warnings.
They aren't frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying
Not frightening them enough? When quite a few are refusing to have children because the world is doomed?
What else are they not doing? Like looking for alternatives for problems as they occur? Humans have solved the problem of climate changes since we came out of the trees. These days, with vastly more energy and communication resources at ourdisposal, we can handle the future well enough - as long as the fear mongers don't get everyone hiding in their basements says "We're all doomed!"
Its been said before - "We having nothing to fear but fear itself."
saturated for those IR wavelengths - and the large IR atmospheric Window is outside of the absorption band of CO2. A one dimensional model this paper claims - how is that transferable to our 4D world (Time being the 4th)? Sounds like the tale ofFor that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with make money out of anti-social activities for a few years longer.
I agree I should not have gotten personal in my response to the previous poster - that was churlish of me, and for that I apologize.
I consider myself a CO2 skeptic, based on the absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide. I need to study the math more, but treating CO2 as if it was the glass of a greenhouse seems a bit odd, glass reflects IR, CO2 refracts it and is pretty much
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328129326_Absorption_coefficient_of_carbon_dioxide_across_atmospheric_troposphere_layer
Denier sounds like the folks (fools) who don't want vaccinations, refute the Holocaust, and don't think the previous (2016-2020) president of the US is anything other than a con artist.
Fight incorrect data with facts, and leave the rest to the noisy ones.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." If the climate scientists post their raw data to let folks check, I have no argument with them, just possibly their data.
I prefer Karl Popper's requirements of falsifiability to make a rebuttable theory. 'Prove me wrong (or right), here is my data.' which implies an adult attitude - of 'I can make mistakes, let us learn from
them by working together...'
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
<snip>For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That's not a 'variation', it's a driven event.
""Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be "an absolute disaster for the world," he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica's ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds."
"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica's usual role as a regulator of global temperatures."
...which means once critical mass is melted, it's gone for good, and won't be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
You're missing information in the original BBC article, which is:
"It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That's not "information". It's just a verbal flourish.
That's the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly's of about -0.02 %.
It's not in "stark contrast". It's just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.
You tell me who's the lunatic here.
It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You're not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.Presumably you meant to write "you are " or "you're scale and movement blind". That isn't a disability I've ever heard of, and I probably wouldn't be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect.
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:29:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
You tell me who's the lunatic here.
It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You're not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write "you are " or "you're scale and movement blind". That isn't a disability I've ever heard of, and I probably wouldn't be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of
You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.That's exactly the kind of over-confident assertion you get from people like you, whose reach exceeds their grasp.
oblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.That idiotic statement about 'one year low' is a case in point. You're too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seem
You haven't posted the frequency distribution that you'd need to back up that claim. Neither did the original paper. Picking trends out of noisy data is difficult.
concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.You're pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 2023/09/19 12:11 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:propaganda that is pretty lame, but got enough to miusdlead gullible twits like you aren John Larkin.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO >> followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren't frightening the children of the planet.
Fred does over-interpret the climate scientific warnings.
They aren't frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying
Not frightening them enough? When quite a few are refusing to have
children because the world is doomed? What else are they not doing? Like looking for alternatives for problems as they occur? Humans have solved
the problem of climate changes since we came out of the trees. These
days, with vastly more energy and communication resources at our
disposal, we can handle the future well enough - as long as the fear
mongers don't get everyone hiding in their basements says "We're all doomed!"
Its been said before - "We having nothing to fear but fear itself."
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with make money out of anti-social activities for a few years longer.
I agree I should not have gotten personal in my response to the previous poster - that was churlish of me, and for that I apologize.
I consider myself a CO2 skeptic, based on the absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide. I need to study the math more, but treating CO2 as if it
was the glass of a greenhouse seems a bit odd, glass reflects IR, CO2 refracts it and is pretty much saturated for those IR wavelengths - and
the large IR Atmospheric Window is outside of the absorption band of
CO2. A one dimensional model this paper claims - how is that
transferable to our 4D world (Time being the 4th)? Sounds like the tale
of Flatland to me.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328129326_Absorption_coefficient_of_carbon_dioxide_across_atmospheric_troposphere_layer
Denier sounds like the folks (fools) who don't want vaccinations, refute
the Holocaust, and don't think the previous (2016-2020) president of the
US is anything other than a con artist.
Fight incorrect data with facts, and leave the rest to the noisy ones.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." If the climate scientists post their raw data to let folks check, I have no argument with them, just possibly
their data.
I prefer Karl Popper's requirements of falsifiability to make a
rebuttable theory. 'Prove me wrong (or right), here is my data.' which implies anadult attitude - of 'I can make mistakes, let us learn from
them by working together...'
<snip>
John :-#)#
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:05:27 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.
A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium
Gauss invented least squares estimation for least error estimation of planetary orbits. Tell us what planetary orbits have to do with reaction rates.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:05:03 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
"mindless incomprehension" sure describes someone who thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING their OWN COUNTRY is a good idea.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:05:27 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:29:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
You tell me who's the lunatic here.
It's definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard's walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You're not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write "you are " or "you're scale and movement blind". That isn't a disability I've ever heard of, and I probably wouldn't be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of
You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.
That's exactly the kind of over-confident assertion you get from people like you, whose reach exceeds their grasp.
You mean the kind of assertion made by someone who knows how to use a step-stool to extend their reach as opposed to your Pleistocene self who can't figure that out.
oblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.That idiotic statement about 'one year low' is a case in point. You're too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seem
had developed a working knowledge of statistics, you can visually 'see' the point distributions have almost all the measurements clustered within 0.02 % deviations about the mean- that would be mean for any specific date. This makes a 0.13% deviationYou haven't posted the frequency distribution that you'd need to back up that claim. Neither did the original paper. Picking trends out of noisy data is difficult.
The frequency distribution over multiple decades is displayed graphically on the NOAA ice snow and ice data center page. The fluctuation is not ergodic, the relevant statistic is the amplitude distributions seen at specific times of the year. If you
concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.You're pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.
A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium
Gauss invented least squares estimation for least error estimation of planetary orbits. Tell us what planetary orbits have to do with reaction rates.
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:22:11 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,248 |
| Messages: | 5,358,389 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
