EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:48 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Spongebob wrote:
Really, why is that spot?


I'm glad you asked. I think if we learn why that statement is meaningless we know why everything you say is nothing to do with reality. Firstly your representing ANDRILL as something that it is not It's a reconstruction of the climate in a single place and your using to argue about global temperatures and temperatures at the other pole. I don't think that anyone connected with ANDRILL will claim that. There seems to be two ANDRILLs the project in the Antarctic and the figment of your imagination.

Secondly you claim that we are well with in the natural cycle How do you quantify what natural cycle is this? What evidence do you have if we are changing due to a natural cycle? at what point are we outside it? what evidence do you have for the boundary of this natural cycle that you so confidently assert that we are in?

None I suspect because your just having a random brain fart and you think your saying something that hasn't been said a thousand times before.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:14 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:

Johnny is a nasty troll who has absolutely nothing scientific or meaningful to add in any of his posts.

It's best that you just simply ignore him.



Trolls generally appear where they are not wanted and try and wind people up. I don't agree with Johnny on somethings but his opinions are honestly held, I enjoy reading his posts as he supply's insites from personal experiences. He was here first and he does not rely on deception to make his points.

People are going to die because of climate change I can't blame him for being passionate against people propagating woo and nonsense.

Why are you pair so concerned with the environment? and how is what you are doing by posting helping?


Last edited by spot1234 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:31 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
spot1234 wrote:
Spongebob wrote:
Really, why is that spot?


I'm glad you asked. I think if we learn why that statement is meaningless we know why everything you say is nothing to do with reality. Firstly your representing ANDRILL as something that it is not It's a reconstruction of the climate in a single place and your using to argue about global temperatures and temperatures at the other pole. I don't think that anyone connected with ANDRILL will claim that. There seems to be two ANDRILLs the project in the Antarctic and the figment of your imagination.

Secondly you claim that we are well with in the natural cycle How do you quantify what natural cycle is this? What evidence do you have if we are changing due to a natural cycle? at what point are we outside it? what evidence do you have for the boundary of this natural cycle that you so confidently assert that we are in?

None I suspect because your just having a random brain fart and you think your saying something that hasn't been said a thousand times before.



So you are attacking me instead of the data, nice one spot and you claim to get annoyed by trolls.

I am representing ANDRILL for exactly what it is, the reconstruction by the organisations that also give you the ice area and mass, air temperature, sea temperature etc. of the antarctic, it is you who seem to be going off into another reality because the only thing I have brought forward from ANDRILL is the way they comment about the temperature in the arctic because I did not have those sources to hand, a couple of them are now in the 6 month thread. I have also cleared that point about the comparison with global temperatures with wayne on that thread, so apologise again for not clarifying that it is the sensitivity of the poles and their ice/temperature being in a normal level of a normal cycle and the importance they have with the global climate, clearly showing the way the global climate has been presented is wrong because CO2 and other gases have not given the changes you would expect when comparing the local data of such important areas.

As someone who appears to be so intelligent (not forgetting I have seen the way you have presented information and done what you are doing here on the env site for many years) I cannot believe you find it difficult to look at a graph (or data) and not be able to see what natural fluctuations would be Having to teach you something makes me laugh, the natural cycle for ease of comparing data could be classed as the average of the minimums and the average of the maximums on the ANDRILL graph at the start of this thread, so in other words a straight line across the graph showing the highest range and lowest range, we are well within that.

I am glad my random brain farts mean I question things and go to the source instead of papers from people that average the data, after they have adjusted it, then adjust it again without stripping it back to the original data to make both sets of adjustments into one, but at least they don't smell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Reread;
The Past is the Key to the
FutureHow will West Antarctica Ice sheet respond to the
current climatic warming?


I could argue details with you but what stands out is that the paper YOU linked concludes with;
"The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores
shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate
while we still have a little time."


This seems to be at odds with your argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:07 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Not really because we can look at the whole conclusion and then look at why they are finishing with an emotional attachment.

"Incorporating the results from the ANDRILL cores with existing 18O in deep sea cores increases the accuracy of past ice volumes on Antarctica (figure 5).

Image

Figure 5, The first graph (a) shows the stacked deep sea core benthic 18O and the second (b) shows the long term simulation of the total Antarctic ice volume, with the equivalent changes in global sea level. The results of the AND-1B are displayed at the bottom where, green represents grounded ice, blue floating ice shelf and yellow representing openocean. This also represented in the bottom diagram (c) where the same scale is smaller, the grey shading represents periods of super interglacials (Pollard & DeConto, 2009)."

ANDRILL’s core has shown clear evidence that WAIS can collapse rapidly as shown in figure 6.

[Anyone can look at the diagrams of ice extent on the paper as all seperate images and not wasting my time]

Figure 6, The left column represents 1.094 Million years (Myr) ago, middle 1.079 Myr ago and right column is today. a-c, Show the grounded ice elevations and floating ice thicknesses. d-f, surface ice speed. g-i, floating ice thickness and velocity. The black dot is the location of the AND-1B (Pollard & DeConto, 2009).

Results from ANDRILL show that WAIS had collapsed in the past when the temperature is 3°C warmer than today and CO₂ concentrations are 400ppm (Naish et al, 2009). This is most likely going to occur again by the end of the century (IPCC, 2007). Results from incorporating ANDRILL’s data into prediction models show similar collapses of the WAIS and 7 metre increases in sea levels (Pollard & DeConto, 2009). Collapses of the WAIS have been abrupt (~<500 years) in the past, thus could be just as abrupt today, but large uncertainties still remain (Naish et al., 2009). (Where you quoted from as a snippet)The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time."


So we have a more accurate determination of the past ice volumes of the WAIS, meaning this will give us a better resolution in the data when determining the temperature at the time. Then we have an intersting statement that the WAIS has collapsed rapidly in the past but the temperature was warmer and it was a natural event. Their own graphs and diagrams show that what we are seeing is not unsual or unprecedented.

Now why would they bring the human influence into a piece of work that does not directly research GHGs (or discuss them in depth from the samples) because it is based on 18O, changes in the composition of sediment layers, diatom species, Magnesium to Calcium and Barium to Aluminium ratios to give the overall picture, especially as the absolute last few words as a psychological hit, you might want to think about that a little bit more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
spot1234 wrote:
Reread;
The Past is the Key to the
FutureHow will West Antarctica Ice sheet respond to the
current climatic warming?


I could argue details with you but what stands out is that the paper YOU linked concludes with;
"The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores
shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate
while we still have a little time."


This seems to be at odds with your argument.

And he keeps showing the graphs with no detail on the last thousand years (like the graph for Arctic Ice in the other post). All his arguments are debunked arguments from the past. He claims to live a solar life but keeps up with denialist posts that we are within a "natural" cycle and not an AGW event. Do you think he is a Nazi spy?

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Do you know what a fascist and what a Nazi is Johnny? When you understand you will see why the religious spouting and attack on someone else you give is just that.

Show me where the ANDRILL project has been debunked, anything at all because the IPCC, NOAA and every other organsiation that has an important role in the science of AGW feel it is good enough to use along with the other drilling projects that the work has been combined with for a better resolution, and FYI the graph in the conclusion does show the last 1000 years but as it is such a small overall timescale in the 5 million year graph and the 1.5 million year graph it is not clear, yet even the current slope of ice loss in the 1.5 million year graph does not suddenly change from its steady downward slope that it also shows at the start of every glacial period, and you would expect it to.

As for trying to get hold of the data and studies that show the top 2 metres or so of the sediment is something I am trying to do, as I agree they talk about things yet miss it out of the papers I have read so far and only discuss in detail the date ranges I discussed before.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:59 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:

Johnny is a nasty troll who has absolutely nothing scientific or meaningful to add in any of his posts.

It's best that you just simply ignore him.



Trolls generally appear where they are not wanted and try and wind people up. I don't agree with Johnny on somethings but his opinions are honestly held, I enjoy reading his posts as he supply's insites from personal experiences. He was here first and he does not rely on deception to make his points.

People are going to die because of climate change I can't blame him for being passionate against people propagating woo and nonsense.

Why are you pair so concerned with the environment? and how is what you are doing by posting helping?


Where is your evidence that "people will die because of Climate Change?" Where is there any evidence that a 0.6 Degree C increase in temperatures over the last 150 years and it's hypothesized increase over the next century has lead or will lead to deaths??

That was a pretty remarkable claim, and I hope that you have solid references to back up such a claim.

Also, for your information, I am quite concerned about the state of the environment that it is in right now. I think that Climate Change is a distraction from real environmental issues like deforestation and pollution. Where do you see extensive legislation being written for preventing future deforestation?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, they confirmed an influence on the nucleation rate of very small particles that could not account for the observed rates even with various multipliers added.


What they found was that H2SO4 could not explain observed nucleation. That has nothing to do with GCRs. They confirmed that GCRs can multiply the formation of Clouds by a factor of 10. That's very significant.

Also, they said that the fraction of the smaller than adequate particles produced that can grow into CCNs remains an open question.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:39 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, they confirmed an influence on the nucleation rate of very small particles that could not account for the observed rates even with various multipliers added.


What they found was that H2SO4 could not explain observed nucleation. That has nothing to do with GCRs. They confirmed that GCRs can multiply the formation of Clouds by a factor of 10. That's very significant.


I think the actual quote gives a better indication of what is done rather than what CAN be:

Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

Quote:
Also, they said that the fraction of the smaller than adequate particles produced that can grow into CCNs remains an open question.


Yes, they did not see particle sizes in the range which would be required.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:

Where is your evidence that "people will die because of Climate Change?" Where is there any evidence that a 0.6 Degree C increase in temperatures over the last 150 years and it's hypothesized increase over the next century has lead or will lead to deaths??

That was a pretty remarkable claim, and I hope that you have solid references to back up such a claim.

Also, for your information, I am quite concerned about the state of the environment that it is in right now. I think that Climate Change is a distraction from real environmental issues like deforestation and pollution. Where do you see extensive legislation being written for preventing future deforestation?



I already raised the issue in this thread We are already seeing worldwide price hikes with wheat & corn Your going to argue that it's not anything to do with climate but I can't see how a heatwave in what has been called the Saudi Arabia of food (the American midwest) helps. What happens to people on the margins in such circumstances?

Considering the predictions of The IPCC of sea ice melt have so far proved to be overly conservative You have to ask yourself what happens if heatwaves and flooding get worse as they inevitably will do?

You say your concerned with deforestation and pollution but I see very few posts from you about these issues I'm afraid I think your being deceitful when you say this, What's more your obviously a very intelligent individual and you must know that your spouting a load of crap, It does raise the question of why your doing it. Perhaps you want the future to be as shitty and miserable as possible because you're psychotic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:

Where is your evidence that "people will die because of Climate Change?" Where is there any evidence that a 0.6 Degree C increase in temperatures over the last 150 years and it's hypothesized increase over the next century has lead or will lead to deaths??

That was a pretty remarkable claim, and I hope that you have solid references to back up such a claim.

Also, for your information, I am quite concerned about the state of the environment that it is in right now. I think that Climate Change is a distraction from real environmental issues like deforestation and pollution. Where do you see extensive legislation being written for preventing future deforestation?



I already raised the issue in this thread We are already seeing worldwide price hikes with wheat & corn Your going to argue that it's not anything to do with climate but I can't see how a heatwave in what has been called the Saudi Arabia of food (the American midwest) helps. What happens to people on the margins in such circumstances?

Considering the predictions of The IPCC of sea ice melt have so far proved to be overly conservative You have to ask yourself what happens if heatwaves and flooding get worse as they inevitably will do?

You say your concerned with deforestation and pollution but I see very few posts from you about these issues I'm afraid I think your being deceitful when you say this, What's more your obviously a very intelligent individual and you must know that your spouting a load of crap, It does raise the question of why your doing it. Perhaps you want the future to be as shitty and miserable as possible because you're psychotic.


Perhaps you misunderstood about what I had meant by solid references.

Linking to the ThinkProgress blog, which is run by one of the worst alarmists is not a source that I would consider to be robust. How about some peer reviewed science for a change?

If sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is only around 0.55 Degrees C (which is a value that I have roughly calculated for the sensitivity based off of the ignored indirect solar forcing) then such claims are amazingly alarmist.

The IPCC's GCMs being higher than the observed with Arctic Sea Ice Extent may very well be due to the fact that the models underestimate the strong sources of natural variability that exist in nature.

There is no evidence that such extreme weather events have been fueled by Climate Change, it is simply meaningless speculation.

Also, you misuse the terminology of several words in your third paragraph. Just because I am a skeptic about the IPCC's AGW Hypothesis does not mean that I am not concerned about genuine environmental concerns like such that I have mentioned above.

You also deflected my question about deforestation legistlature. Where have you seen deforestation get as much attention as Climate Change does in Congress?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, they confirmed an influence on the nucleation rate of very small particles that could not account for the observed rates even with various multipliers added.


What they found was that H2SO4 could not explain observed nucleation. That has nothing to do with GCRs. They confirmed that GCRs can multiply the formation of Clouds by a factor of 10. That's very significant.


I think the actual quote gives a better indication of what is done rather than what CAN be:

Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

Quote:
Also, they said that the fraction of the smaller than adequate particles produced that can grow into CCNs remains an open question.


Yes, they did not see particle sizes in the range which would be required.


Yes, ammonia and sulphuric acid can not explain observed boundary layer nucleation. That means that some other gas is responsible for most of the nucelation in the boundary layer.

Where does it say that Cosmic Rays can not nucelate particles with the unknown gas?

My second point was that you can not use that as evidence that the particles GCRs produce remain too small for Cloud Formation, since they have not determined what fraction of the newly formed particles grow into CCNs.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, they confirmed an influence on the nucleation rate of very small particles that could not account for the observed rates even with various multipliers added.


What they found was that H2SO4 could not explain observed nucleation. That has nothing to do with GCRs. They confirmed that GCRs can multiply the formation of Clouds by a factor of 10. That's very significant.


I think the actual quote gives a better indication of what is done rather than what CAN be:

Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

Quote:
Also, they said that the fraction of the smaller than adequate particles produced that can grow into CCNs remains an open question.


Yes, they did not see particle sizes in the range which would be required.


Snowy123 wrote:
Yes, ammonia and sulphuric acid can not explain observed boundary layer nucleation. That means that some other gas is responsible for most of the nucelation in the boundary layer.

Where does it say that Cosmic Rays can not nucelate particles with the unknown gas?


That would make the gas and not the cosmic rays the deciding factor though. No unknown gas means no effect even with cosmic rays. If there is no unknown gas the cosmic rays are a dead end in this respect.

Quote:
My second point was that you can not use that as evidence that the particles GCRs produce remain too small for Cloud Formation, since they have not determined what fraction of the newly formed particles grow into CCNs.


There is NO evidence any grow into larger particles at this point. You wish to assume they do, but the study does not support that wish.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:49 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood about what I had meant by solid references.

Linking to the ThinkProgress blog, which is run by one of the worst alarmists is not a source that I would consider to be robust. How about some peer reviewed science for a change?

If sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is only around 0.55 Degrees C (which is a value that I have roughly calculated for the sensitivity based off of the ignored indirect solar forcing) then such claims are amazingly alarmist.

The IPCC's GCMs being higher than the observed with Arctic Sea Ice Extent may very well be due to the fact that the models underestimate the strong sources of natural variability that exist in nature.

There is no evidence that such extreme weather events have been fueled by Climate Change, it is simply meaningless speculation.

Also, you misuse the terminology of several words in your third paragraph. Just because I am a skeptic about the IPCC's AGW Hypothesis does not mean that I am not concerned about genuine environmental concerns like such that I have mentioned above.

You also deflected my question about deforestation legistlature. Where have you seen deforestation get as much attention as Climate Change does in Congress?



What counts as solid references in the court of snowy's brain? I posted a link to the Kinnard et al a paper appearing in Nature and you dismissed it. You are still making the same assertions that the record ice loss in the arctic can be handwaved away. However the fact that someone somewhere has suggested that cosmic rays and cloud levels are linked has convinced you that it's an Axiomatic truth. The fact that food prices have gone up is undisputed The fact that Climate change and drought and floods are linked is supported by many scientific papers The fact that the effects of climate change will increase in the future is also supported by solid research. You claim to be a climate change researcher, look shit up.

To be concerned about this is not a crime yet you attempt to drown out anyone expressing those concerns with nonsense why is that? Why would I know in depth about legislation in a different country anyway.

And I do know what a psychotic is, I would not have used that word otherwise


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group