Larsen C Ice Shelf Crack Not Related To Climate Change …Ice “More Stable Than Previously Thought”

No climate change: Huge iceberg threatens to break off from Larsen C Ice Shelf

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Image: visibleearth.nasa.gov

A huge crack recently formed through the Antarctic Larsen C ice shelf. The German Tagesspiegel here was fair and did not attribute it to climate change:

A huge iceberg threatens to break away from Antarctica
An iceberg twice the size of Saarland threatens to break off the Larsen-C ice shelf. That’s a rare spectacle. […] ‘The crack is probably 160 kilometers long and 300 to 500 meters deep,’ the project-involved scientist Martin 0′Leary told the German Press Agency on Saturday. A direct connection to climate change cannot be ascertained.”

Read more at Tagesspiegel.

That’s a normal process: Self ice forms, but does not last forever. Time and again cracks form and chunks break off. During the Little Ice Age the shelf ice was more extensive and stable. Before that, during the Medieval Warm Period, the shelf ice melted similarly like today. If one looks at the past 150 years — the global rewarming since the Little Ice Age — then no one wonders that the Antarctic shelf ice retreated 5 meters per day between 1900 and 1930. Over the past fifty years things probably have looked different, as the Antarctic sea water has cooled over the past 50 years. According to Sinclair et al. (2014), the Ross ice shelf has expanded 5%. Apparently the Antarctic sea ice is indeed more stable than previously thought.

A look back over the past 10,000 years yields additional amazing facts. A series of Antarctic shelf ice regions in fact shrank drastically during this time, or even disappeared completely. For example in Solomina et al. (2015):

A number of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves have also experienced major fluctuations during the Holocene. George VI Ice Shelf was absent between 9.6 ka and 7.7 ka (Smith et al., 2007), Prince Gustav Ice Shelfwas absent between 6.8 and 1.8 ka (O Cofaigh et al., 2014), the Larsen A Ice Shelf was absent at 3.8-1.4 ka (Brachfeld et al., 2003; Balco et al., 2013). In contrast Larsen B and Larsen C Ice Shelves existed throughout the Holocene (Domack et al., 2005; Curry and Pudsey, 2007).

During the Holocene thermal maximum 6000 years ago, the outer edge of the Amery ice shelf was 80 km closer to the coast than it is today, as documented by Hemer & Harris (2003) in Geology. The abstract:

An increase in sea-ice–associated diatom deposition in the upper [=late] part of the Holocene suggests that a major retreat of the Amery Ice Shelf to at least 80 km landward of its present location may have occurred during the mid-Holocene climatic optimum.

With a little interest in climate science, things suddenly appear much better. Efforts need to be made against the suppression of history and to prevent the pre-industrial climate history from becoming forgotten.

 

85 responses to “Larsen C Ice Shelf Crack Not Related To Climate Change …Ice “More Stable Than Previously Thought””

  1. Henning Nielsen

    Well now, there’s a nice expression for skeptics; “global rewarming” (after the LIA), takes the edge off CAGW, doesn’t it?

  2. Graeme No.3

    You may remember that 3 years ago a shipload of AGW believers set out for Antarctica and got stuck in ice about 130 km. from where Douglas Mawson was able to anchor his ship at the rocky coast in 1911.
    Hardly proof that the ice is shrinking.

    1. SebastianH

      Just watch any video made from satellite images of the north pole … Man made climate change or not, ice is retreating.

      1. ClimateOtter

        Meaning…. what?

      2. Kenneth Richard

        “Just watch any video made from satellite images of the north pole … Man made climate change or not, ice is retreating.”

        The Larsen ice shelf is in Antarctica, not the north pole.

        And ice has been retreating and advancing (mostly retreating) since the end of the Younger Dryas about 12,000 years ago. Glaciers were less advanced than now (and the Arctic was ice-free in the summers) earlier in the Holocene, when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range and yet Arctic temperatures were multiple degrees C warmer than now. The Arctic was actually just as warm as it is now during the 1930s — when CO2 hovered around 300 ppm. With regard to “man made climate change or not”, the paleoclimate record is teeming with evidence for the “not.” And if emissions from fossil fuels don’t cause glaciers and ice sheets to melt from below (and they don’t), why are you in favor of strong fossil fuel energies and CO2 reduction policies?

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150522174522.htm
        The Holocene Climate Optimum was a period of global climate warming that occurred between six to nine thousand years ago. At that time, the global average temperatures were somewhere between four to six degrees Celsius higher than they are today.

        Yokoyama et al., 2016
        http://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2354.short?rss=1
        Widespread collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf during the late Holocene
        The Ross Sea is a major drainage basin for the Antarctic Ice Sheet and contains the world’s largest ice shelf. Newly acquired swath bathymetry data and sediment cores provide evidence for two episodes of ice-shelf collapse. Two novel geochemical proxies, compound specific radiocarbon dating and radiogenic beryllium (10Be), constrain the timing of the most recent and widespread (∼280,000 km2) breakup as having occurred in the late Holocene. … Breakup initiated around 5 ka [5,000 years ago], with the ice shelf reaching its current configuration ∼1.5 ka [1,500 years ago]. In the eastern Ross Sea, the ice shelf retreated up to 100 km in about a thousand years. Three-dimensional thermodynamic ice-shelf/ocean modeling results and comparison with ice-core records indicate that ice-shelf breakup resulted from combined atmospheric warming and warm ocean currents impinging onto the continental shelf.

      3. AndyG55

        Go and live in Siberia, Sep…..

        …. if you are scared of a little bit of NATURAL warming from the LIA, the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

      4. AndyG55

        Sorry Sep, but in this data link…

        ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

        … Arctic sea ice has been above the 2006 level for 3 days in a row. (days 21,22,23)

        And maybe you should do some research on the AMO.. bottomed out in 1979 (where do all the Arctic ice charts start from)

        … and is just starting to roll off its flattish top.

        Look for Arctic sea ice levels to INCREASE over the next decade or two.

        1. SebastianH

          Plot your linked CSV data and then tell me again that the extent of the ice is not shrinking …

          @Kenneth: I know this article was about the Antarctica and I know sceptics love to cite that the ice on the southpole is not shrinking. That doesn’t change that ice – overall – is retreating. About the CO2: so it was warmer before and with lower CO2 levels? But now we do have high levels of CO2 and temperature is changing relatively fast. Could all be a coincidence, but do you really believe that? The CO2 we release now was “captured” over million of years and we will put it back into the atmosphere in less than 1000 years? Totally harmless, right?

          1. AndyG55

            Read up on the cyclic nature of the AMO, you moronic twit !!

            1979 was an EXTREME level, up there with the LIA EXTREMES

            The current level is still WAY above the levels that would have existed through the first 3/4 of the Holocene

            A REAL historic perspective will ALWAYS totally destroy the AGW scam. !!

            Even now, the sea ice level is very little difference from previous years.. Only the El Nino, which is NOTHING to do with CO2, caused a slight slowdown in refreeze this year.

            But it is catching up RAPIDLY

            There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in either satellite data set.. that is just something you will eventually have to accept as TRUTH, if truth has any part of your person.. which I doubt !!

            I’m pretty sure you would even LIE to yourself if it benefitted your RELIGION.

            You keep proving that.

          2. AndyG55

            Why do you constantly bring your abject IGNORANCE to the fore, Sep??

            It must be truly embarrassing for you. !!

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Sebastion H: “But now we do have high levels of CO2 and temperature is changing relatively fast.”

            Actually, the rate of temperature change since 1850, or since CO2 concentrations began rising, is ~0.05C per decade, which is not fast relative to that which has occurred “naturally,” or when CO2 levels were stable and low. According to satellite datasets, the rate of change since the last Super El Nino (’97-’98) is about 0.06C per decade. Compare hundredths of a degree/decade to past “natural” climate changes of multiple full degrees C per decade…without any CO2 increases.

            If you are truly interested in learning about this, here are some recent articles supported with newly published scientific papers. I tend to think, though, that you would prefer not to consider, or even read about, evidence that contradicts your point of view that CO2 variation is the predominant driver of water temperature changes, and thus climate changes.

            Again, these are just a few links to get you started….if you’re even interested.

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/11/8-new-papers-reveal-natural-global-warming-reaches-amplitudes-of-10c-in-just-50-years-with-no-co2-influence/

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/12/another-new-paper-reveals-no-discernible-human-or-co2-influence-on-global-ocean-temperatures-climate/

          4. SebastianH

            AndyG55, please stop posting you are embarrassing yourself. Even if what you write were true, you writing style makes it look like an angry child wrote your comments. Are you an angry kid?

            Kenneth Richard, thank you for trying to convince me in a normal tone 😉 I can accept that there are a few scientific papers which coincide with your world view, but can you accept that there are also lots of papers which support my view? CO2 is a green house gas and its effects aren’t negligible. Warming can occur without changes in CO2 concentration, ok. But warming can also happen because of higher CO2 concentration. The effect of CO2 is well understood. Are there possible negative feedback loops that cancel out part of the effect? Yes. Is there no effect at all? I don’t think so.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “I can accept that there are a few scientific papers which coincide with your world view”

            Can you define “few”? I ask because they were 500 papers published last year alone supporting a skeptical position on anthropogenic global warming alarm. I find that more than a “few”.

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/

            “But warming can also happen because of higher CO2 concentration.”

            Can you explain at what point in geological history that has happened? I ask because it is well established in the scientific community that the heat change in the oceans happens first, and then changes in CO2 concentration follows (by hundreds of years). If CO2 changes follow warming, they are not a primary cause of the warming.

            How much warming comes from CO2 rise relative to warming that has occurred due to natural events? How much of the nearly 1C of warming in the Northern Hemisphere that occurred between the 1880s and 1940 occurred because of anthropogenic CO2?

            See, again, even if the hypothesis that molecules of human CO2 emissions heat up the ocean to depths of 1000s of meters is true (and it has never been confirmed in a scientific experiment as truth), we still have an enormous magnitude problem. That is, the amount of warming that could possibly be generated (hypothetically) by changing CO2 concentrations over water could still be completely overwhelmed by natural factors. Consider this paper published in Nature from last fall…

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/

            …which says that, despite the nearly 50 ppm increase in CO2 concentration from 1992 to 2014, the greenhouse effect forcing from CO2 was completely overridden by changes in cloud cover during that period such that there was a hiatus in the greenhouse effect radiative forcing (~0 W m-2) during those years.

            How does a paper like this support your position that the human impact on climate has been dominant?

          6. yonason

            “an you accept that there are also lots of papers which support my view? CO2 is a green house gas and its effects aren’t negligible.” – S.H.

            I for one can’t accept it, the major reason being that I see no evidence for it, and lots of evidence against. The researchers I most respect, because of their work and their integrity, oppose it. Unlike with them, the clique of warmists is chock full of deceitful and/or incompetent hacks. The best of them may not be so bad, but their work isn’t convincing. If you disagree, name some warmists we should respect and give examples of their best work. Good luck.

          7. SebastianH

            @Kenneth: Google Scholar lists 14100 papers about climate change in 2017 alone and 1.6 million in total.

            Do you think the current increase in CO2 concentration lags behind a previous warming or that human industry is more likely the cause?

            CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it isn’t the dominant one. That is correct. But what happens if you increase your diet by a few calories a day? Will you become heavier or stay the same weight? Are those few calories dominant? No. Or imagine a container. You fill it with a constant stream of 1 liter of water per hour. Someone takes out 1 liter of water every hour, so the water level stays the same. Now a third person adds 1 drop of water every hour. Wont the container overflow in the future? Is the drop per hour dominant?

            Regardings warming of oceans to depths of 1000s of meters. How do you think this happens? The sun doesn’t reach those depths. It surface temperature that is transported downwards (and around the globe) by currents.

            @yonason: you should not just follow one or a few scientist you respect (why?). But I understand how you feel, it’s the same feeling I have about scientists who deny facts that I believe to be true. Calling the other side names doesn’t help the conversation. Get out of your filter bubble and get to know the view point of your “enemy” (the aggression here has some traits of being in a war). I’m trying to do just that by reading and commenting on this website … so far I am not convinced that any sceptical argument is valid and insulting people isn’t going to help 😉

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “Google Scholar lists 14100 papers about climate change in 2017 alone and 1.6 million in total.”

            And what percentage of those 14,100 papers on climate change provide empirical support for the position that the climate changes due primarily to variations in CO2 concentration?

            In Cook’s infamous “97%” paper, a sample size of 11,944 abstracts on “climate change” from 1991-2011 were used. Of those, just 65 endorsed the Category 1 position that MOST warming since the mid-20th century was caused by humans. That’s about 0.5% of the 11,944 papers. Of those 11,944 papers mentioning “climate change”, almost 8,000 were eliminated from consideration because they didn’t take a position on how much humans influenced climate.

            CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it isn’t the dominant one. That is correct. But what happens if you increase your diet by a few calories a day?

            Sebastian, these human body analogies you’re offering just don’t have anything to do with the Sun-Earth-Atmosphere system, much less the profoundly immense oceans. In 1900, 99.97% of the Earth’s atmosphere contained gas molecules other than CO2. Today, it’s 99.96%. And the 99.96% vs. 99.97% atmospheric gaseous concentration doesn’t even address the oceans–which is where 93% of the heat energy in the climate system contained and/or subjected to variation. Just 1% of the Earth system’s heat energy inventory subject to change is accounted for in the atmosphere (IPCC AR5).

            “Regardings warming of oceans to depths of 1000s of meters. How do you think this happens? The sun doesn’t reach those depths.”

            http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/ocean/layers_ocean.htm
            This surface layer is also called the sunlight zone and extends from the surface to 660 feet (200 meters). It is in this zone that most of the visible light exists. With the light comes heating from sun. This heating is responsible for wide change in temperature that occurs in this zone, both in the latitude and each season. The sea surface temperatures range from as high as 97°F (36°C) in the Persian Gulf to 28°F (-2°C) near the north pole. The sea surface temperature also “follows the sun”. From the earth’s perspective, the sun’s position in the sky moves higher each day from winter to summer and lower each day from summer to winter. This change in the sun’s position from winter to summer means that more energy is reaching the ocean and therefore warms the water.

            In contrast, the “heat” trapped by CO2 (according to models) is not able to penetrate past the 0.1 to 1 mm “thick” skin layer.

            So if we were to change the extent to which the Sun’s energy reaches down 200 m into the ocean by changing, say, cloud conditions, would that result in more or less of a change in the heat energy of the world oceans than changes in the hair-thin skin layer presumed (via modeling) to have been forced by CO2?

            Again, Sebastian, we’re talking magnitudes here. To believe what you do, you have to assume that 0.000001 (1 part per million) changes in atmospheric CO2 is more responsible for changes in the global oceans’ heat energy than changes in solar heat input into the vast oceans. As a skeptic, I find your position extremely difficult to accept. So why do you believe anyway?

          9. AndyG55

            “AndyG55, please stop posting you are embarrassing yourself”

            ROFLMAO

            You should feel shame at your lies and deception.. But I doubt you are capable of shame.

            You are welcome to produce a paper that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere. Good luck with that.

            There is no signal of CO2 warming in either satellite temperature series, in sea level..

            In fact there is no signal of CO2 warming ANYWHERE.. NONE.

            You are living in a Klimate Kool-Aide brain-washed miasma, Septic.

            You come up with every piece of gullible AGW anti-science under the Sun, and expect rational people not to laugh at you as if you were the village clown.. really ?

          10. AndyG55

            “Regardings warming of oceans to depths of 1000s of meters”

            roflmao… you have the weirdest imagination.

            We have only been able to measure anything down below 1000m since 2003, and any warming is in the immeasurable hundredths of a degree range.. much smaller than the accuracy of the ARGO buoys

            Anything before that is model based, driven by the AGW scammers.

            Why do you think they use the units of Joules 10²²… to fool brain-washed dolts like you, sep.

          11. AndyG55

            “The effect of CO2 is well understood.”

            Not by climate scientists. They think the atmosphere is a glass bottle from an experiment150 years ago

            There is not one paper that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere. If there is.. produce it or NOT.

            (and please.. not that farce of a paper that rotten appell like to pedal.. embarrassing)

            All absorption by CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere are immediately passed to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with as any other energy would be, by convection

            CO2 does not re-emit below about 11km, so there is no mechanism by which it can cause warming in the lower atmosphere.

            There is no CO2 warming signal in the whole satellite temperature data. No CO2 warming signature anywhere.

          12. yonason

            “@yonason: you should not just follow one or a few scientist you respect.” – S.H.

            What I asked was for the best specific example(s) you have, not some vague generic pap.

            “But what happens if you increase your diet by a few calories a day? Will you become heavier or stay the same weight?” – S.H.

            Bad analogy. Increases in CO2 become theoretically rapidly less effective the more they are increased.
            http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif

            Also, it’s not at all clear that CO2 has any effect. As see from the paleo record, there is NO CORRELATION between CO2 and Temperature.
            http://i38.tinypic.com/mtqoid.jpg

            I repeat. If you have citations that support you case, by all mfeans bring them. We’re waiting.

          13. AndyG55

            Yep.. ZERO science produced by Sep.

            Just baseless regurgitation of brain-washed AGW propaganda swill… With added fairy tales.

          14. AndyG55

            “Even if what you write were true,”

            You know it is.

            That is why you have no counter to the facts.

            All you can do is childish jibes.

            You should be embarrassed by your ignorance, and VERY embarrassed that you have allowed yourself to be so thoroughly brain-washed.

          15. AndyG55

            CO2 “worse than useless in double glazing.”

            It seems that CO2 is worse than “air” for blocking heat transfer through double glazing.

            http://principia-scientific.org/industry-experts-co2-worse-useless-trapping-heatdelaying-cooling-2/

            Facts and empirical measurement, ALWAYS destroy the AGW scam. ! 🙂

          16. DirkH

            SebastianH 25. January 2017 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

            “CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it isn’t the dominant one. That is correct. But what happens if you increase your diet by a few calories a day? Will you become heavier or stay the same weight? Are those few calories dominant? No. Or imagine a container. You fill it with a constant stream of 1 liter of water per hour. Someone takes out 1 liter of water every hour, so the water level stays the same. Now a third person adds 1 drop of water every hour. Wont the container overflow in the future? Is the drop per hour dominant?”

            Your ill-fitting analogies show that you have not understood warmunist theory; likely because your red-green teachers have not understood them either. Neither the calory nor water analogy have an element of positive feedback.

            So I wonder. You do not know the warmunist theory yet you are totally convinced it is correct? You seem to be extremely gullible.

          17. SebastianH

            Kenneth, have you ever been diving with scuba gear? You would know then how fast it gets colder and darker with increasing depth. The warm layers of ocean water you are writing about are only a thin layer at the surface.

            Yes, the sun heats the oceans. Water has a high emissivity and radiates a lot of heat into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect (dominated by water vapor and CO2) reduces the lost heat, resulting in a warmer surface (oceans as well as land).

            Yes, we are talking about magnitudes here. Too many calories a day – even if it is just 1 on average – will increase your body weight until the added mass is large enough for your body to also consume the additional calories. A new balance is reached. It’s not like we are heating the whole planet by ourselves, but we add to it on top of all natural causes so a new balance will be reached.

            @AndyG55: would you believe any link I’d provide? You link to pages claiming no heat trap effect of CO2 which clearly has nothing to do with greenhouse effect of different gases. This demonstrates that you really think this effect doesn’t exist. I’m wasting my time with replies to your comments (as much as you are wasting your time, honestly).

      5. Lasse

        Ice in Arctic is retreating and it is warmer than ever up there.
        And the cause is abundance of heat in the water and thus abundance of water in the air.
        Is this alarming or not?
        Does it heat or cool?
        Is it tipping anything?
        Look at snow cap on Greenland and reflect!

        1. yonason

          “warmer than ever” …before 1979, that is.
          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_2061-aug-18-06-58.gif?w=640

          You do realize that we realize you are an idiot, don’t you?

          1. SebastianH

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/monthly_ice_NH_09.png

            http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png

            And again, calling someone an idiot doesn’t help your argument. Even if anything you write could be true, by insulting people you don’t even get the benefit of the doubt.

          2. AndyG55

            You really bare IGNORANT of the AMO, aren’t you.!!

            Always starting at the EXTREME of 1979, up there with the LIA. Its childish, and only worthwhile to con brain-washed marionettes.

            And the second link, “created” by the Arctic sea ice worriers using cherry picked information, almost certainly a load of JUNK.

            Nasa’s own satellites shows it being much lower in 1976.

            Notice how these graphs ALWAYS avoid the 1940’s, I wonder why that would be. 😉

            Here is actually graph of the ice around Iceland.

            https://s19.postimg.org/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png

            Note the peak in the late 1970’s and the big dip from 1920-1950’s

            Ignorance of history is NO EXCUSE, even for you….. LEARN !!

          3. AndyG55

            Average Arctic sea ice last 10 years.

            https://s19.postimg.org/umq1x3h4j/Arctic_ice_area_trend.png

          4. yonason

            I and others here have supplied any number of references showing that they tamper with the raw data, and that the only warming is a result of said tampering, and you give a reference to tampered data as proof. Well, yes, it is proof. You are both idiots.

            Did you even bother to look at that link I gave? It was in one of the IPCC reports, you know. But it was removed because it didn’t fit the narrative that the Arctic hadn’t been that warm in the recent past. Can’t have that if you want to show that Arctic is warming.

          5. yonason

            “…calling someone an idiot doesn’t help your argument.” – S.H.

            As thin as the ice your out on is, it’s your case I’d be worried about, if I were you.

          6. SebastianH

            Did you look at the graphs in the links I provided?

            Of course, if you believe that everybody else is tampering with the data than I can not help you. What you think of me if I used that as an argument against papers/websites you link to? It’s a cheap escape …

        2. SebastianH

          I thought you were a proponent of longer time series? Why just the last 10 years?

          1. AndyG55

            You poor un-comprehending fool !!

    2. Brett Keane

      And now the Royal Australian Navy is building a large Icebreaker. Some sensible Sailors…..

  3. Harry Dale Huffman

    Back in early 2010, I had just started following the climate debates on the internet. Accuweather was, at that time, hosting a forum on it, that had commenters chiming in on both sides. In March 2010, they were talking about a large chunk of Antarctic ice, described as a glacier tongue, seen by satellite as it broke off, apparently after being hit by an iceberg in the images. Being a competent physicist, after looking at the photos just before and after the chunk broke off, I made the following comment:

    “I see there are no physicists here, or among those who reported this event. Note that the glacier tongue is shown rotating clockwise after breaking off, and the end struck by the iceberg is not the end that is rotating, but only the other end that had supposedly been firmly attached to the glacier. The iceberg is not advancing in the direction of the tongue, it remains in almost exactly the same position relative to the coast. So the iceberg is not tearing the tongue of the glacier off, it merely jostled a tongue that was ready to calve on its own, which was then rotated by the pressure of all that unconsolidated ice that was being squeezed toward Antarctica, and toward the root end of the tongue, by the invading iceberg. This shows how ready the tongue was to calve, under mere sideways pressure from the ice crowding. There is nothing about global warming in this, it is just a large tongue of a glacier, no longer supported on land, calving under the vagrant forces of the open sea, and rotated by sideways pressure not from the iceberg, but from the unconsolidated material squeezed against the land and the land end of the glacial tongue. Anyone who would argue for or against global warming from this, or insist that melting ice was involved, is incompetent to judge.”

    “Incompetent to judge”– That has been my observation of all the “experts”, on both sides of the vain debates, ever since.

    1. John F. Hultquist
  4. tom0mason

    @SebastianH
    You said —
    “but can you accept that there are also lots of papers which support my view? CO2 is a green house gas and its effects aren’t negligible. Warming can occur without changes in CO2 concentration, ok. But warming can also happen because of higher CO2 concentration. The effect of CO2 is well understood.”

    There may be a lot of papers written apparently reporting CO2 implies a cause of warming but no experiment or observation has been made to (irrefutably) show this is the case.
    However NASA does show by direct measurement that CO2 cools the upper atmosphere, but no where can they show CO2 warming below the troposphere. And some papers (based on modeling) show a hole in the incoming radiation spectrum for the frequencies (they are filtered out by the atmosphere above the tropopause) that could be active for CO2. Thus at ground level the climate is governed mostly by water’s thermal/kinetic changes only.

    To recycle an old adage —
    CO2 warming? — Where’s the beef?

  5. AndyG55

    IF we take the AGW scam as being correct….

    Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:
    a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.
    b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.
    c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.
    d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.
    And
    e. Atmospheric H2O is about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.

    So the Total GHG effect is
    1. Water about 95%
    2. Total CO2 about 4% of GHG effect
    3. Human proportion of CO2 is 3% of the above 4% or, from another viewpoint, 0.12 % of all GHG effect.

    IF
    If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6ºC over the last 150 years from 1860 (maybe).

    And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise (very debateable).

    And if human origin CO2 is to be taken into account.

    THEN.
    Our part of the world’s green house gas effect is a maximum 0.0016ºC

    The rest is nature.

    And that is why there is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature data.

    Not even the dopiest fool would say EL Ninos, which have been around for millennia, are caused by CO2.. that would be taking the AGW anti-science to the heights of ridiculous. (*waiting for Sep or Sop to do so)

    Likewise we are responsible for 0.0048 mm (max) of the annual 3mm ocean increase.
    Over 100 years WE would cause 0.48 mm sea rise.

    IF there is any CO2 warming at all, it is totally immeasurable and totally unimportant.

    1. SebastianH

      Thank you for trying to write as a normal person and not the angry kid version of yourself.

      However, your numbers are incorrect. Half the CO2 we emit gets absorbed by nature (in roughly equal parts by oceans and land, http://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/5/1107/2012/essdd-5-1107-2012.pdf), the rest is added to atmospheric CO2 and increases the CO2 concentration accordingly. From 280 ppm pre-industrial to over 400 ppm nowadays. The CO2 in the atmosphere that was produced by humans is nowhere near your 3% figure.

      Atmospheric H2O contributes 75 W/m² and CO2 contributes 32 W/m² to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is dominating, but is not 95% of the greenhouse effect. And water vapor is a positive feedback for warmer temperatures, isn’t it?

      1. AndyG55

        I notice you still avoid posting a paper that shows CO2 causes any warming in a convective atmosphere.

        Keep running.. keep hiding !!

        And NO, water vapour is NOT a positive feedback. What a load of rubbish you have ingested and continue to regurgitate.

        It is a cooling mechanism. The only way clouds slow cooling in some conditions, is because the water vapour has already done its work in cooling the surface. That is how the clouds got their.

        1. SebastianH

          You can measure the greenhouse effect by measuring infrared radiation returning to the surface. H20 is emitting other wavelengths as CO2, so their effects can be measured independently.

          Convection is a different way to transport heat and without it the surface would be even warmer.

          “Water vapor provides the largest positive feedback”:
          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1

          http://essic.umd.edu/~parkin/NSF_2009/relevant%20papers/Soden%20et%20al.%202002.pdf

          http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

          1. yonason

            Sorry, S.H., but 3 papers with climate models do NOT prove global warming. What they prove is that funding is being thrown away. Climate models stink!
            https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanadianClimateModel.pdf

            The dates on the papers you gave were 2006, 2002 and 2007 respectively. But in 2013 they still stunk
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/

            Did you watch the video I gave you on why water vapor has a NEGATIVE feedback, not a positive one? If that holds up, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t, everything warmists “know” about water vapor effects on climate is wrong. Unfortunatedly, until the bias to warming is eliminated, nothing contrary to the warmist narrative will be funded. Perhaps now with Trump as president we can get some actual experimental research done.

            Don’t give me any more modeling nonsense.
            http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-model-chartsgraphs.html

      2. AndyG55

        Sorry, but CONSENSUS science tells us that humans produce 3% of atmospheric CO2

        Co2 doesn’t contribute one single watt/m2 to the fallacy of the greenhouse effect (ie the atmospheric pressure effect)

        It has been shown that CO2 does not re-emit below about 11km, and only provides for atmospheric cooling in the upper atmosphere.

        There is absolutely no mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming in the lower atmosphere, and there is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite data, sea level rise etc.. NO SIGNAL ANYWHERE, despite the large rise in CO2 over that period.

        Still waiting for a paper that shows CO2 causes warming in convective atmosphere.. waiting, waiting…, !!!

        1. SebastianH

          If you have system that emits 100 parts CO2 and absorbs 100 parts CO2 in a given time period, than you have a stable system. If the current level is 300 parts and you add 3 parts to the emission side per time period than you end up with 399 parts after 30 time periods. You produced just 3% of the CO2, but it ends up to be a larger percentage of the total amount in the system.

          “the atmospheric pressure effect”? Please tell me you are not believing that the lower atmosphere is warm because of gravity and increased pressure at the ground.

          1. AndyG55

            Sepo doesn’t even know about lapse rates.

            Nor, apparently, does he have the slightest knowledge of basic gas laws..

            I KNEW he was ignorant.. now he just confirms it.

            You poor dull-witted sap, sepo

            Please don’t tell me that you think the atmosphere is warmer higher up.

            That would be REALLY STUPID.

          2. SebastianH

            “Sepo”, “poor dull-witted sap, sepo”, “really stupid” in caps.

            … no substance and only insults.

            Why would the atmosphere be warmer higher up? But you seem to think the atmosphere is warm at surface level because gravitiy increases the pressure and thus the temperature increases? Is that correct?

          3. AndyG55

            Oh dear, your ignorance is far far deeper than even I thought it was.

            If you don’t have a gravity based pressure gradient, you don’t get a pressure/density based thermal gradient.

            You have heard about lapse rates, and know how it is defined, don’t you?

            Seems I have been talking to a witless fool. !!

      3. AndyG55

        “CO2 contributes 32 W/m² to the greenhouse effect.”

        Total and absolute BS !!

        It has NEVER even been measured..

        Poor Sep enters the realms of hallucinogenic MAKE-BELIEVE. !!

        1. SebastianH

          Please enlighten me, how is the greenhouse effect being measured? Why would that method only work for water vapor and not for other gases?

          1. AndyG55

            What greenhouse effect..

            STILL avoiding producing that paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective pressure/temperature gradient controlled atmosphere.

            Trying every avoidance distraction you can invent.. and I mean INVENT.. as is MAKE-BELIEVE.

            So hilarious 🙂

          2. SebastianH

            If you can not believe that the greenhouse effect exists, buy yourself an infrared spectrometer, set it up outside and look at the results.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Assuming the greenhouse effect exists, why does the CO2 forcing within the greenhouse effect get overwhelmed by natural variations in clouds to the extent that scientists have found there to be a hiatus in the greenhouse effect (0 W m-2) since 1992?

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/

            If it wasn’t the greenhouse effect causing the warming since 1992, what was it, SebastianH?

          4. SebastianH

            The section titled “Discussion” pretty clearly explains what they think is happening. More La Nina events cause a reduction of water vapor and cloud volume (and also transfers heat to the depths of the ocean, consistent with measurements of the increasing heat content).

            That’s a description of a positive feedback of water vapor. CO2 is mentioned just once in the paper.

            And finally: the paper is about the increase/decrease of the greenhouse effect. Their result isn’t that the greenhouse effect is now 0 W/m², it is that the effect didn’t increase (on average) since 1992. To use an analogy here: if you turn on a light bulb its temperature increases until it reaches an equilibrium. This doesn’t mean that is suddenly stops heating the surrounding air.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “More La Nina events cause a reduction of water vapor and cloud volume (and also transfers heat to the depths of the ocean, consistent with measurements of the increasing heat content).”

            So you acknowledge that natural factors like La Nina events, water vapor, and cloud volume dominate over/completely overwhelm variations in CO2 in determining the GHE’s overall radiative forcing. So how is it that you nonetheless believe that CO2 is the predominant determinant of net ocean heat changes anyway? And if you believe that a reduction in water vapor and cloud volume cause the depths of the ocean to heat up, can you explain how that is consistent with the theoretical position that increasing CO2 causes an increase (+ feedback) in water vapor (and cloud), not a reduction? How does reducing water vapor cause the oceans to warm anyway?

            “And finally: the paper is about the increase/decrease of the greenhouse effect. Their result isn’t that the greenhouse effect is now 0 W/m², it is that the effect didn’t increase (on average) since 1992.”

            I’ll ask again: Since the greenhouse effect exerted no warming influence on temperature since 1992 (0 W m-2), what was the mechanism that caused the temperature to increase if it wasn’t CO2 in particular or the greenhouse effect in general? Or are you suggesting that the warming since 1992 was still forced by the “leftover” positive GHE forcing from the 1970s and 1980s? Can you provide scientific verification of this?

            And why would human CO2 emissions be thought to cause dangerous global warming if a 65% increase in anthropogenic emissions (and a 45 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2) between 1992 and 2014 has not even enhanced the overall greenhouse effect’s radiative forcing (0 W m-2)?

            “To use an analogy here: if you turn on a light bulb its temperature increases until it reaches an equilibrium. This doesn’t mean that is suddenly stops heating the surrounding air.”

            SebastianH, these analogies just aren’t working. The theoretical greenhouse effect is not remotely similar to turning a light bulb off and on.

          6. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            “…if you turn on a light bulb its temperature increases until it reaches an equilibrium.”

            Umm, no. It does ****NOT**** reach “an equilibrium.”

            Why it doesn’t is pretty basic science stuff.

          7. AndyG55

            Poor Sebo.. the light build has yet to be turned on for you, hey.

            Too much brain-washed ignorance to even get a slight glow.

            Poor child-mind is thrashing about in the total dark.

          8. SebastianH

            Kenneth, natural events of course dwarf anything we do. We can’t control the weather yet, can we? But this is not the same as saying we don’t contribute.

            Is La Nina a phenomenon which pushes warm surface water to higher depths and cool water flows to the surface? Cooler surface = less water vapor = less clouds … and heat is stored in the ocean which is partly released on El Nino events. The reduction of water vapor is not the cause it is an effect. The author of the paper you link argues that this reduction of water vapor negates added CO2 forcing resulting in a stagnating greenhouse effect.

            I think you missunderstand what the paper is saying. It is not saying that there is no warming influence on temperature since 1992. It is saying that the greenhouse effect didn’t increase. If the pre industrial greenhouse effect was 100 W/m² and the 1992 value was 110 W/m² and the 2016 value is still 110 W/m² than the effect is still higher than in the pre industrial age and thus increases global temperature. It is not “leftover”. And this is simple math …

            And why would human CO2 emissions be thought to cause dangerous global warming if a 65% increase in anthropogenic emissions (and a 45 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2) between 1992 and 2014 has not even enhanced the overall greenhouse effect’s radiative forcing (0 W m-2)?

            Just because another effect temporarily reduces the greenhouse effect (if the author of the paper is right) doesn’t mean that the effect of a higher CO2 concentration is suddenly not there. How much heat can the ocean contain until it becomes a CO2 source instead of a sink? Will those more frequent La Nina events go on forever? The CO2 concentration wont decrease in the next few decades.

            An analogy doesn’t have to be about the same effect. It is just there to better illustrate a thought/idea. To quote your linked paper: “The Earth’s environment is suitable for life because of the greenhouse effect.” It’s not the rate of change of this effect that is causing warming/cooling, it’s the absolute value of the effect’s radiative forcing.

            @Snowman, Ph.D.: Ok, then let there be a fan which blows air over the lightbulb with a constant temperature. The heat that is emitted by the light bulb eventually equals the heat from the glowing tungsten thread and it wont get any warmer. But it wont stop heating the air. Or just take a hair dryer as an analogy.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, natural events of course dwarf anything we do. We can’t control the weather yet, can we? But this is not the same as saying we don’t contribute.”

            Since you agree that natural factors dwarf anthropogenic forcing, what if the human contribution to modifying the weather or climate is somewhere between 0.01% and 10%? Would you still claim that that’s a lot, and therefore we must erect more wind turbines and solar panels and spend trillions on infrastructure to replace fossil fuels? Of course you would. You’d probably use another analogy (e.g., how much arsenic the human body can tolerate) while doing so.

            I keep on pointing out the magnitude factor here, and you keep on ignoring it or trying to paint this as an either/or dichotomy: either one believes that humans dominate as climate changers, or one believes humans “don’t contribute” at all. What if it’s neither, SebastianH? What if humans contribute to climate change, but the percentage of influence we have to modulate climate is minuscule?

            What do you believe the percentage of human influence is, SebastianH?

          10. SebastianH

            I am not ignoring your magnitude argument. Humans contribute to climate change and the percentage of influence is not minuscule.

            If you increase the greenhouse effect by a value of X W/m² the surface will get warmer and eventually emits the additional X W/m². That is basic physics. And we are talking about 2-3 W/m² according to your linked paper: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315 (G anomaly, globe before 1992. This might look minuscule to you, but a 1.4% change in radiation equals an increase of surface temperature from 18°C to 19°C.

      4. AndyG55

        Read , and do try to learn at least something !!!

        CO2 is meaningless in terms of greenhouse effect, water vapour totally swamps it.

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

        1. SebastianH

          So now the greenhouse effect exists? Weren’t you writing that it doesn’t?

          And yes, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and it is a positive feedback (atmosphere contains more water vapor the higher temperatures are).

          1. AndyG55

            Come one.. so dodging and weaving,,
            Produce a paper that proves the very basis of your baseless religion.

            Show us a paper the proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Waiting, waiting !!!!

          2. AndyG55

            Its easy to dominate something that does basically nothing, like CO2.

            Had you noticed that everything that H2O is involved in within the atmosphere, is to do with cooling of the surface and transferring that energy upwards.

            That’s how clouds get there, did you know that?

          3. SebastianH

            I repeat, point an infrared spectrometer to the sky and start measuring. The wavelength of CO2 is known and can be measured.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “I repeat, point an infrared spectrometer to the sky and start measuring. The wavelength of CO2 is known and can be measured.”

            Unfortunately, an infrared spectrometer does not measure the extent to which CO2 heats or cools water (when varied up or down). And considering 93% of the heat energy subject to variance in the climate system is found in the oceans, and just 1% is in the air, to what extent do you believe CO2 can alter the overall energy balance in the climate system? After all, raising or lowering CO2 in volumes of 0.000001 has never been observed (or measured) to have caused heat changes in water bodies.

            So, again I ask, if humans can only potentially affect 1% of the climate system’s radiative balance (the air), and of that 1%, water vapor and cloud are more influential within the GHE, please identify the magnitude of the effect on the climate system humans ultimately have.

            Additionally, scientists have found that raising CO2 concentrations over Antarctica causes radiative cooling, not warming. Is this consistent with your beliefs?

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
            Abstract: For this region [central Antarctica], the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system.

            For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHE-TES [greenhouse effect as measured by the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer] is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive. An evaluation of monthly averages of GHE-TES shows that the increased cooling due to CO2 of Antarctica is strongest during austral spring and autumn. … Central Antarctica is the only place on the planet where increased CO2 concentrations lead to an increased LW energy loss to space [cooling]. In the Northern Hemisphere the lowest, but invariably positive, [CO2] forcing values are seen over Greenland and Eastern Siberia.

          5. SebastianH

            And yes, convection cools the surface. Why do you think it is still as warm on this planet as we observe?

          6. AndyG55

            STOP dodging and weaving.. its PATHETIC

            Produce a paper that proves the very basis of your baseless religion.

            Show us a paper the proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Waiting, waiting !!!!

        2. SebastianH

          Kenneth, it doesn’t matter where heat energy is stored. It is about the surface temperature and the mechanisms that influence it. If you change the amount of backradiation the surface will heat/cool accordingly. If the ocean is capable of transporting the surface heat away from the surface to higher depths than this acts as a buffer until the equillibrium is reached eventually.

          And then you link to a paper which clearly explains the greenhouse effect (28.07 W/m² in the U.S. standard atmosphere and a 1.15 W/m² increase for every 100 ppm CO2). The authors even state the reason why the effect is negative in the Antarctic: the surface is frequently colder than the stratosphere.

          This is consistent with my “beliefs” and thermodynamics.

          @AndyG55:
          There are many papers that prove this. The one linked by Kenneth “proves” it, some of the first few papers (I haven’t read more yet) in the 2016 skeptics paper overview prove it. However the CO2 doesn’t directly warm the atmosphere it radiates back at the surface (and into space). The first image in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget) is a good overview how the energy budget and our climate works. Of course the arcticle and the poster from NASA were all written/made by liberal conspiracists, so you can’t believe those assertions and have to believe the exact opposite. Correct? 😉

          There is no religion involved. It is really just basic physics. The models used to describe the exact amount of each effect may not be totally accurate (it is a complex system), but they are not adding or leaving out any major mechanism that influence our climate.

      5. yonason

        “And water vapor is a positive feedback for warmer temperatures, isn’t it?” – S.H.

        Let’s take a look at that, shall we?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek

        Now, stop blathering about what you know nothing, and show is: where are your references that show CO2 to be a threat?

        We are STILL waiting.

        1. SebastianH

          Really? Some youtube video of a guy doing backyard experiments is enough for you?

          Then here you go, some youtube videos for you to watch:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDI8DkyqA74
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ljuqucaIg
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjE4GDC7afQ

          1. yonason

            Right out of the box your first video claims “CO2 warms the earth.”

            NOPE. Not even in a greenhouse. And if not in an enclosed greenhouse, certainly not in an open atmosphere.

            Models are worthless.
            http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-model-chartsgraphs.html

            When someone trustworthy tells me a model is worth looking at, I will. Until then, don’t bother me with them.

          2. yonason

            Sorry, S.H., but you are wrong.
            http://www.ke-research.de/downloads/Greenhouse.pdf

            I find it interesting that nowhere in this publication for greenhouse growers is there any hint that they have to be careful that 1000 PPM CO2 will raise temperatures, unless it was generated by burning, as opposed to other methods.
            http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

            The silly ideas of the IPCC would be amusing…
            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TDyy8p0Z6VI/AAAAAAAABNQ/fdmVRYoEuzQ/s1600/peden.jpg
            …if only they weren’t so destructive.

          3. yonason

            “Some youtube video of a guy doing backyard experiments is enough for you?” – S.H.

            I’m well enough trained in physical science that if it were sloppy or incorrect I wouldn’t bother with it, even if I agreed with the premise. What it illustrates is that disproving the complex AGW theory need not be difficult. Even professor Robert Wood knew that.
            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TClpp2LJfzI/AAAAAAAABLo/yfFt6AMvHJk/s1600/wood.jpg

            Simple, elegant and, most importantly, physically meaningful.

          4. SebastianH

            The selection of your links is interesting. I don’t think you are trained in physics at all, sorry to be so blunt.

            1) Fill a greenhouse with CO2 instead of normal air and it will get warmer than before under the same amount of energy from the sun. This is a basic science experiment done in high school (with light bulbs as energy source).

            2) If models are worthless why are papers with models constantly linked to on this blog/website? The list of sceptical papers from 2016 has a lot of papers with models describing the greenhouse effect. Never read them?

            3) The linked greenhouse.pdf is ridiculous. The two authors clearly do not understand how thermal radiation works. Their subtitle “die Andersdenker” is literally true.

            4) Why would it be a problem for a greenhouse grower to have higher temperatures? If you understand physics you surely understand why it wont overheat because the CO2 levels are at 1000 ppm inside the greenhouse

            5) The free energy oven is funny. And it was made by someone who doesn’t know how thermal radiation works. The greenhouse effect is no heat source.

            6) Woods experiment can not be duplicated, because he made a critical error: http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/

          5. yonason

            “The selection of your links is interesting. I don’t think you are trained in physics at all, sorry to be so blunt.” – S.H.

            You are as entitled to your uninformed and biased opinion as the next activist. Couldn’t be more wrong, though.

            RE – Your numbered points.

            1. Nope
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

            2. Didn’t I write that I would consider models if they were presented by credible people?

            3. And what exactly is the problem, as you see it, with their understanding of thermal radiation?

            4. Overheating stresses the plants. Also, it’s the IPCC who says that a [CO2] of 1000 ppm will set the earth on fire, not me.

            5. They are just mocking the warmist belief that backradiation can heat the earth. Sorry if you aren’t able to comprehend that it can’t. or why it can’t.

            6. (alleged problems from your link)

            “First he superimposed a glass plate on the salt window to solve one problem, inadvertently creating another, namely the effective conversion of the salt box into a glass box, with the predictable result that the two boxes thereafter behaved the same.”

            The glass plate of the second part of the experiment was interposed between the sun and the box with a space between them, not set on top of them. It was to filter out any IR from the sun, so that the source of any IR would now be inside the boxes, as the result of re-emission from inside the box. It was a NECESSARY CONTROL to ensure that only heat arising inside the box would either be “trapped” by the glass covered box, but still allow escape from the salt covered one. Of course that wouldn’t have happened if the glass was placed directly on top of both boxes, which the Stanford genius incorrectly assumed was done. (He’s not a physicist, he’s a Computer Scientist, btw.)

            Given his lack of comprehension of what he’s complaining about in that part, I can hardly believe he knows what he’s doing in the second. I’m certainly not going to take his word that he made measurements without his showing me how he did them.

            And it’s obvious that, as Andy observed, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about either.

          6. SebastianH

            1) Yes.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

            If you paid close attention to your link to whatsupwiththat.com than you would have known that it doesn’t show that the effect doesn’t exist. In fact the experimenter clearly states this multiple times in text and in video. It’s only about showing that the experiment in the Climate 101 video is flawed (which is true).

            2) And what are credible people to you? Those with the same weird perception of reality? Are papers listed on this website ok? Number 5 in the skeptic papers 2016 overview does a great job at explaining how the effect works: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/aip/9251034.pdf (Harde 2016)

            3) They assume a radiating gas only radiates in one direction (up into space) and thus falsely claim that greenhouse gases actually cool the earth/atmosphere. In reality the gases absorb radiation from the ground and emit in every direction. They further claim that there are no experiments demonstrating how cold air can increase the temperature of a warm surface below. This is correct, but it is not how thermal radiation works. The cold air (as long as there are greenhouse gases = molecules with a dipole moment = molecules with three or more atoms) acts as an insolator, it doesn’t heat the surface by itself, but the absorbed and re-emitted radiation if the reason why the ground doesn’t cool as fast as it would without those gases. This is basic physics.

            4) Nobody says 1000 ppm will set earth on fire.

            5) Backradiation doesn’t heat the earth, that’s the whole point! The sun heats the planet. The backradiation from greenhouse gases adds no additional heat to the system. Basic physics.

            6) Since you like whatssupwiththat: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/

  6. George

    What we are seeing at Larsen C is an example of a Weddell polynya – an infrequent but not rare event well described by David Holland in this paper:

    Science. 2001 Jun 1;292(5522):1697-700.
    Explaining the Weddell Polynya–a large ocean eddy shed at Maud Rise.

    Holland DM

    Author information
    1Center for Atmosphere-Ocean Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and Faculty of Arts and Science, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA. holland@cims.nyu.edu

    Abstract
    Satellite observations have shown the occasional occurrence of a large opening in the sea-ice cover of the Weddell Sea, Antarctica, a phenomenon known as the Weddell Polynya. The transient appearance, position, size, and shape of the polynya is explained here by a mechanism by which modest variations in the large-scale oceanic flow past the Maud Rise seamount cause a horizontal cyclonic eddy to be shed from its northeast flank. The shed eddy transmits a divergent Ekman stress into the sea ice, leading to a crescent-shaped opening in the pack. Atmospheric thermodynamical interaction further enhances the opening by inducing oceanic convection. A sea-ice-ocean computer model simulation vividly demonstrates how this mechanism fully accounts for the characteristics that mark Weddell Polynya events.

    It is well worth reading Holland’s entire paper. The Weddell Polyna is not rare, just a relatively infrequent event. It seems that the first satellite observation in the early 70′s started to focus scientific attention on the phenomena. Despite warmist claims, it is not a consequence of global warming and has been a regular but infrequent occurrence for a very long time.

    A more current article from NASA can be found here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88656&src=twitter-iotd

    Interestingly (to me at least) notwithstanding the scientific evidence for polynyas, which demonstrates that they are not related to global warming, a 2014 alarmist paper “Cessation of deep convection in the open Southern Ocean under anthropogenic climate change” (Nature Climate Change 4, 278–282 (2014)) suggests that global warming was reducing the likelihood of reoccurrence of Weddell polynyas.

    Typically the alarmists are used to making 180 degree turns to suit their agendas and spit in the face of science

    1. yonason

      Thanks. Wasn’t familiar with that specific phenomenon.

  7. AndyG55

    What warming of the oceans???

    NOAA’s Argo ocean monitoring buoys show that the global oceans released an average of 0.1W/sq.m throughout 2016 causing the average temperature to drop 0.012K in the top 700m.

    This is the region of the oceans that stores the energy in Earth’s climate system.

    The massive loss of energy, being some 1.3ZJ (that is 10e21), from the climate system will have a long lasting cooling effect on the global surface temperature if it continues.

    😉

  8. AndyG55

    Arctic sea ice update

    Data from ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

    day 25 is now above day 25 of 2006, 2011 and 2016

    1. SebastianH

      Again, plot the whole csv-file and you’ll see the trend …

      1. AndyG55

        Again the ignorance on the AMO cycle.

        Again the ignorance on not realising that 1979 was an extreme year, and the NATURAL drop since 1979 is a recovery to the less Arctic sea ice times of before the Little Ice Age

        Go and learn something, your ignorance is getting very BORING !!

  9. Antarctic | Pearltrees

    […] Shelf Collapse Jeremy Harbeck/NASA. Larsen C Ice Shelf Crack Not Related To Climate Change …Ice “More Stable Than Previously Thought” By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin) […]