Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever

[pkspeaker]

6 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

the harm is that we are responsible not just for heating it, but at a rate that evolution might not be able to contend with.

Your assuming this 'high-rate' of heating actually exists, it doesn't.  These temperature records have repeatedly been exposed as fabricated, altered, or poor quality stations used or that thermometers were fraudulently placed. 

 

There wasn't really any global warming from the late 1800's to 1989.. and there been practically no warming since then, or cooling.

 

This year large parts of the US got hit by snowstorms in September, it's still cold in northern Thailand right now.  This 'hot-world' doesn't really exists and going from 300ppm CO2 to 400 does not really create this 'high-rate' of warming

 

Take a look at the more important climate indicators like growing degree days and the opposite is actually the climate problem:

 

https://qr.ae/TiRBnR

 

 

[rabas]

4 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

Had only you put in the effort simply to play the youtube already provided.

 

Here, let me provide you with the transcript. Or, if only you'd bother to listen to a youtube, I could do a transcript and then read it to you on a youtube for you. Then you wouldn't have to do anything for yourself to learn anything. Better?

 

at 2:59 "...volcanos release a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases...and the greenhouse gases they do emit have a different chemical composition than the gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels."

 

So, again, the problem is human caused.

Which problem? The record is complex. Throughout most of history the poles were not covered in ice and Arctic regions had palm trees and alligators.  That was the norm. Then the big problem began 20M-30M years ago when the Indian continent smacked into China and started forming the Himalayas, the largest mountainous region on Earth. The huge amount of newly exposed geological layers literally ate up most of the Earth's abundant CO₂.

 

That led to the ice age we are now in and during its glacial periods CO2 levels drop dangerously low near the minimum required for plant live. The ice age has also been getting deeper with longer cycles.

 

Something has to give. Now that man is beginning to understand these issues, maybe it's a good time to address them without hysteria.

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by rabas

[pkspeaker]

15 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

If you've lived 20 or 40 years in a waterfront community, you don't even have to measure; you can see it at a glance every day. Seawalls no longer high enough. Docks built long ago now too low.

This is NOT EVEN TRUE!  Sea level rise has maintained a rate of only 2-3mm a year and in some parts of the world the sea levels are actually falling.  Using tide gauges only there is no sea level rise.  Using satellite altimeters + a selection of tide gauges + a paper that claimed the sea floors were sinking, I think the claim was made that sea level rise might be as high as 4mm/year.. also consider that high and low tides differ by several feet and that in some area's like florida you can have 'king tides' due to unusual moon orbits.. but actually if you look at old photo's dating back to the 1800s there has been NO sea level rise:

 

 

[thaicurious]

8 minutes ago, rabas said:

Which problem? The record is complex. Throughout most of history the poles were not covered in ice and Arctic regions had palm trees and alligators.  That was the norm. Then the big problem began 20M-30M years ago when the Indian continent smacked into China causing the Himalayas, the largest mountainous region on Earth. The huge amount of newly exposed geological layers literally ate up most of the Earth's abundant CO₂.

 

That led to the ice age we are now in and during the glacial periods CO2 levels drop dangerously low near the minimum required for plant live. The ice age has also been getting deeper with longer cycles.

 

Something has to give.

Again, that people die of natural causes does not mean evidence of a murder is meaningless. That gators once enjoyed a nice margarita under a palm tree in the Arctic 50 million years ago doesn't mean there's no evidence of possible pending disaster caused by humans today.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/05/160523-climate-change-study-eight-degrees/#close

If these temperatures do become reality, greenhouse gases would transform Earth into a place where food is scarce, parts of the world are uninhabitable for humans, and many species of animals and plants are wiped out

[pkspeaker]

national geographic is wrong, cold 

transform(s) Earth into a place where food is scarce, parts of the world are uninhabitable for humans, and many species of animals and plants are wiped out

 

warm does the opposite.. like what happened to the Vikings in Greenland

[thaicurious]

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

 

 

 

 

 

[rabas]

10 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

That gators once enjoyed a nice margarita under a palm tree in the Arctic 50 million years ago doesn't mean there's no evidence of possible pending disaster caused by humans today.

This was not my point nor did I deny anything. My 2 points:

 

1. The Earth is facing possible longer term cataclysmic problems due to very low CO₂.

2. Now that man is starting to understand climate history including current issues, maybe it's a good time to address them all without the current high level of hysteria.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by rabas

[thaicurious]

4 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

national geographic is wrong,

have a nice day.

[thaicurious]

6 minutes ago, rabas said:

This was not my point nor did I deny anything. My 2 points

 

1. The Earth is facing possible longer term cataclysmic problems due to very low CO2.

2. Now that man is starting to understand climate history including current issues, maybe it's a good time to address them all without current hysteria.

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190925123415.htm

Humans have never before lived with the high carbon dioxide atmospheric conditions that have become the norm on Earth in the last 60 years

 

...for the entire 2.5 million years of the Pleistocene era, carbon dioxide concentrations averaged 250 parts per million. Today's levels, by comparison, are more than 410 parts per million. In 1965, Earth's carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations exceeded 320 parts per million, a high point never reached in the past 2.5 million years, the study shows.

 

...from the first Homo erectus, which is currently dated to 2.1 to1.8 million years ago, until 1965, we have lived in a low-carbon dioxide environment ... "So this current high-carbon dioxide environment is not only an experiment for the climate and the environment -- it's also an experiment for us, for ourselves."

[pkspeaker]

8 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

 

 

 

 

 

 Between 1900 and 1990 studies show that sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average. By 2000, that rate had increased to about 3.2 millimeters per year and the rate in 2016 is estimated at 3.4 millimeters per year.

 

These 'studies' grease the wheels a little to make it seem that the rate is increasing when it really isn't.. actually since the late 1800s its been about 2mm a year w/o that recent increase to 3.4mm - if you take out the junk, it's still 2mm a year if that.. we are talking 1mm difference here, that is the width of an ant.. gimme a break, we're all supposed to run for the hill because maybe sea level rise is 3mm instead of 2 and the tide changes several feet everyday anyways

[Assurancetourix]

22 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Still time for Thailand government to move Bangkok to Issan. 

We don't want it;

by the way we are going to ask for independence 

[Assurancetourix]

6 hours ago, jcsmith said:

But we are certainly contributing to the increase of CO2, that is undeniable.

and...?
You seem to forget that CO2 is life on earth.

No CO2 = no oxygen;
because it is the oceans and incidentally the trees which "eat" the CO2 and  restore the oxygen that makes us live

[thaicurious]

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily...

 

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise

 

 

 

[rabas]

20 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190925123415.htm

Humans have never before lived with the high carbon dioxide atmospheric conditions that have become the norm on Earth in the last 60 years

 

...for the entire 2.5 million years of the Pleistocene era, carbon dioxide concentrations averaged 250 parts per million. Today's levels, by comparison, are more than 410 parts per million. In 1965, Earth's carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations exceeded 320 parts per million, a high point never reached in the past 2.5 million years, the study shows.

 

...from the first Homo erectus, which is currently dated to 2.1 to1.8 million years ago, until 1965, we have lived in a low-carbon dioxide environment ... "So this current high-carbon dioxide environment is not only an experiment for the climate and the environment -- it's also an experiment for us, for ourselves."

That may be but what does it mean? They don't say, it's written for general consumption. Another fact. Every time you breath you exhale 5000 ppm of warm CO2. When you don't fully exhale, your lungs always have a few percent, you are swimming in it so I don't worry.

 

Honestly, 2M years is a blip as far as Earth and life on it. If you want a deeper understanding of how it all fits together, please spare the time to listen to one of the top experts who built the science. No matter what your views, it is deeply insightful and he is a fascinating gifted speaker. 

 

Dan Britt: The History of Climate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

 

[thaicurious]

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

That may be but what does it mean? They don't say, it's written for general consumption. Another fact. Every time you breath you exhale 5000 ppm of warm CO2. When you don't fully exhale, your lungs always have a few percent, you are swimming in it so I don't worry.

 

Honestly, 2M years is a blip as far as Earth and life on it. If you want a deeper understanding of how it all fits together, please spare the time to listen to one of the top experts who built the science. No matter what your views, it is deeply insightful and he is a fascinating gifted speaker. 

 

Dan Britt: The History of Climate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

 

It means people ought to act to reduce suffering, not to exacerbate existing nor to inflict additional suffering.

 

It might be a sociopath's nonchalant blip in geographical time but add empathy and presto chango now it is a blip hard to shrug off given 7.8 billion shoulders living in it.

 

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ocean-fact-sheet-package.pdf

More than 600 million people (around 10 per cent of the world’s population) live in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level. Nearly 2.4 billion people (about 40 per cent of the world’s population) live within 100 km (60 miles) of the coast.

[pkspeaker]

47 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily...

 

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise

 

 

 

thaicurious, you have too much faith in orgs like NASA and the NOAA, you can take these 'studies' at face value or you can take a look at the methodology involved, is bangkok going underwater?

 

 

[thaicurious]

18 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

thaicurious, you have too much faith in orgs like NASA and the NOAA, you can take these 'studies' at face value or you can take a look at the methodology involved, is bangkok going underwater?

 

 

https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=%22Steven+Goddard%22

Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), producer of the www.realclimatescience.com website is not a climate scientist, former or otherwise.  His qualifications are a Bachelors degree in Geology, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering.  So far as I can determine, he has never published a peer reviewed paper of any description.  He is well known as a serial misreprenter of data

[TheDark]

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

This is NOT EVEN TRUE!  Sea level rise has maintained a rate of only 2-3mm a year and in some parts of the world the sea levels are actually falling.  Using tide gauges only there is no sea level rise.  Using satellite altimeters + a selection of tide gauges + a paper that claimed the sea floors were sinking, I think the claim was made that sea level rise might be as high as 4mm/year.. also consider that high and low tides differ by several feet and that in some area's like florida you can have 'king tides' due to unusual moon orbits.. but actually if you look at old photo's dating back to the 1800s there has been NO sea level rise:

 

Yes, there are places, mostly in way up north, where ground is rising due decompression of the ground since the last ice-age. 

 

We should be considering the amount of water in our seas as well as the heat expansion of the seawater. That will give us a good indication, how much the sea levels have risen.

 

Climate has changed naturally throughout the life of the Earth, that's well known fact.

 

It's not the climate change what is worrying itself. It's the speed of the climate change, which is about to kill loads of life, which can not adapt to the new reality fast enough.

 

 

[TheDark]

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

thaicurious, you have too much faith in orgs like NASA and the NOAA, you can take these 'studies' at face value or you can take a look at the methodology involved, is bangkok going underwater?

Oh yeah! Don't trust scientist who have proven themself to be NASA and NOAA worthy to be hired to work there.

 

Instead trust a random guy's ranting on a youtube video!

 

That makes perfect sense. You must be a giant among the rest of us.

[RideJocky]

As someone else asked, if 40% of the ice has melted in the last few years and the ocean has only rising a few mm, how is it that when the other 69% melts we’ll all be under water? 
 

Also, when the ice that is currently underwater melts, won’t sea level recede?

[rabas]

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

It might be a sociopath's nonchalant blip in geographical time but add empathy and presto chango now it is a blip hard to shrug off given 7.8 billion shoulders living in it.

And so it goes. Out comes the sociopath label for drawing attention to the geological basis of Earth's climate because it does not fit an agenda. Note my earlier point 2 about solving man's problems without hysteria.

[TheDark]

26 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

As someone else asked, if 40% of the ice has melted in the last few years and the ocean has only rising a few mm, how is it that when the other 69% melts we’ll all be under water? 
 

Also, when the ice that is currently underwater melts, won’t sea level recede?

What an earth are you talking about?

 

FYI: any floating substance displaces its weight of the liquid it stays. So no. Floating iceberg melting is not going to recede nor increase sea level. (except for thermal expansion). 

 

Floating ice is not the problem at itself. The ice on top of the continents is. 

[RideJocky]

7 minutes ago, TheDark said:

What an earth are you talking about?

 

FYI: any floating substance displaces its weight of the liquid it stays. So no. Floating iceberg melting is not going to recede nor increase sea level. (except for thermal expansion). 

 

Floating ice is not the problem at itself. The ice on top of the continents is. 

Thanks.

 

So if 40% of the ice has melted in the last few years, why has the ocean not risen more?

[TheDark]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Thanks.

 

So if 40% of the ice has melted in the last few years, why has the ocean not risen more?

Where was stated that 40% of the ice have been melted in the last few years? 

 

Locally certainly possible, globally, by mass, quite unlikely as we would have already seen the quite different scale effects to our societies.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

As someone else asked, if 40% of the ice has melted in the last few years and the ocean has only rising a few mm, how is it that when the other 69% melts we’ll all be under water? 
 

Also, when the ice that is currently underwater melts, won’t sea level recede?

Well, whoever asked it hasn't a clue about how much ice has melted. And it's bizarre that you would credit an unbacked up assertion. Here is some real information for you from a study examining ice loss from 1996 to 2005:

The total volume of Greenland’s ice sheet is about 2,900,000 km3 This 10 years of loss is equivalent to 0.05% of that volume...

The loss of 5% of Greenland’s ice would be equivalent to a sea-level rise of ~35 cm."

https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

13 hours ago, thaicurious said:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

...Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions...

 

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing.

 

...So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth....

 

 

 

Let's take your post at face value. Life on Earth has flourished with CO2 levels about 1,000 ppm. The Cretaceous Period is an example. And as noted, these levels have gone up and down without human intervention.

[balo]

On 2/8/2020 at 12:40 AM, rooster59 said:

The record in the wider Antarctic region is 19.8 degrees C in January 1982.

So the record was actually higher back in 1982 , almost 40 years ago! 
That says it all really, or as Donald Trump would have said: more fake news!

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by balo

[Crazy Alex]

58 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, whoever asked it hasn't a clue about how much ice has melted. And it's bizarre that you would credit an unbacked up assertion. Here is some real information for you from a study examining ice loss from 1996 to 2005:

The total volume of Greenland’s ice sheet is about 2,900,000 km3 This 10 years of loss is equivalent to 0.05% of that volume...

The loss of 5% of Greenland’s ice would be equivalent to a sea-level rise of ~35 cm."

https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

 

 

So what? Sea levels have risen and fallen for billions of years. I've personally visited many areas that used to be under water. Take Death Valley, for instance. Tons of sea fossils there. It's now a dry desert. How is corporate welfare and government taxation and regulation going to stop Earth from doing what it has always done?

Edited February 9, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[Throatwobbler]

11 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

What is the example of past rapid co2 emisions if its not volcano?  

What is the 'different chemical composition' and why is that bad... what is so bad about it because after 40 years of this global warming nonsense.. its obviously not too much warming.. if temps have risen so much in the last 30 years, then why isthere more snow now?

Just interested where you studied climate science? 

[Throatwobbler]

36 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

So what? Sea levels have risen and fallen for billions of years. I've personally visited many areas that used to be under water. Take Death Valley, for instance. Tons of sea fossils there. It's now a dry desert. How is corporate welfare and government taxation and regulation going to stop Earth from doing what it has always done?

The sea fossils in death vally are due to plate techtonics. Nothing to do with climate.