JAXA V1 is at the 2000’s average, while V2 is below it
They are doing some impressive work which Hansen would be proud of, increasing ice extent for older years, and decreasing it for more recent years.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Bob G on “getting smaller”
- Patrick Powers on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- dm on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Charles Higley on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- stewartpid on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- arn on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Disillusioned on Time Traveling Satellites
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
Steve, one of your premises is that there is no connection between temperature and CO2. I just read this article about the carbon cycle and am passing it on just in case you might give it a read. Even if afterward you decide to discredit the basic science in the premise, it would be good for you to at least hear the carbon cycle story in the words of those that accept this premise. I hope you will hold your nose and read it. I can’t imagine any educated person not at least finding it interesting. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page1.php
I said no such thing. Are you looking to be spam?
It’s a good article, I thought you would appreciate it.
Cut the bullshit.
I like this statement from your link. “This balance helps keep Earth’s temperature relatively stable, like a thermostat.”
This explains why we’ve seen Arctic temperatures increase by 5-10C in only 50 years when man contributed no CO2 to the carbon cycle. This also must be why we find all those dead animals and human artifacts frozen in permafrost. ROTFLMAO
By Holli Riebeck – education and outreach specialist, NASA.
That is the modern sanitised term for propaganda specialist.
From your link Avairy!
“Over the long term, the carbon cycle seems to maintain a balance that prevents all of Earth’s carbon from entering the atmosphere (as is the case on Venus) or from being stored entirely in rocks. This balance helps keep Earth’s temperature relatively stable, like a thermostat.”
What a load of shyte!
1. No carbon in the atmosphere means no life on earth.
2. World air temperature is regulated by
– Suns activity
– Oceans and
– water vapour and cloud formation.
– geography and vegetation cover
– other minor contributors including CO2
3. Carbon dioxide levels were orders of magnitude higher over the past 300 MY and the earth didn’t boil and life was amazingly abundant.
You keep repeating propaganda Avery. It says everything about your lack of critical thinking ability. Alternatively you are a propagandist yourself. Either or.
Both are very unattractive. You came to the wrong place to evangelise or do you have to “witness” in your new religion.
Just read the article, it won’t hurt you.
AVery, there’s several things wrong with that article….
The one that’s most obvious is where they state that left to it’s own, carbon/CO2 will reach a steady state….
Left to it’s own, carbon will become limiting….because of biology…..Chemistry will continue to lower carbon after that to where life can not exist
Chemistry is easy…..chemical biology is hard
Nice propaganda. It’s a kernel of truth wrapped in great big lies to convince sheep to give hundreds of billions in carbon taxes to shysters in London. They throw NASA alarmists a few shekels and Bob’s your uncle, a lovely piece of creative writing. Peer reviewed of course. So why is the global sea ice extent above average and the ocean alkaline? They didn’t explain how CO2 causes that. Must be in the expurgated version. I suggest you read Mein Kampf or anything by Goebbels and you might see some similarities in writing style.
“Just read the article, it won’t hurt you.”
Yeah. Just like reading Silent Spring by Rachel Carson didn’t hurt anyone….other than the 50 million resulting deaths from malaria directly tied to the banning of DDT.
Why is it that libs supposedly champion diversity, while at the same time, demand everyone else think (feel?) exactly like they do? In short Avery, we really don’t care what you believe. Just stop expecting the rest of us to pay tythes for your silly beliefs.
Ocean has 99% of the CO2 and the Atmosphere the other 1%
That is a major reason why ocean water which is well buffered can’t turn into acid.
If you read the article you will have a better understanding of the carbon cycle.
For all you climate crabs out there. “Life in a Climate Cataclysm Box”
http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/350-life-in-a-climate-cataclysm-box.html#.UmU2zpiuOYw.twitter
The authors of that article must presuppose that all the scientists throughout the world who research anything relating to climate and earth systems are conspiring. Otherwise how could all the evidence point to the same thing:- that CO2 is increasing and the world is warming. Never mind the fact that shipping companies must be involved in the conspiracy, pretending that they’ve been cutting across the Arctic in summer. Photographers and news outlets must be in on the scam, too. Not to mention the birds and the bees who’ve shifted their domain, the glaciers and ice sheets and fish in the oceans.
Wow what ignorance you display here.
Do you know what a fallacy is and what you wrote is a well known fallacy that quickly shows that you are scientifically illiterate.
Here is a chart that quickly show your fallacy to be bunk:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3123.html#pid3123
Take note that CO2 levels in the atmosphere barely changed for thousands of years while there were large temperature swings from high to low back to high during all that time.There is no CO2/temperature connection at all.
Avery found that tripe informative? I’ve seen movie posters with more information. Obviously I have overestimated his intelligence.
RE: Avery – “…one of your premises is that there is no connection between temperature and CO2”
Avery,
Given:
1. We have the highest CO2 in modern history, and
2. Just experienced the coldest Arctic summer in recorded history, and
3. CO2 theory predicts the greatest warming in the Arctic
We are left at an intellectual impasse.
I read the paper. More can be inferred by what was left out, than by what was included.
Example: The paper states that “calcium reacts with bicarbonate to produce calcium carbonate”. Wrong by omission.
What did they leave out?
1. The ocean is an aqueous solution. Aqueous calcium hydrogen carbonate is by far the predominant species between pH 6.35 and 10.0, not calcium carbonate. CaHCO3 is 10,000 – 100,000 more prevalent than CaCO3.
2. The bicarbonate ion is… surprise surprise … alkaline. Guess which word you will not find in the paper? Alkaline. Have you ever wondered what cancels all that lovely stomach acid when the chyme enters the small intestine? Secretin causes the pancreas to release bicarbonate ion
3. Bicarbonate is the alkaline backbone of the human body’s ph buffering system.
Ben, you hit on two things….
At a time when CO2 levels should have the most effect (absorption bands)….temps stopped and went the other way
Biological processes produce more acid than CO2 ever can.
You didn’t read it either. One cool item was about how the Himalayan Mountains began to rise up 50 million years ago exposing lots of rock that became a sink for atmopheric CO2. So much CO2 was pulled out of the atmosphere resulting in such cooling that Antarctica began to be glaciated over. Doesn’t your curious scientific mind want to just roll that concept around a bit.
Complete bullshit ad hoc science, written by NASA morons who don’t know the first thing about geology
No it was the development of the circular ocean current around Antarctica that allowed the continent to cool down radically.
The Drake passage developed about 35 million years ago that allowed the ocean currents become circular around the continent to keep out warmer winds.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_3-Illustration_17.png
Here is the science paper that shows the development:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-ocean-8674.html
Interesting looking links I will look at tomorrow.
The timing of the Himalayan uplift creating a sink for atomspheric CO2 to be removed, followed by lower temperatures, could have contributed to the cooling of Antarctica along with the opening of the Drake passage. Who’s to say, at least it helps us to think about what makes temperatures go up and down.
If you shrunk the earth down to the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than a pool ball. The Himalayas account for a tiny fraction of a percent of the exposed surface of the Earth. That story is complete bullshit.
“Deniers” try to “discredit the basic science”. Oddly, the basic science calculates a doubling of CO2 will increase global temperatures by 1.1C, which would most likely be a net benefit for the planet. Strange how deniers don’t want global warming to produce a good outcome. On the other hand, the speculative feedback theories where CO2 causes 2, 3, 4 or more C’s of warming, somehow mysteriously becomes part of the “basic science” to the advocate.
Too bad you decided to not read the essay. Your loss.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/time-to-put-this-scam-to-bed-2/
I read it years ago and wonder at the stupidity of people like you who can’t do the simple math in the chart.
Almost all of the CO2 is already in the ocean waters 38,000 to Atmosphere 800.
This means reduction of the PH levels is going to be very small since there is little available atmospheric CO2 level to reduce it with.
Why do you guys have to start a paragraph with what you think is an insult. That is for a psychologist to figure out, I want to pursue this fascinating discussion of CO2. CO2 is the crux of the debate. All the stories about liars and fraudsters and stupid people fall by the wayside if you can’t win the debate on CO2 on its merits. From what I have seen so far on this site, no one has made the effort to understand the basis for why folks say CO2 is a problem. I think one needs fully understand the side of the issue one is arguing against to be able to make that argument.
To answer your point, CO2 level in the atmosphere is going up. CO2 and the ocean is another story.
I have already shown you that increasing CO2 is not a problem, and you have shown that you aren’t interested in the actual data.
To point out what you clearly don’t know is that NEGATIVE feedbacks is empirically observed,while Positive feedbacks remain a modeled fantasy:
A Battle for Sensitivity
“”Sensitivity” to a climate scientist refers to the expected change in global temperature due to a doubling of CO2 levels. Thus far, all papers which have calculated sensitivity on the basis of empirical satellite or weather balloon data have found sensitivity to be far less than what is assumed by the computer models of the IPCC. A highly recommended new paper by Dr. Bill Gray adds to the list of papers which find sensitivity to be quite low: 0.5°C due to a doubling of CO2:”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/05/battle-for-sensitivity.html
The chart is the link explains it well.
Isn’t it sad that it is only on blogs like this that changes to existing datasets are questioned?
The free press is no longer free.
The Polar Science Center reports
“September Update Delayed: Required data not available due to US Government shutdown.”
How unfortunate that we don’t get to see the unwinding of the arctic-death-spiral. I’m sure they are working hard to get the data or to get the data right.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral.png
I have lived quite a long time and it’s really too bad that during that time the Progressives have denuded this once great country so that you can never trust anything that comes from the government, sad, really sad.
Avery Hardhead,who has no idea how long I have been on the global warming stuff make this dumb comment to me over what I wrote:
“If you read the article you will have a better understanding of the carbon cycle.”
The dumbass fails to realize that what I referred to was straight from the IPCC report.
This is what I wrote:
“Ocean has 99% of the CO2 and the Atmosphere the other 1%
That is a major reason why ocean water which is well buffered can’t turn into acid.”
The link you are absurdly excited about doesn’t even support what you believe because you have no idea on how they themselves discredit the AGW conjecture with the “fast carbon cycle they show.
Nature emits about 97% to 3% CO2 per year.The chart shows it in your own link!
LOL
The question about the ocean is what is its holding capacity for CO2. Most man made CO2 goes into the ocean and at some point the ocean can’t hold any more before pusing it back to the atmosphere. You are right about 97 percent of CO2 is natural and 3 percent manmade. The problem is, that 3 percent is all that is needed to unbalance the equilibrium.
Wow that is plain dumb because again it makes no difference as the Atmosphere can’t hold the CO2 in the air long as the FAST cycle in YOUR link clearly shows that it is about a 8 year cycle.
Here is a chart that might help you understand what dozens of peer reviewed science paper established over a 40 year period show that CO2 in the atmosphere has a short residence time:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3118.html#pid3118
Below is a simple explanation on Ocean capacity to absorb CO2:
CO2: Effect of temperature on the equilibrium pressure of the CO2 over the seawater.
“With an average global sea water temperature on 15 degrees Celsius, it appears that normally the CO2-concentrations by far exceed equilibrium with the ocean water. Thus, CO2 is taken up by the ocean, and there is nothing at present to suggest that oceans are almost saturated with CO2.”
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/co2-effect-of-temperature-on-the-equilibrium-pressure-of-the-co2-over-the-seawater-167.php
The chart in the link explains it well.
If you look at the stock and flows of man made co2 going into the atmosphere, co2 is going up. How long a molecule of co2 last is immaterial. I will check out your links tomorrow.
. Most man made CO2 goes into the ocean and at some point the ocean can’t hold any more before pusing it back to the atmosphere
====
AVery, the ocean has an unlimited ability to sequester CO2….
Oh man you forgot the simple math.
97% becomes 194% the next year to 3% becoming 6%
Here is an six page with charts and data essay that drive this point home that over time Man’s CO2 emission is tiny in comparison to Natures,that it becomes irrelevant:
Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases
Selected excerpts,
In 1750, carbon’s weight in the atmosphere was 590 billion metric tons.
By 2000 it was about 790 billion.
And here is CDIAC’s year-by-year estimate of human
emissions during that period,
(in the link shows a chart indicating the TOTAL amount is about 7 million metric tons over 150 years time)
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf
Total increase from 1750 is about TWO HUNDRED BILLION metric tons to mans 7 million metric tons from the 1850’s.
The current yearly emission amount according to your link is a feeble 9 gt per year versus Nature’s 210 gt per year. With the known short CO2 residence time that 9 gt is cycled out in approximately 8 years also according to your link. Thus man’s contribution is very small.
Avery Hardhead writes,
“Why do you guys have to start a paragraph with what you think is an insult. That is for a psychologist to figure out, I want to pursue this fascinating discussion of CO2. CO2 is the crux of the debate. All the stories about liars and fraudsters and stupid people fall by the wayside if you can’t win the debate on CO2 on its merits. From what I have seen so far on this site, no one has made the effort to understand the basis for why folks say CO2 is a problem. I think one needs
fully understand the side of the issue one is arguing against to be able to make that argument.
To answer your point, CO2 level in the atmosphere is going up. CO2 and the ocean is another story.”
Maybe because several of us have given you science based replies and you give NONE in return,just babbles that impresses no one.
I have been in this for 25 years now and meet ill informed clods like you who keep assuming that long time skeptics don’t know the basics of the AGW believers arguments.We know them so well that we anticipate them with our replies as I have been doing with you.
You make abundantly clear that you have not done the maths behind the emission at all and merely parroting warmist claims that you don’t even indicate you understand.I used the link YOU posted against you and your response is what? ………………. babble.
Face it Avery you are another ignorant warmist who stupidly thinks CO2 is a significant contributor to warming trend which has stopped a decade ago and no statistically significant warming for up to another 10 more years.
The very fact that you focus on a single potential contributor and ignore a hundred others make clear that you are a fanatic.
Maybe you should do some reading instead to learn that this topic is a lot more complicated than you think.
I posted this almost 3 years ago on my climate forum about CO2:
Question and Answers
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-998.html
Avery writes,
“The timing of the Himalayan uplift creating a sink for atomspheric CO2 to be removed, followed by lower temperatures, could have contributed to the cooling of Antarctica along with the opening of the Drake passage. Who’s to say, at least it helps us to think about what makes temperatures go up and down.”
The effect of the Drake passage opening is many magnitudes greater than the local effect of the Himalayan uplift because of the SIZE of the effect.
Besides that the Himalayan Mts. didn’t exist yet 35 million years ago and was not significant in size until less than 20 million years ago.India didn’t even reach the Asian coast until about 25 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
You are a poor science reader.
If the point is CO2 and climate sensitivity, this link gives the best summary of the science on the subject from those convinced AGW is real. If you at least want to know their position, here it is. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
You have failed to address this post. If you want to continue making comments here, I expect you to do that.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/time-to-put-this-scam-to-bed-2/
Quoting John Cook is not an argument.
Steve, I see over a 100 responses in my inbox from something I have commented on so it is not neglect that keeps me responding directly to your specific post. I have read it several times and admit I don’t fully understand your point. Is it that co2 concentration has an effect only to a certain point and then more co2 is superfluous?
Exactly. Ångström demonstrated over a century ago that CO2 absorption is already saturated in the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 has almost no effect. Climate morons have ignored this fact for 112 years in a row.
I know all about their stupid website.
It is THE laughingstock of the warmist blog world.
I made this post over 2 1/2 years ago:
Tropospheric Hot Spot report
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1158.html
It is still missing today which is a cornerstone signature prediction of the AGW conjecture.That alone show the unworthiness of the conjecture.
It is clear you are not worth it because you can’t answer MY comments at all because you know next to nothing.
I have never claimed to be a scientist. I am a layman with interest in learning science. Climate science debate seems to be dominated by non scientist. It is almost like a proxy political fight. I did try to get thru your link. The right third was chopped off so some of it was hard to decipher. I am certainly not able to say whose charts are valid and if the charts actually say what one purports them to say. Some of your graphs were from NOAA and I am pretty sure they conclude something different from what you are concluding. What I recognize is that there are a lot of serious, well informed, well meaning people coming to different conclusion. I think as we are all well meaning Americans, we should respect this debate and help each other to better understand the issues. At the least, folks like you should be trying to discourage folks like me from trying to engage in the debate. Public policy is not carried out by scientist. Since climate science has been forced out of the scientific relm into the public relm, it is us laymen must become informed.
Avery,
the charts are from the IPCC 2007 report and the link to it is in my report.But here it is for you:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Climate4you link for the temperature charts of the Tropics region:
http://climate4you.com/
You can also visit Jo Nova for the similar report and her updates to her original 2008 blog entry:
The missing hotspot
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/
The Updates:
http://joannenova.com.au/tag/missing-hot-spot/
You might find her reply to John Cook quite devastating:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
If you are using the pathetically inferior Internet Explorer browser it will have problems in my forum.Try Mozilla Firefox instead and all the stuff is perfect.
Avery says to Steve,
“Steve, I see over a 100 responses in my inbox from something I have commented on so it is not neglect that keeps me responding directly to your specific post. I have read it several times and admit I don’t fully understand your point. Is it that co2 concentration has an effect only to a certain point and then more co2 is superfluous?”
I myself YESTERDAY gave you a link to a chart showing the estimated CO2 logarithmic trend and it is negligible by the time it reaches the 400 ppm level.
Here it is again:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3677.html#pid3677
Skeptics in general accept a small warming effect of a DOUBLING of atmospheric CO2 levels that leads to a warming of around 1.0C or so and that is it.
The CAGW conjecture argues for a lot more warming than that with their modeled POSITIVE feedback arguments that have yet to be established empirically. I have already posted TWO links to published science papers showing EMPIRICAL evidence that NEGATIVE feedbacks is existing and dominant.
Too bad that you don’t like my links.
Avery,
I forgot to mention that at least 3/4 of that logarithmic CO2 warming has already happened,meaning only another .25C is left for the next 90 years.
AGW conjecture is a failure and you need to embrace that reality.
I have a big 5 link comment for Avery to see,in moderation.
Can you please free it?