Page 2 of 124
Posted on April 17 at 12:18 a.m.
Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.
In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.
In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.
"In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer." Which means it does not matter how thick the sea ice is in winter, because it all melts in the summer, then freezes again in the winter, and then melts in the summer, ......
"Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation." The melting of this is is a problem, because once melted, it will never come back.
Thus, Antarctic sea ice freezes and melts every year.Thus, Antarctic land ice when melted never freezes again.
On Rescuing Sea Lion Pups
Posted on April 17 at 12:09 a.m.
The oceans absorb more heat than the land.
Here is a debunking of John Christy - I would not believe a word he says.
You do not use science in your arguments - you post crap data from people who are charlatans.
Satellite data does not lie.
Posted on April 17 at 12:02 a.m.
14noscams - the link I provided has data from Jan 1948 to March 2015.
Posted on April 16 at 2:14 p.m.
Just a few links - there are plenty more.
"They found that sea surface temperatures have been switching in step with the PDO and the ocean heat content.
The switches have been happening consistently every 20 to 25 years.
That means that the PDO may enter a warm phase in the next five years, Linsley said. And with that, the observed hiatus will end and global temperatures will rise without reprieve.
Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said the study's reconstruction of temperature is consistent with the instrumental measurements made more recently.
Trenberth, however, believes that the PDO may switch sooner than the historical records may suggest. In fact, it may have already shifted, he said in an email.
In April 2014, the PDO moved to a positive phase. Whether this is a temporary change remains to be seen. The signs so far have been ominous—2014 was the warmest year on record (ClimateWire, Jan. 9)."
Posted on April 16 at 2:07 p.m.
"Natural earth/ocean climate cycles like PDO, AMO, NAO and ENSO are not even talked about by alarmists."
NOAA/NASA measure these cycles - probably where everyone else gets their data.
I have seen these discussed on WeatherUnderground, WeatherWest and other sites.
Good grief. Stop spewing nonsense. Stop quoting things that you have not checked to see if they are correct or not.
Posted on April 8 at 7:59 p.m.
I never stated that mold caused cancer - it was deliberately vaguely phrased, and JJ, of course, spun it out of the zone. However, the topic has moved on from the NP to something else.
A person who was treated for cancer, was told to move out of a home that had mold, by a medical doctor. A neighbor who never smoked and died of lung cancer, was found to have mold in the home. These are anecdotal experiences, but the quote below outlines some of the health risks.
"Studies have shown that people who are healthy, atopic (sensitive), already suffer from allergies, asthma, or compromised immune systems and occupy damp or moldy buildings are at an increased risk of health problems such as inflammatory and toxic responses to mold spores, metabolites and other components. The most common health problem is an allergic reaction. Other problems are respiratory and/or immune system responses including respiratory symptoms, respiratory infections, exacerbation of asthma, and rarely hypersensitivity pneumonitis, allergic alveolitis, chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic fungal sinusitis. Severe reactions are rare but possible. A persons reaction to mold depends on their sensitivity and other health conditions, the amount of mold present, length of exposure and the type of mold or mold products.
Some molds also produce mycotoxins that can pose serious health risks to humans and animals. The term "toxic mold" refers to molds that produce mycotoxins, such as Stachybotrys chartarum, not to all molds. Exposure to high levels of mycotoxins can lead to neurological problems and in some cases death. Prolonged exposure, e.g., daily workplace exposure, can be particularly harmful."
Prolonged exposure, e.g., daily workplace exposure, can be particularly harmful.
On McCaw, Mold, and Another Black Eye for the <em>News-Press</em>?
Posted on April 8 at 4:49 p.m.
Seeing the number of comments - 70 - thought that this would be an interesting discussion. After ploughing through the 23 or so by JarvisJarvis, with many responses to those 23, it has become another discussion bogged down into oblivion by the weight of JJ's inanity.
Getting back to the topic of the OP - black mold is associated with cancer. It is not something to be ignored, and I would hazard a guess that it if were found in McCaw's office, there would be prompt action.
I am sure the good reputation of Mike Eliason will precede him into any other work opportunities. I wonder how he managed to survive the sad, tired, NP of tarnished repute. I wish him luck in his legal adventures.
Posted on April 2 at 2:17 p.m.
Boy, this posting is sure messed up. Sorry for the double post.
On County Considering Emissions Limits
Posted on April 2 at 2:16 p.m.
As for the Max Planck conference, the only references I could find were the usual right-wing denier sites probably cherry-picking, and "Real Climate". Since in my opinion, Real Climate is a far more scientific source, I quote the following from the article at the link:
"That curvature implies that applying a strictly ‘constant ‘ model to a limited set of observations (such as the trends over the last hundred years) is likely to bias any estimate of the sensitivity. Quantification of these issues is ongoing. Without a resolution though (or a set of reasonable corrections), efforts to combine multiple constraints without taking this into account are going to be flawed."
See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...
Believe me, I would love the future of the planet to not be catastrophic, but all indications - very real - are that the planet is in for a bumpy ride.
As to whether the end-points are obtained linearly or via a curve, if the trend is up, it matters not very much. The quantification of the greenhouse effect of CO2 may need fine-tuning in conjunction with cloud-cover and other variables, but the greenhouse effect of CO2 will not disappear.
It is heartening to read about genuine scientific discussions about the pluses and minuses of scientific calibration far away from the rabid black-and-whiters, who as demonstrated above, do not understand the scientific method, but instead say "hey - you were wrong, we were right" instead of trying to understand what is wrong and what is right and what is mostly right. As Gavin Schmidt stated "the models are skillful".
There is one other blogger whose feedback I look forward to, but that may not be forthcoming immediately.
Posted on April 2 at 2:15 p.m.
It is heartening to read about genuine scientific discussions about the pluses and minuses of scientific calibration far away from the rabid black-and-whiters, who as demonstrated above, do not understand the scientific method, but instead say "hey - you were wrong, we were right" instead of trying to understand what is wrong and what is right and what is mostly right. As Gavin Schmidt stated "the models are skilled".